Law Enforcement Misconduct 1

The Atrocities of Law Enforcement Misconduct

Jesse Magaña

California State University, Northridge

April 20, 2019

Law Enforcement Misconduct 2

Abstract

Police misconduct is defined as the engaging of illegal or inappropriate acts by police officers.

This can range from taking bribes or sexual favors in return for leniency, all the way to

committing felony level crimes such as murder or serious drug offences. Police misconduct is

extremely difficult to deal with because of what is called the code of silence. Police officer’s

sense of loyalty often times prevents justice by keeping quiet about misconduct in their ranks.

The vast majority of police officers in the United States are honest officer, however the few

officers who aren’t honest and are guilty of misconduct ruin the image of all police officers in

the eyes of the people. Police officers are given authority because they are supposed to uphold

and enforce the law. According to Aristotle’s Ethics of Virtue a good person is someone who

possesses virtue and good characteristics. Officers who are guilty of misconduct are, ethically

speaking a disgrace to law enforcement as a whole. Examples such as the rampart scandal, and

Rodney King’s brutal beating go against everything it means to be a police officer in the United

States. They also go against Aristotle’s Ethics of Virtue and the Joseph Institute of Ethics’ Six

Pillars of Character. There are famous examples of good cops as well such as Frank Serpico,

who stood by his virtues and ethical beliefs, to bring corrupt officers to justice. Despite this

however, there was still some backlash after Frank Serpico exposed the widespread corruption

and misconduct in the New York Police Department.

Law Enforcement Misconduct 3

The Ideal Police Officer

The ideal police officer follows both Aristotle’s ethics of virtue and the Josephson

Institute of Ethics’ Six Pillars of Character since they can go hand in hand. Ethics of virtue is an

ethical system created by Aristotle, to define what makes a person good. According to Ethical

Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice by Joycelyn M. Pollock, “Virtues that a good

person possesses include thriftiness, temperance, humility, industriousness, and honesty” (2017,

p. 26). This goes hand in hand with the Six Pillars of Character, which are trustworthiness,

respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship. An ideal police officer should try their

best to have these virtues and characteristics (or at least know when to stop in the case of

temperance). An officer should set the example for everyday civilians to follow. How does one

expect the masses to follow the law if they see officers willingly break the law every day? Along

with the authority comes the responsibility, and a corrupt cop sets the wrong example for the

people. There a few legitimate examples of use of excess force, shakedowns, and drug dealing by

police officers, but those few are enough to taint the integrity of law enforcement in the eyes of

the community.

Use of force

Excess use of force has, in recent times, become a hot button issue in the United States.

The country is divided into two sides, those who believe that the amount of force used by police

was excessive, and those who believe it to be necessary. In recent years these incidents are very

complex because often times there is an incomplete story to go along with these situations.

However, one of the earliest nationwide cases of police brutality is the perfect example of
Law Enforcement Misconduct 4

excessive use of force. The Rodney King incident occurred on March 3rd, 1991, the initial report

by the Los Angeles Police Department stated that a high speed pursuit reaching speed between

110 and 115 miles per hour ensued. The LAPD was chasing King’s Hyundai down the 210 and

stated that he was going 80 miles per hour once he got off the freeway into the Lake View

Terrace streets. King finally stopped, tried to attack police officers, because of this officer

suspected he must have been on PCP and tried to subdue the perp. What followed was a vicious

beating at the hands of the LAPD, King was hit 56 times with batons and kicks by Sergeant

Stacy Koon, officer Laurence Powell, officer Timothy Wind, and officer Ted Briseno. The

beating resulted in a, “fractured cheekbone, 11 broken bones at the base of his skull, and a

broken leg” (Los Angeles Times, 1991).

