Is decentralizing IA/OPS a good idea?

Last week I taught an IA seminar in Kansas City.  By the way, they have one of the finest police training facilities you’ll find these days.

One of the students offered a suggestion that I quickly gave a knee jerk reaction to and dismissed.  But the thought intrigued me as I chewed on it for a few moments. 

His suggestion was whether it might be beneficial to assign an IA investigator to decentralized police stations as a local resource.  It may only be practical in an agency with more than one station or maybe a statewide agency.  Progressive agencies today do that when they insert a local prosecutor into the station.  In that case the attorney helps with search warrant applications, legal questions and provides some roll-call training.  Some agencies currently have a victim advocate in-house who can help with difficult emotional cases including child sex, rape and domestic violence.

Now what would an IA rep in the station house do?  You might rush to say it wouldn’t work because s/he would simply be considered a snitch.  In some agencies that might be true.  It would be a constant challenge for the IA investigator to build trust and show that IA expertise can be beneficial.  But, s/he could become a valuable resource for local supervisors and the station management.  The vast majority of citizen complaints are usually delegated to the field sergeant.  The IA rep could be a resource to help that supervisor and could even assist with a critique of the completed investigation.  Local station managers are often the ones who have to review administrative investigations done by IA and make recommendations.  The local rep could assist and the final product will most likely be better.  The IA investigator assigned to this local station would still carry a normal workload; just do it at another location other than the IA/OPS office.  This might encourage the investigator to make more face-to-face calls to complainants and civilian witnesses rather than wait for them to come to the central office or conduct them on the phone.  It could also cut down on the overtime or loss of field time by not having agency witnesses and targeted employees going to the main administration building.  

I must admit that I find this an interesting concept.  A couple of years ago the Texas DPS began a program of decentralizing its IA process.  It trained sergeants to conduct IA investigations and assigned a cadre to each of its seven district areas throughout the state.  I’m not sure how the DPS program has worked out and it seems to be still in the developmental stage.  NYPD has integrity lieutenants in each precinct house who are supposed to do checks, audits and other types of oversight; but it appears to be less effective and they spend most of the time with trying to ferret out accepting gratuities, checking on overtime usage and officers who are sleeping on the job.  New Orleans recently has placed compliance officers in each of its stations to do some IA type tasks as well as audits and training.

Maybe we could take this decentralized IA/OPS concept a little further and even use it in an agency with a single station.  Too often the IA/OPS function is either in some office down the hall from the Chief or in some outside location away from the station.  The only time the uniformed cops see someone from IA is when they’re under the gun either as a target or witness officer. 

We’ve continuously worked to get detectives to visit uniformed officers’ briefings and roll calls.  The idea was they could share current crime trends, offer some suspect information and answer any questions.  Unfortunately, most of those attempts have failed.  We can all argue why and come up with a bunch of reasonable answers!

What could regular visits to uniformed cops by an IA investigator do?  One is that the uniformed cop would now see the investigator without being under the gun.  The investigator could discuss completed administrative investigations where the work of the officers and the IA investigation ended up clearing the accused employees.  Or the IA investigator could grab some case from the Internet where an officer got jammed up in another city and use that as a catalyst to discuss agency protocols and safeguards.  IA gives an investigator valuable experiences that most cops never get.  Sharing these can only make everyone a better cop and further professionalize the police agency.

It’s an intriguing concept; something we should not rush to kick aside.  At least it’s something to chew on….

Oversight needed or we may have too many Rambos!

I imagine many of you saw the YouTube tirade of the Chief of Gilberton, PA.  After his profanity laced tongue lashing, he shows himself firing three different types of fully automatic weapons.  The interesting part of this is he’s the only cop in this borough of 769 people.  The news articles say he bought the weapons with his own money and donated them to the town.  The town council acknowledged that they approved this donation.  An unanswered question is, “What the hell does a town of less than 800 people and one cop need with this armory?”  Other unanswered questions are whether the Chief has been trained and certified to use these weapons and whether the town has any written policy covering their use.  You and I know that the answers are no and, again, no! 

A few years ago I conducted an audit of a 40-officer police department in Georgia.  The first thing that struck me as unusual when I initially visited the agency was the large black van with ‘SWAT’ painted on the side positioned the parking lot in front of the agency so everybody passing by could see it.  I later found that the Chief had also taken possession of an APC (military armored personnel carrier).  I asked him whether it had ever been used.  “Not officially,” the Chief answered.  What did happen is a couple of his officers on the graveyard shift took it out one morning and filmed themselves riding in it which they then posted on YouTube.  Again, training and policy was lacking.  No one from City Hall apparently had objected!  This agency had the use of the County SWAT unit by just a phone call.

