Loyalty to Others vs. Loyalty to the Oath of Office
Read the following report and consider:
1. Which typology of unethical behavior was exhibited by the accused?
2. Which decision making process might have prevented the accused from making the wrong decision?
Typologies of unethical behavior - http://kardasz.org/CorruptionTypologies.html
Decision making processes - http://kardasz.org/Decision_Making_Tools.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dr. Frank Kardasz, September 3, 2006
This is a story about an ethical dilemma. The names and locations of those involved are not relevant. The situation involved a detective who committed misdemeanor theft of a suspect's property at the scene of a search warrant. In some agencies, such misconduct might result in termination of the employee, but this case was not that simple.
Normally theft is not an ethical dilemma. Theft, to wit; taking the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive, is a clear violation of law and policy everywhere. This incident was a little different. In this case the property taken was a bottle of water from the suspects refrigerator. The retail value of the water was approximately two dollars.
The theft was observed by a fellow detective who anguished about what he had seen and confronted the offending detective at work the next day. In an attempt to repair the damage, and only after being confronted with his misconduct, the offender returned to the scene of the search warrant and replaced the bottle of water with a six-pack of water which he left with the apartment manager there.
The suspect who's apartment was the subject of the search was still in jail. Later, the offending detective phoned the suspect and explained the removal of the water bottle. The suspect responded sarcastically, "Why didn't you also grill a steak while you were there?"
The detective who witnessed the incident anguished over whether or not to report the theft and subsequently did advise a supervisor who then initiated an investigation. The detective knew that if he did not report the theft that he would become an accomplice to the wrongful act.
The offending detective solicited assistance from the police union. The union attempted to divert attention from the guilty officer by blaming lack of supervision at the search warrant scene. They also rationalized the theft of water as being similar to a situation where a detective must use a toilet at a suspects residence, thus also using water. They also likened the incident as being similar to switching on an air-conditioning unit at a search warrant scene and thus using electricity.
The offending detective who took the water bottle readily admitted his error and was truthful during the investigation. The otherwise personable and gregarious offending detective had a checkered disciplinary history. He had been found untruthful during one prior internal investigation several years earlier and as a consequence remains on the "Brady List" with the local prosecutors office. The Brady list contains names of employees who have had past incidents of deception. Prosecutors must reveal the names of such officers to defense attorneys who can then use the information to attack the officers credibility.The past incidents involving the offending officer in this case had occurred over five years prior to the the theft, and in accordance with police policy could not be considered in the disciplinary action for the present incident.
The well-liked offending detective was also a friend and golfing partner of a command-staff member of the department.
The location of the search warrant and misconduct incident was an adjoining city. The police agency in that city chose not to investigate the theft.
The detective who reported the offense worked on the same squad as, and sat at a work-station next to the detective who committed the offense. Working relationships on the squad deteriorated immediately. The offending detective immediately requested and received a voluntary transfer to a patrol assignment.
The investigating supervisor informally polled both law enforcement officers and prosecutors as to what they believed the appropriate discipline should be for such conduct. Opinions were mixed. Prosecutors believed the officer should be terminated because the incident irreparably damaged his credibility. Law enforcement officers believed that the punishment should be a lesser disciplinary action.
The incident polarized departmental employees, some of whom thought the incident was trivial because of the value of the property taken; a two-dollar bottle of water. Others believed that theft is theft, regardless of the amount. Few appreciated the courage it took for the reporting employee to come forward against the offender.
The detective who reported the offense had agonized over the decision as to whether or not to report the misconduct. Few appreciated the emotional impact of reporting misconduct on the officer who did the right thing.
The command staff succumbed to pressure from the union. The resulting disciplinary action was less than that which was outlined in the departmental policy manual and disciplinary matrix that exhaustively describes punishments for every conceivable offense. The command staff decided to give the offending detective a written reprimand instead of the prescribed suspension.
The police union that had taken up the cause of the officer who committed the theft did nothing to support the officer who had reported the incident. He felt alienated and isolated. A minor retaliatory act occurred. Someone anonymously sent the reporting officer a slice of cheese wrapped in plastic. The reporting officer sought help from the city employee assistance program that maintains contracted psychologists and counselors.
The theft of a water bottle seems like a trivial incident but it was very big in the lives of those involved. The most discouraging part of the incident involved the well-oiled defense and counter-attack mounted on behalf of the offender and the lack of support for the reporting officer.
The situation reminds me of the 1971 testimony of Det. Frank Serpico of the New York City Police Department before the Knapp Commission.(1) He said,
The problem is that the atmosphere does not yet exist in which an honest police officer can act without fear or ridicule or reprisal from fellow officers. We must create an atmosphere in which the dishonest officer fears the honest one and not the other way around. I hope that this investigation and any future ones will deal with corruption at all levels within the department and not limit themselves to cases involving individual patrolmen. Police corruption cannot exist unless it is at least tolerated at higher levels in the department. Therefor, the most important result that can come from these hearings is a conviction by police officers, even more than the public, that the department will change.
(1) Serpico, F. (1971). Testimony before the Knapp Commission on Police Corruption. New York., Retrieved May 17, 2003 from http://www.hellskitchen.net/develop/olympics/kriegel/nyt711215b.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your thoughts about this situation?