ADRESSING POLICE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

I was really shocked a couple of weeks ago during one of my Internal Affairs training seminars for PATC.  There were about 35 law enforcement personnel from various sized departments including police and sheriff organizations.  I asked how many of their agencies had a written policy specifically addressing sexual misconduct.  NOT ONE HAND WENT UP!

The problem is present in our profession whether we want to admit it or not.  Sexual misconduct is the second most frequent act of police misconduct on the CATO site - policemisconduct.net.  A recent article in the Guardian newspaper found that 1000 cops have been decertified by state agencies in the past 6 years for sexual misconduct.  And we know that all states aren’t active in decertification and many agencies will simply discipline an officer engaging for some forms of sexual misconduct rather than terminate the officer.  On top of that there is no national database for officers terminated and/or decertified. 

Most agencies simply lump sexual misconduct into the generic categories of conduct unbecoming or immoral behavior.  Some have developed even more ludicrous violations such as ‘idling and loafing’ or ‘abuse of meal break.’ 

In 2014, the Alaska State Patrol lost a termination case during arbitration.  A trooper responded to a call for domestic violence and arrested the male.  The trooper returned to the victim’s home after he went off-duty where he engaged in consensual sex.  The Patrol terminated him for violation of ‘moral conduct.’  The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision of progressive discipline and a 3-day suspension.  But the Court wrote that there would have been just cause to terminate the trooper for “engaging in sexual conduct with a victim, shortly after responding to her call for help, even if consensual, is inappropriate behavior for a state trooper.”

A major crimes detective in Texas resigned after it was discovered that he had sexually explicit contacts with four of his crime victims during 2011 or 2013.  One ended up becoming the victim of a homicide.

Now developing policy on this issue isn’t as easy as you might think.  No one is attempting to prohibit an officer from developing a relationship with someone whom s/he might have initially encountered during official duties.  All of us know examples of loving, healthy long-term relationships and marriages that have occurred from this type of conduct.  Some of the key elements to consider are how could the sexual contact jeopardize the professionalism of the officer or the agency.  Many officers later contend that the sexual encounter was consensual…at least from the point of view of the officer.  On the other side of the encounter is the perspective of the other involved person who might reasonably conclude that there was some form of coercion or duress. 

At PATC we developed the following model policy that includes:

•       Definitions:

–      Criminal Sexual Misconduct:  The abuse of authority by a law enforcement officer for sexual purposes that violate the law.

–      Sexual Misconduct: Any sexual activity while on-duty or stemming from official duty.  Sexual misconduct includes but is not limited to use of official position and official resources to obtain information for purposes of pursuing sexual conduct.

–      Intimate Part: Genital area, inner thigh, groin, buttocks or breasts of a person.

–      Actor: The person accused of sexual assault

–      Sexual Contact: Any contact for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor with the intimate parts of a person not married to the actor.

•       Procedure:

–      Sexual activity of any nature while on duty is prohibited.

–      Sexual Misconduct is prohibited and shall be disciplined up to and including termination.

–      Any contact for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor with the intimate parts of a person while on duty is prohibited.

–      A police officer shall not engage in sexual contact with another person who is in the custody of law and such officer has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person. 

–      Reporting Requirements:  Any employee of this Department, who is made aware of any violation of this policy, is required to report the violation to their supervisor.  The supervisor will immediately contact the Internal Affairs Section, or the command level personnel having Internal Affairs responsibility who will immediately initiate an investigation in accordance with their established investigative policy.  The investigation will involve other investigative elements of the Department as necessary and any forensic evidence will be protected and processed immediately.   The accused officer’s supervisor will not attempt to resolve a complaint of this nature with the complainant, and is required to make immediate contact with Internal Affairs or the command level personnel having Internal Affairs responsibility.

There are two additional issues that any agency must consider when dealing with sexual misconduct.  Credibility often will be an issue that must be addressed.  But much of the most egregious acts of sexual misconduct are targeted against very vulnerable people.  Persons with criminal histories; mental illness; substance abuse addiction; and flirtatious behaviors.  None of these behaviors can justify not investigating the incident.

Another issue that can be significant is false accusations.  The involved person may be attempting to influence a pending criminal charge against himself or herself or someone else.  There may be embarrassment and relationship issues.  These are issues that can be addressed during any reasonable investigation.  These are not reasons to elect to dismiss the allegations or curtail the investigation.

The first step for any law enforcement agency is to tackle the development of the written policy.  The next step is to train all employees so there will be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the agency means what it says and that everyone has been given a chance to learn what sexual misconduct is.  And, lastly, take a positive step to disciplining anyone in the agency who violates the policy.

The solution to this ugly problem lies with each and every police agency and everyone in the agency.  IT’S WRONG, BUT WE CAN FIX IT!