08.26.09
Posted in Ethics at 22:24 by Administrator
Interesting advice below from Dr. Richard B. Weinblatt concerning things to think about related to your off-duty use of social networking sites.
1) No gun glorification. While this may upset Second Amendment supporters out there, the reality is that a many members of the public do not like to see firearms glorified in pictures of law enforcers. Several officers have lost their jobs after posing with weaponry in a way perceived as offensive or too “warrior oriented.” While the depiction of guns in the course of their normal scope and use is not problematic, aiming the gun at the camera triggers problems. Images of officers engaged in their normal course of fire at the gun range have not brought about a backlash. Posing with weaponry, involving either the officer or (worse yet) a civilian, has been problematic for the employee.
2) No alcohol. Officers have also found themselves in the hot seat after posting pictures of themselves partying and drinking alcohol. Many agencies view this to be contrary to a professional image. Of greater concern is that sometimes others identified in the pictures turn out to be minors in possession of alcohol which opens up another can of issues.
3) Watch your comments. Posted comments on social networking sites are being dragged into legal proceedings especially when use of force is involved. Comments that imply the officer enjoys using force on people, especially certain groups of people, are being seized on by criminal defense and civil plaintiffs attorneys to show the officer had a pre disposition to be physical or has a documented bias against their client. Remember that discussion boards and the like are a public written record of your communication. Like reports and radio dispatch conversations, they can be discovered and frame your actions in a context that you may not like. Much like reports, if you don’t want it dragged into the legal arena, don’t type it online.
4) Avoid bashing the department. Another area that has gotten some officers into trouble – the First Amendment freedom of speech not withstanding – are comments which bash the agency. Depending on how it’s framed, it could open you up to administrative charges and possibly civil liability. More and more bloggers and online posters are being held responsible for their critical speech online. Especially if it is later proved that the postings lack a factual basis and are intended to damage the target of the criticism. At the very least, launching such a site or contributing to an existing Web site that bashes the agency does not endear you to the powers that be or position you as a “team player” ripe for promotion.
5) Restrict personal information. Much like we can use Facebook and the like as a tool to find people and research information, so can the bad guys. Be judicious in the posting of information and pictures. For example, some officers will not use pictures of their family members or going even further, of themselves. Others withhold their cell phone number.
6) Picture Choice. Make sure that the pictures that you do choose to post don’t have any of the aforementioned problem areas or have nudity. Many officers, including myself, have shirtless bodybuilding or fitness oriented photos online. That is not a problem. The topless woman drinking at the party with you exemplifies what is a problem.
7) Minimize status update complaints. In this year of economic contraction, there are many people waiting in line for your spot in the agency. Administrators know this. This goes back to number four above, but we’ve all seen the officers that post their status with complaints about the shift, their sergeant, or the job. Some supervisors, after reading such negatively tinged status updates, say, “OK, let so and so find another job if they are so unhappy here.” While not every job is going to be great each and every day, gripes should not be aired via status updates. The agency may be perfectly happy to find someone else that would appreciate them.
8) Highlight accomplishments. Many look to Facebook, Linkedin, and the like as electronic resumes. Take advantage of that and use it to highlight your professional accomplishments. Post pictures of you learning some new technique (being careful not to show scores or other information). Post status updates of that advanced training course you take.
9) Manage your privacy settings. While I have my online presence open to the public, many have privacy settings that restrict access to family and friends that you have predetermined. While not foolproof, the settings should keep most interlopers locked out of your pages.
10) When in doubt, leave it out. I have long coached academy students and officers to pretend that I am perched on their shoulder and watching what they are doing. In the same vein, they could have their mother hovering overhead. If you wouldn’t want us to see it or if either of us would be displeased with what is being contemplated to go online, it probably is not a good idea to upload it.
Permalink
08.26.08
Posted in Ethics at 20:23 by Administrator
Dr. Kardasz:
The following story of alleged police misconduct by Rochelle Olson of the Star Tribune describes “integrity checks” used to test the honesty of officers suspected of theft. During “integrity checks” investigators leave money in situations where an unethical officer can make the wrong decision and steal the money.
Assuming that the allegations below are true, the accused have jeopardized their freedom, their good names and the future of themselves and their families. Misconduct, ethics violations and crimes by public officials often lead us to ask; What was he (or she) thinking? If the violators had used some logical decision-making processes beforehand, perhaps the alleged ethics violations would not have occurred.
Here is a link to a list of decision making process that may be useful to those who must educate others about ethics: http://www.kardasz.org/Decision_Making_Tools.html
—————————————————————-
Corruption trial probes police procedure
August 24, 2008. By Rochelle Olson, Star Tribune
Minnesota – The federal case against two top aides and friends of Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher will enter its second week today with more testimony about how the investigation unfolded.
Inside details of the investigation emerged Friday when a witness, FBI Special Agent Timothy Bisswurm, revealed that it began in spring of 2004 when he first spoke with Shawn Arvin of St. Paul, a former drug dealer who was working with the DEA to reduce a potential 17-year prison sentence.
In early November, Bisswurm used Arvin to set up the first “integrity check” designed to see whether St. Paul police officer Timothy Rehak would act lawfully when presented with money or valuables.