There is no debate that the situation called for use of force if King tried to assault

officers, the problem lies in the fact that 56 strikes (many to the neck and head) is excessive

without a doubt. To further drive the point that these officers were guilty they even went as far as

altering the story in their police reports. They also downplayed the extent of Rodney King’s

injuries by stating that they were minor injuries. Upon further investigation both the California

Highway Patrol and Hyundai themselves disproved the initial reports. Hyundai released a

statement that said King’s model couldn’t reach 100 miles an hour. California Highway Patrol

clocked the car at 65 miles per hour on the street, and a CHP officer who was at the scene went

as far as saying that she “didn’t see any need to hit him with a baton” (LA Times, 1991). Even

worse no traces of PCP were found in King’s system. Not only did they beat someone beyond

what was needed, but they also showed that they can’t be trusted.
Law Enforcement Misconduct 5

The Rampart Scandal

The Los Angeles Police Department Rampart Division is famous due to the high level of

misconduct among the officers. More specifically, the CRASH units or Community Resources

Against Street Hoodlums. The CRASH unit was created in the late 1970s by department chief

Daryl F. Gates, in hopes of combating the high level of violent crimes among gangs. Elite police

officers who weren’t afraid of interacting with gang members were recruited into these anti-gang

units. This anti-gang tactic turned out to be a great success, so much so that the officers in the

CRASH unit were rewarded by those in charge. They no longer had to wear uniforms or even

had to respond to regular police calls. Obviously given this much freedom resulted in the

creation of its own subculture, they dressed like the gangs and even adopted gang’s violent

tactics. Being officers of the law, they were very intelligent with who got to join their unit.

Recruits needed a current member to vouch for them, and once inside they were given tests to

ensure they were CRASH material. Misconducts done by the CRASH unit included,

“unprovoked beatings and shootings, planting and covering up evidence, stealing and dealing

drugs, and perjury” (Bricker, 2016). All of these crimes basically went unnoticed until mid-1998

when a CRASH officer by the name Rafael Perez was arrested for stealing 8 pounds of cocaine

from the department’s evidence locker. Perez took a plea deal, where he would testify against his

fellow officer who had taken place in the misconduct or even knew about said misconduct and

didn’t do anything about it. Misconducts or crimes done by these units were never punished,

instead they were rewarded by the unit’s supervisors according to Perez. In the end 70 police

officers were tried for terrible crimes such as shootings, and even murder of innocent civilians.
Law Enforcement Misconduct 6

Officers would simply plant a gun on their victim and all repercussions would basically

disappear. Now the real question is how was this allowed to take place for such a long time if

police officers are supposed to be honest and trustworthy according to the ethics of virtue and six

pillars of character?

The answer is pretty simple, police officers were either involved in the misconduct

themselves or they remained quiet because of the code of silence (also sometimes referred to as

the blue curtain of secrecy). Code of silence was embedded in the subculture of law enforcement

for long time. Even more so in this situation where the CRASH unit was basically a gang with

badges. Officers who did not directly take place in the misconduct were also just as guilty

because they knew their fellow officer were committing crimes but chose not to come forward.

As stated before a police officer has a responsibility to enforce and uphold the law, and this isn’t

exactly something as small as someone stealing lunch from the fridge in the breakroom. Corrupt

officers would literally steal/ deal drugs and murder innocent civilians in cold blood. The whole

CRASH unit was filled with examples of corrupt cops who didn’t care about what their

responsibility was more than they cared about personal gain. The entire unit was filled with

disgraces, those guilty of committing crimes and those who were guilty by association because

they didn’t report said crimes to higher ups outside of the units. Loyalty to one’s unit is very

important to an extent; loyalty should never come before justice. The moment an officer was told

they had to plant a weapon to gain the trust of the unit, they should have reported it right after

their shift ended. That duty comes with the job of being a police officer. The corruption was so

extreme other station knew by word of mouth. They simply allowed it to happen because they

were “successful” in reducing crime despite the fact that the Rampart Division was probably
Law Enforcement Misconduct 7

making up the difference in crime. It begs the question, is the reduction in crime worth having an

entire division of corrupt officer with a laundry list of misconducts under their belt?

Frank Serpico

In the 1970s while the west coast was about to start their overwhelming corruption, the

east coast was assessing their own. Frank Serpico was born in Brooklyn, New York on April 14,

1936. He was a member of the United States Army prior to joining the New York Police

Department in 1959. Right away he began to ruffle the feathers of his peers when he would go

out of his way to stop crime, it didn’t matter if he wasn’t on duty or on another officer’s beat.