I’ve referred you to an interesting site for constant updating of what’s happening throughout the country in the arena of police misconduct – PoliceMisconduct.net.  The CATO INSTITUTE runs this site.  Another publication of this group is the 2006 report “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America” by Radley Balko.  You can download it from this site.  You might not like the subject matter, but you should be aware of this line of questioning occurring throughout the country.

My good friend Harry Dolan, retired Chief of Raleigh, NC, gets on his soapbox when the issue of officers wearing BDUs comes up.  “Now they want to wear them black pajamas!” he retorts.  I remember the fight by field officers to eliminate wearing police hats during the 1970s.  But when baseball caps suddenly appeared everyone wanted to wear those. 

Now there’s a need for all of these police tools and tactics.  The problem, however, is that often they are done without some detailed thought.  What’s the problem these tools and tactics are going to resolve?  What’s the risk management potential?  Do you have reasonable written policies, training and supervisory oversight?  Until these questions can be answered reasonably the Chief, city officials and the community being served must say no…or at least slow down the process. 

Sexual misconduct involving on-duty officers

I continuously recommend that anyone involved in Internal Affairs matters should daily check out a website: policemisconduct.net.  This site was taken over by the CATO Institute about a year ago.  Every day it uses twitter to capture news reports concerning police misconduct.  Every day there are 7 to 15 incidents summarized in a one or two line narrative with a link to the actual news story and/or video.  Most of these incidents are investigations, arrests, pleas or convictions of officers for various acts of misconduct.  Unfortunately, it seems like sexual misconduct is the most frequent.  What are some of the lessons that can be learned from this nationwide perspective?

            First, it is not an infrequent event.  The age of officers involved does not seem to be a significant factor with senior officers being charged as often as newer officers.  The size of the agency also isn’t a factor.  Small, medium and large agencies as well as urban and rural are commonly involved.  One common denominator appears to be the victim – vulnerable women.  Most of the time it’s a male officer and the victim is female.  Occasionally it is a male on male incident.  Rarely do these accounts involve a female officer.

            What do I mean by the victim being a vulnerable woman?  In some way the authority of the officer is used to facilitate the sexual encounter.  It might be a traffic ticket, DUI arrest, heavily intoxicated person, drug addict, street prostitute, suicidal person or student.  Of course there are the cases involving police groupies.  Probably the most despicable is the victim of domestic violence who is consoled by the investigating officer who later flips it into a sexual relationship. 

            I’m sure that some of the officers would simply contend that these are consensual encounters.  That’s from the officer’s viewpoint.  The fact that the victim doesn’t scream, fight or protest doesn’t mean that it’s not an abuse of authority by the officer.  The officer has control of that woman.  Any subsequent sex is not consensual!

            The other common element in these occurrences is that rarely do they involve just one victim.  Once the incident is out of the bag, more victims commonly come forward.

            What concerns me the most is that this misconduct is rarely done in isolation.  Others on the police or sheriff department know or suspect what’s happening.  During our agency audits we frequently know within days who the “skirt chasers” are.  If those of us on the audit team can learn that in just a couple of days, why don’t those on the department step forward?  When this misconduct is discovered, it’s a black mark on everyone in the agency.  There is commonly a breakdown of field supervision when the officer can engage in this type of misconduct on duty and not become noticed.  The supervisor is not looking or is simply not out on the street where s/he should be.

            This is something that should not continue!  This is a scab on professional policing.  It’s time to stand up and be vocal.  It’s time to use real life examples during basic and in-service training, rather than philosophical points of view.  This is the dirty side of law enforcement and it can be stopped!

Code of Silence, Part 3 of 3

I’ve been remiss in not writing the promised Part 3 of my series on Code of Silence.  Whether the Code exists or doesn’t in your agency, the potential is prevalent in all police agencies. Are there some things you should look for that are indicators that the Code is alive and well in your agency?

Many years ago I was testifying in Boston Federal Court.  An issue was whether the police agency had a Code of Silence and was this a moving force causing the injury to a suspect.  The judge was unsure whether he would allow me to testify.  So he conducted a voir dire hearing asking me if I had some methodology to determine the existence of the Code of Silence.  Since that time I’ve enhanced those points of my methodology.  Let’s look at some of those points.