A federal indictment alleges Rehak, in concert with Mark Naylon, the spokesman for the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, broke the law. Both men were working for Fletcher’s Special Investigations Unit, although Naylon was not a peace officer. He was, however, the best man at Fletcher’s second wedding.
Bisswurm last week introduced into evidence numerous recorded profanity-laden phone conversations between Arvin and Rehak, including the one in which Arvin set up the first “integrity check.”
The FBI had left $13,500 cash at the Kelly Inn. Naylon and Rehak are seen on an FBI videotape pocketing $6,000 during a search warrant executed in the room rented at the Kelly Inn by the fictional Vincent Pellagatti, a supposed drug dealer. The defendants do not dispute they took the money. But their lawyers say the action was a practical joke on a third officer involved in the search.
The officers left a search warrant receipt in the room saying they recovered $7,500 from the search.
Later that night after being unable to locate the alleged drug dealer in state or national criminal databases, Naylon and Rehak called the third officer and told him they had found an additional $6,000 in the room.
That officer, Ramsey County Sgt. Rollie Martinez, testified he didn’t press for details because he didn’t believe they would give him the truth about where they found the money. He also said Naylon “made it perfectly clear he doesn’t respond to anyone but his boss.”
Agents went ahead with a second integrity check in the summer because of frequent contact between Rehak and Arvin.
On Thursday, the jury saw a 70-minute recording with video and profanity-filled audio of the two defendants searching a vehicle in July 2005, finding a stash of cash and making reference to another “set up.”
Throughout the first week, prosecutors tried to show how the men breached law enforcement protocol in taking the $6,000 of alleged drug money. The defense tried to paint Rehak as a tough street cop who wasn’t savvy about paperwork and was working for a sheriff’s department with a reputation for playing “loose” with the rules.
Several officers took the stand to talk about the importance of proper procedure and accuracy, including Christopher Hoskin, a longtime St. Paul police officer who retired a couple of years ago as senior commander to Chief John Harrington. He was questioned about how officers handle seized property.
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Marti asked whether it was appropriate for seized property to be handed over to a non-peace officer until it is logged into evidence. Hoskin said no.
The point may be significant because Naylon was not a peace officer. Rehak is shown in the November video handing the cash to him and Naylon is seen stuffing it deep into his jacket pocket.
On cross examination, Rehak’s lawyer Paul Engh asked about his client’s reputation as a cop with history and connections on the rugged East Side. He elicited that Rehak went to work for the Ramsey County unit at the behest of Fletcher but continued to be employed by the St. Paul Police Department.
“You knew Ramsey County was loose in procedures?” Engh asked, referring to a comment Hoskin made to the FBI in May 2008.
Hoskin said, “That is an opinion I had.”
Asked about the claim of loose procedures, Fletcher’s spokeswoman Holli Drinkwine said: “It would be inappropriate to comment in the midst of a trial.”
Retrieved August 26 2008 from http://www.startribune.com/local/27338239.html
Permalink
05.12.08
Posted in Ethics at 19:44 by Administrator
Dr. Frank Kardasz: Misconduct, ethics violations and crimes by public officials often lead us to ask; What was he (or she) thinking? If the violators in the story below had used some logical decision-making processes beforehand, perhaps the violations would not have occurred.
Here is a link to a handy list of decision making process gathered from some knowledgeable sources: http://www.kardasz.org/Decision_Making_Tools.html
—————————————-
Laredo, Texas – Ex-cops now reside in fed prisons
05/12/2008 By Julian Aguilar, Laredo Morning Times (LMT online)
As Laredo waits to see who is chosen as police chief to bring integrity and unity back to the Laredo Police Department, three men responsible for LPD’s recent woes find themselves hundreds of miles from the place they used to call home.Former police chief Agustin Dovalina, Sgt. Alfonso Santos and Lt. Eloy Rodriguez were each sentenced to about three years in federal prison by U.S. District Judge George P. Kazen last February.
The trio all pleaded guilty to a federal charge of conspiring to commit in a scam that saw more than $95,000 in cash wrenched from owners and operators of popular maquinita gambling establishments that were paying out more than state law permits.
The policemen took the cash in exchange for protecting the businesses from law enforcement interference.
Dovalina
Chris Adams, the public information officer for the federal detention center El Reno-FCI in Oklahoma confirmed Dovalina, 52, is currently serving his time at the medium-security facility.
The prison has an adjacent satellite camp on its premises that houses minimum-security inmates. The unit the former chief is serving his time in is not public information, however, according to Adams.
The facility is in Central Oklahoma, about 950 miles away from Laredo. According to the Bureau of Prisons Web site, Dovalina’s projected date of release is November 2010. Adams said the date is contingent upon Dovalina steering clear of any trouble while serving his time.
Adams said that according to U.S. Bureau of Prisons policy, information concerning whether an inmate is assigned any work detail or other related information is not made available to the public unless written permission is granted by the inmate.
Santos
Santos, 52, is scheduled to be released from the FPC Duluth detention facility in Minnesota in September 2010, according to T.K. Rhodes, a prison spokeswoman.