Serpico would confront crime when the opportunity presented itself. Being such a fine police

officer, he eventually was promoted to detective it was here where problems within the NYPD

really began to show themselves. He was appalled to find so many detectives had their hands in

crimes they were supposed to stop. Officers and detectives would take bribes and other types of

payoffs in return for looking the other way. Serpico being appalled refused to take these bribes,

and therefore ostracized by his fellow officers and detectives. In 1967 he began to report the

misconduct to the high-ranking officials in both the police headquarters and City Hall. His

information included everything needed to take action, from names, dates, misconducts, to even

places in order to expose the immense corruption within the ranks of the NYPD. Despite all of

the information provided, nothing was done about the issues. Seeing nowhere else to turn,

Serpico contacted the New York Times about the story. In April of 1970 the story of corruption

within the NYPD was published. Almost immediate then Mayor John V. Lindsay created the

Knapp Commission to investigate the corruption and misconduct. Serpico who was already

heavily disliked by his fellow officer, became public enemy number one in the eyes of almost all
Law Enforcement Misconduct 8

police officer in New York after the release of the article. The Knapp Commission conducted a

thorough investigation and uncovered that corruption and misconduct was intertwined with the

New York Police Department. What followed was a much-needed reform of the entire

department. Now what was the reward for Serpico blowing the whistle on mass corruption

within his department? He believed he was set up by other officers when he was shot in the face

at point blank range during what was supposed to be a routine drug bust for breaking the cardinal

code of silence. The reason he believed he was set up, was because out of the 3 officer who were

there during the bust, none called for medical assistance. He would have been left there to die if

not for a civilian who called the cops about hearing gunshots. Serpico was a good person

according the ethics of virtue and the six pillars. He was honest and responsible in a time where

it was basically taboo to be. He knew loyalty to his fellow police officer was not more important

than justice. Frank Serpico should be the example all police officers follow; the code of silence

should never be expected when it comes to criminal misconduct by police officers.

Conclusion

Criminal misconduct is riddled throughout law enforcement history, to this day

misconduct still occurs within departments around the country. Granted corruption and

misconduct may not be to the level it once was during the Rampart and Frank Serpico era, but it

remains, nonetheless. Misconduct by police officers broadens the wedge between law

enforcement and the community. Police officers are given the authority to enforce the law

because they are expected to be good virtuous people. They are supposed to set the example for

the community to follow. However, how are the community expected to obey the law when just

about all they see is police breaking the very laws they are supposed to enforce on the news? In
Law Enforcement Misconduct 9

this day and age even the smallest type of misconduct is going to be blown out of proportion by

the media, now imagine how devastating criminal misconduct would be. Police officers should

evolve as society does. Bias is a part of life, but there is no place for old school mentality and

racism in modern policing. Modern day police officers should try their best to follow both the

ethics of virtue and six pillars of character. The most important being Honesty and

Responsibility. As stated, before Frank Serpico should be the example to follow by police

officers. With the badge comes a responsibility to be honest officer, and one cannot be an honest

officer if they look the other way when they see their corrupt peers committing misconducts.

Again, using Serpico as an example, whistleblowers have not always received the best treatment

throughout this country’s history. However, if it became the standard to ignore the code of

silence and report criminal misconduct among officers then weeding out the corrupt officers until

only the good officers remain would be entirely possible. If an investigation determines that

officers are corrupt, they should be removed and thrown in jail if need be. It doesn’t matter if

corrupt officers are long time veterans of the force or barely out of the academy. There is no

room for criminal misconduct or corruption in law enforcement regardless of experience or rank.

Only after all corrupt officers are weeded out can the dived between the community and law

enforcement be eliminated. If the community only sees officers who are good people and willing

to help, then maybe they will begin to trust law enforcement more than they currently do. There

is seemingly no downside to this approach, only benefits to both police departments and the

community. It is the best possible solution for the betterment of all law enforcement.
Law Enforcement Misconduct 10

References

Bricker, T. E. (2016, February 20). Rampart scandal. Retrieved April 15, 2019, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Rampart-scandal

Kilgannon, C. (2010, January 22). Serpico on Serpico. Retrieved April 15, 2019, from

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/nyregion/24serpico.html

Pollock, J. M. (2017). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (10th ed.). Boston,

MA: Cengage.

The Rodney King Affair: ... (1991, March 24). Retrieved April 15, 2019, from

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-24-me-1422-story.html