Is what other officers say they were doing at the critical moment contrary to reasonable practices?  An example would be the booking sergeant saying he heard some form of scuffle, but he was busy doing paperwork.  You and I know that if you heard something like that you’d bust your ass to get out there and assist your fellow officers.

Should the incident have alerted a reasonable officer and focused attention to the incident?  At the end of a pursuit when the suspect stops or crashes, the focus should be on the suspect and his capture.  But so often this is the time when some officer may allow the adrenaline of the chase to obscure his decision to use force.  This is the time for the noninvolved officer to restrain him; not say his attention was diverted by some noise from another direction away from the incident.  Looking the other way is not reasonable!

Was the misconduct so obvious that an officer would have had to shut his/her eyes or ears not to become aware of it?  The prisoner torture of suspects by Detective Burge in the basement of Precinct 2 in Chicago is something everyone in the station should have been aware of.  Yet, no one came forward until years of wrongful convictions were reversed.

Were officers in a position to have seen or heard what occurred but deny any knowledge?  An incident like the infamous Rodney King beating is a good example.  It was amazing how many of the 17 officers ringing the incident didn’t see anything or couldn’t recall what occurred.  Remember many officers may avoid answering the questions with any degree of specificity, rather than deny!

The development of cliques can cause insulation and protection.  We don’t have to look far to see this influence of officers working close together causing them to clam up and either engage in misconduct or look the other way.  Special enforcement units recently in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Tulsa and Los Angeles are recent examples.  It can also happen when shift work becomes cast in concrete.  Fire departments are a prime example of this where teams work together for years.

The retaliation of officers who do come forward.  In the New Jersey State Police a group calling themselves the “Lords of Discipline” preyed on troopers who came forward with information about the agency profiling motorists.  The probationary Officer Batt, in 2000, was the person who first brought forth information about the misconduct of four officers calling themselves the “Riders.”  His information was what caused Oakland to be placed under a consent decree and now faces the possibility of the Federal Court putting the agency under receivership; something we haven’t seen before.  Yet, Officer Batt, the young officer who did the right thing, faced so much retaliation that the Chief had to get him a job with another police agency.  Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents!

And lastly, we have something I call the Blue Shield.  These are things police agencies do that insulate officers who engage in misconduct from being held accountable.  When agencies purposefully conduct inadequate investigations, fail to discipline for misconduct, and fail to hold officers accountable when they give false and misleading statement during administrative investigations is a common practice of an agency doing the wrong thing.  Some agencies accept the lack of a criminal charge for the officer’s act of misconduct as an excuse to not conduct the administrative investigation.  Most agencies salivate when a malignant officer elects to leave the agency rather than face discipline and the failure to hold the officer accountable allows the officer the ability to just go to work for some other agency.  And, lastly, the lack of transparency by agencies regarding administrative investigations and employee discipline.  This secrecy erodes public trust and allows officers who are disciplined to put their own spin on it rather than have their case used as an example to others in the agency.

All I can leave you with is this is a continuing pursuit you must engage in to develop a professional police agency.  This pursuit is essential to create an environment where every member of our agency can be proud of the service provided.  This environment allows employees to do the right thing with pride and a true belief that they will be supported and honored.  I always end my class on the Code of Silence with a question, “Does anyone in the class know of an officer who has received the Medal of Valor for blowing the whistle on police corruption?”  I’m still waiting for someone to give me an example.

Is it okay for cops to lie?

Is it okay for cops to lie?  Many years ago when Bill Bratton was the head of the NYPD he used the phrase “testilying” to describe when officers bend the truth when testifying.  We’ve come a long way since then.  Today most Chiefs and Sheriffs and their agencies take the stand that “if an officer lies, he dies.”  Lying in any context is no longer acceptable and normally results in termination.  Even if lying or “bending the truth” is just to get the bad guys off the streets under the misguided concept of “noble cause.”  Lying is lying!

But what has caused this newfound philosophy in law enforcement?  The guiding U.S. Supreme Court cases of Brady and Giglio are old cases decided in 1963 and 1973 respectively.  These cases said that any prosecutor had to turn over “exculpatory evidence” and “credibility evidence” to the criminal defense attorney.  In other words, any evidence that might help the defendant or caste doubt on the credibility of any witness the prosecution uses during the trial had to be disclosed if the prosecutor knew about it.

These cases, however, had minimal effect on law enforcement until the mid 1990s.  What changed?  Really there were five things.