The federal prison camp houses minimum-security offenders and is located on what used to be the Duluth Air Force Base near Lake Superior.
The detention center is halfway between Minneapolis and the Canadian border with the U.S. and is about 1,560 miles from Laredo.
Rodriguez
According to the Bureau of Prisons Web site, Rodriguez, 45, is serving his time in the USP Leavenworth detention facility in Leavenworth, Kan.
The facility is a medium-security prison but also has an adjacent satellite camp where minimum-security offenders are housed. Rodriguez’s projected release date, according to the Web site, is December 2010. The facility is about 25 miles north of Kansas City, Kan. and 960 miles from Laredo.
Like Dovalina’s release date, Santos’ and Rodriguez’s release dates may also be changed should the inmates run afoul of the rules of their respective facilities.
The bribery deal
Santos and Rodriguez were the first officers arrested in July 2007. The two were charged with accepting the bribes on an almost weekly basis in 2006 until November of that year when the transactions abruptly ended. Linh “Larry” Tuan Do, the former owner of the popular Entertainment World who initially did business with Rodriguez and later Santos, began cooperating with federal authorities and provided the evidence that led to the cops’ arrests.
Rodriguez was also charged with multiple counts of cocaine possession but he and Santos agreed to cooperate with authorities and all charges, with the exception of conspiracy to commit extortion, were dropped.
The indictment also mentioned an unnamed co-conspirator that many assumed to be Dovalina because of his close relationship with Santos.
In October, Dovalina abruptly resigned as the chief of the Laredo Police Department. Four days later, the 30-year veteran of the force walked into Judge Kazen’s courtroom and pleaded guilty to the same charge.
Restoring integrity
Since the scandal, city leaders have worked in earnest not only to find a new chief, but also to help restore integrity to the force and the city.
During sentencing, Kazen openly admonished all three former cops for smearing the reputation of the entire police force, which he said, was predominantly comprised of legitimate and honest cops.
Months after the scandal broke; the popular game rooms were still operating openly throughout the city.
Crackdown
In January, however, the police department began cracking down on the gambling parlors, seizing machines and cash and making arrests of operators and owners.
Once popular establishments that used to have overflowing parking lots even before nightfall now sit empty and abandoned. Some have fading “For Lease” signs while others have been transformed into restaurants or other businesses.
While Laredoans forget that the buildings were once hotbeds for illegal gambling, city officials undoubtedly hope the memories of the scandal that made headlines statewide will also begin to fade with time.
(Julian Aguilar may be reached at 728-2557 or by e-mail at jaguilar@lmtonline.com)
Retrieved May 12, 2008 from http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19681280&BRD=2290&PAG=461&dept_id=569392&rfi=6
Permalink
03.23.08
Posted in Ethics at 23:33 by Administrator
Australia – Cops fail integrity testing, but results remain secret
Article from: The Daily Telegraph, By Edith Bevin and Kelvin Bissett. March 24, 2008
The wallet containing $285 handed in at the Katoomba police station was too tempting for Senior Constable Kate Michelle Howes to ignore – so she went shopping. That mistake cost the 27-year-old officer her career. Howes had no idea the lost wallet was a deftly targeted test of her integrity, orchestrated from within the NSW Police Force.
Her case is the only public evidence that the force still conducts integrity tests among its own ranks as part of its fight against corruption. But the results of these tests, a good barometer of the cleanness of the force, is not information the police want you to know.
It is one of a growing list of matters sought by The Daily Telegraph under Freedom of Information that is being refused release by the force. Last May, Howes pleaded guilty in the Mount Druitt Local Court to embezzlement. She was fined $1000 and placed on a three-year good behaviour bond. Worse was to come. On February 2 this year, Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione dismissed Howes, using his authority under section 181d of the Police Act 1990.
Integrity testing was a key reform arising from the Wood royal commission in the mid-1990s. But details of how the tests are done – and, more important, how many officers pass or fail them – are not for public discussion. The police have argued that to discuss any aspect of its program – even the release of statistics on how many are undertaken – would undermine its effectiveness. In a ruling earlier this month, the Ombudsman backed this secrecy.
“The public interest favours the continued successful operation of the integrity testing system and consequently continued secrecy regarding the numbers and conduct of integrity testing,” investigation officer Maya Borthwick said.
In Howes’ case, it was a clever sting. Foreign coins were tossed in with the cash to make it appear as though the wallet belonged to a tourist who would not be around to claim it. The person who handed it in appeared to be a member of the public. Howes succumbed to temptation and went shopping, apparently for clothing and manchester. She still had $150 left when she was charged.
Figures released in 1998 revealed that of the 40 sting operations carried out, just 18 officers passed. Despite this, a police spokesman yesterday ruled out releasing any details of the integrity testing program. “Police will not reveal methodology or how regularly integrity testing is conducted,” the spokesman said. “However, police can confirm that integrity tests have led to criminal charges being laid.”
Not all officers who fail the tests are sacked. Some remain in the force but face internal disciplinary proceedings.
Retrieved March 23, 2008 from http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23420248-5001021,00.html?from=public_rss
Permalink