First, in 1995, the Supreme Court decided the case of Kyles v. Whitley.  This case changed the requirement on the prosecutor.  In the prior cases the prosecutor was held accountable if s/he knew of the exculpatory evidence.  Kyles now required the prosecutor to make an affirmative search for this evidence and turn it over to the defense.  As a consequence it began with Federal prosecutors who now requested “credibility/Giglio” material on any of our officers who were scheduled to be witnesses.  Today most prosecutors make this request.

During this same period of time the Innocence Project got started.  My friends Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld attacked the prosecution tactics used in capital cases such as homicides and rapes.  Most of these cases used DNA and other evidence that was hidden from the criminal defense by prosecutors and police.  The cases pretty much say the obligation is on the State and that means both the prosecutor and the police.

A third issue was the development of what has been termed “Brady Bad Boy” lists.  Prosecutors have put officers on this list and generally don’t present cases when they are confronted with an officer who has a “credibility” problem.  Most of the time it is founded on evidence that the officer has been disciplined for lying or false reporting.  If the prosecutor has this list, so does the public defender and the criminal defense attorney.  If an officer can’t testify in court, what good is s/he?

While law enforcement has adopted a very strict stance on lying, the courts and arbitrators aren’t as firm.  It seems that courts, arbitrators and civil service bodies consider some as “big lies” and others as “little lies.”  Big lies are those associated with an officer’s testimonial record; arrest reports, probable cause affidavits for warrants, and court testimony.  Little lies concern false statements on agency procedural matters such as sick usage, damage to police vehicles, or failure to follow some internal policy.  Of course this presents an agency with the problem of what to do with the officer who it has declared as a liar, has been terminated, and yet now has been returned to the agency by some decision of these external bodies.

The fifth issue has surfaced only in the last few years.  Officers are now being criminally prosecuted for false reports or testimony.  In the past the prosecutor might simply dismiss the case and let the agency deal with the misconduct administratively.  A lot of this outcome has surfaced with the proliferation of surveillance cameras.  These images may refute the version officers’ use official reports or during testimony.

Now what does this mean for law enforcement?  My next blog report will discuss what we must do and how to develop reasonable policy to cover this issue.

When does a club become a gang?

When does a club become a gang?  This is a question many police administrators are asking themselves.  In the old days of the Electra Glide and Gold Wing, cops would tour with the Blue Knights or similar types of motorcycle clubs.  In those early years the cops drove their black and whites police cars and they would deal and tangle with the 1% ers with choppers and hogs ridden by the Hells Angels, Outlaws, Mongols, Pagans, Bandidos and similar criminal motorcycle gangs.

Today that line appears to be blurred.  There are law enforcement only, male only, motorcycle groups throughout the country with names like the Iron Pigs, Defenders, Regulators.  They fly their colors on their leather jackets or vests in the traditional three-piece emblem with a top and bottom rocker.  It’s difficult to distinguish them from the 1% ers without the occasional flash of a badge on a belt or the obvious gun worn.  With the Federal law these active and retired officers can carry guns anywhere and in any state.

In December a chapter of the Iron Brotherhood in Arizona was involved in a fight in a local bar.  Arizona DPS investigated this incident and the prosecutor is now considering charges including the cover-up and obstruction.  Several ranking police officers have either retired or resigned.  Multiple police agencies at the federal, state and local level are involved in conducting IA investigations of their officers.  One deputy chief who resigned is reported in the local newspaper saying that “the clothing members wore should not be used against them.”  Well, duh, of course it will!  If you look like a gangster, act like a gangster, you’ll be portrayed to be a gangster!

I ask a question in my Internal Affairs training seminars that I conduct every month throughout the country “Is this some sort of violation?  Is this conduct unbecoming?”  It always provokes a healthy discussion.  There seems to be no simple answer.  Most say it has the potential to create trouble for the officer and the agency where he works.  Everyone acknowledges that this has the potential to create a bad image of police officers with the general public.  Of course, isn’t that a basic element of conduct unbecoming?

Even if the officer is thrust into a legitimate use of force, or deadly force, will this garb be used against him?  Of course it will!  The prosecutor will drag that vest or jacket with the offensive colors in front of the jury as much as my old friend Johnnie Cochran did with the infamous glove in the OJ trial.

In the end it boils down to what ethical values are our officers living by?  It’s not a generational issue.  It involves both young and old.  Actually most of the officers involved are senior officers.  Officers who should know better.  But we hear comments like “I’m off duty.  I can do what I want.  I shouldn’t be judged by my friends or how I look.”  But you are.  You’re blue 24/7 whether you want to be or not!  You will be judged – fair or not!

Economic misconduct by cops

            I was honored to have been able to serve under Chief Bill Parker at the LAPD.  He truly is credited with changing the culture of the LAPD, during the late 1940s and 1950s, from an anachronistic, corrupt police agency to a professional one.  He was a strict disciplinarian.  Theft was theft whether it was $5 or $50,000.

            Theft in law enforcement seems to be a recurring incident of misconduct these days.  It seems to have become even more prevalent since the economic downturn in 2008.  I wrote an article for the PATC eNewsletter back then signaling that it was time for every agency to refocus its efforts to prevent and/or uncover this abuse.

            What kinds of thefts are we seeing these days?  Chiefs, Sheriffs, officers and trusted clerical personnel stealing from the evidence room, selling police evidence/equipment on EBay, and misusing police funds set up for official business.  Police union officials are misusing funds.  Police officers entrusted with funds set up for killed or wounded officers are caught using these for their own purposes.  Manipulation of time sheets, overtime, and paid detail work with the employees often triple dipping – working one job yet getting paid from two or three different sources for the same hours worked.  Vice and narcotic officers taking money based on alleged payments to nonexistent informants.  Theft by special operations units during high-risk raids and warrant service.  Employees misrepresenting financial incomes and swearing under penalty of perjury to obtain mortgages.  Defraud linked to misuse of the workers’ compensation program. 

            What seems to be some of the driving forces for this misconduct?  The most common appears to be that the officer got used to having a certain level of income with constant overtime and paid details.  They spent to that level.  When the economy tanked these sources of income dried up.  But their mortgages, car/boat payments, and credit card bills didn’t!

            Another common factor seems to be gambling addiction.  They get themselves so overloaded with debt and hope that gambling more will get them out of it.  The gambling establishments don’t build those megaresorts on winners!

            Continuing economic misconduct is uncovered in the various real and sting operations for protection of drug dealers and gamblers.  There also have been several instances of steering traffic collision victims to favored repair shops for kickbacks to the officers.  

            And, of course, there still is the pressure of substance abuse; alcohol, drugs and steroids.  Steroid use can run as much as a $1000 a month.

            So what should we be doing in our agencies?

            First, make roll call/briefings and in-service training more realistic by using actual economic misconduct incidents.  Do a Google search or use a pretty comprehensive site – policemisconduct.net.  Get examples to use with your people and show them that this form of misconduct will also end up in significant jail time.  Yes, we need to remind them that theft is wrong!

            Second, ensure that the auditing of special and operating funds is real.  Overtime and paid details can still be done in-house.  These realistically should be done monthly, but quarterly would still be acceptable.  Look for end of watch arrests to pump up overtime.  Consider a sudden increase in traffic ticket writing as a potential attempt to increase court time.  Consider whether teams or watches are putting excess numbers of officers on arrest reports to increase potential court time.  Someone involved in the task should not do the audit of this usage.  Special funds, like confidential monies, community action, charitable fundraising, youth programs and employee union finances can only be done by an outside approved accounting firm to remove any stigma of impropriety.  Most of these types of audits are done on an annual basis.

            Third, don’t overlook the evidence/property room audit.  Where we get into trouble is guns, narcotics and money.  Too often an agency allows this audit to be done by the employee responsible for the task.  It doesn’t work!

            Fourth, everyone in the agency must keep their eyes open and ears attuned to changes in fellow employee behavior.  You’re not snitching, you’re helping everyone in your agency if you identify this type of misconduct early on.  Look for unusual spending sprees.  Which employees are hogging OT or paid details?  Who’s suddenly become stressed and talks more about money problems? 

            Fifth, consider the use of annual financial disclosure reporting.  I know this is controversial in law enforcement agencies, but this is common in all sectors of the private employment field.  Nearly every elected official has to submit these types of oversight forms.  It would be unrealistic to require all police employees to do this.  But, those in high profile, vulnerable tasks and assignments known to present temptation should be required to submit these pretty much innocuous forms. 

            And lastly, train your IA/OPS investigators how to best conduct an investigation of economic misconduct. These are significantly different than most of our other misconduct investigations.  My good friend Steve Rothlein wrote “Hidden Assets” regarding these types of investigations and you can access this at patc.com.