Officer answerability research daily news

Category: Government,
Published: 05.03.2020 | Words: 1655 | Views: 267
Download now

Jurisprudence, Police Misconduct, Incident Investigation, Administrative Law

Research from Analysis Paper:

Officer Accountability

Need help writing essays?
Free Essays
For only $5.90/page
Order Now

A law enforcement officials officer’s tested dishonesty can be not a minimal matter. Ignoring or covering up that dishonesty, if discovered, could possibly be devastating to the police department’s credibility. Furthermore, due to Because of Process laws in the United States, his or her dishonesty could affect the end result of past cases through which he/she spoken and future cases by which he/she might testify. Finally, the criminal prosecution is required to side that information to defendants’ attorneys. Together, the officer has dished up the department for 15 years with only 2 “bad” occurrences. Handling this officer’s confirmed dishonesty requires swift action that is fair to the office, the Prosecutor’s office and this officer.

Decision: Remove The Police officer From Service And Offer Him An Alternate Department Job That Would Never Require His Testimony In The courtroom


You are the Key of Police of a municipality. Your Deputy Chief of Police recommends you that you of your officials was looked into for inappropriate use of one of the computers inside the patrol division. As a result of this kind of internal investigation, it was established that the police officer used this kind of computer to look pornographic websites. When confronted by this accusations, the expert denied any kind of knowledge of this kind of incident. Upon further research, the computer criminal activity analyst established that the officer’s log on password was used to enter the unauthorized web sites. The officer after that admitted to his wrongdoing and explained it would hardly ever happen again. This police officer has been along with your organization pertaining to 15 years, and the only other disciplinary action used against him was for being involved in an responsible traffic accident 10 years ago. As the Chief of Law enforcement officials, how might you handle this case?


Ignoring/Covering Up the Officer’s Misconduct beyond the Question

American jurisprudence is included with instances in which common people, cops, departments, establishments and even U. S. presidents were “caught” ignoring or perhaps covering up misconduct/dishonesty. Through the People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, in which Officer Mark Fuhrman denied becoming a racist and was trapped on recording using hurtful language, thereby shedding hesitation on his entire testimony (Nelson, 2008, s. 1711), to the Watergate Scandal and linked criminal situations, in which however, powers in the Presidency wasn’t able to hide duplicity (Bernstein Woodward, 2012), duplicity and cover-ups keep exposure. The result is destructive to believability, not only from the initially dishonest person, yet also in the superior and police section that ignores or covers up the chicanery. Consequently, this kind of officer’s duplicity cannot be ignored or covered-up, lest it destroys the credibility of the entire section, both in and out of court.

The Officer Jeopardises Every Criminal Case through which He Features Testified or perhaps Will Testify

Since you will see no overlook or cover-up of the officer’s dishonesty, he cannot continue in his situation as a officer “in the field” whom may testify in lawbreaker cases since his account for the prosecution is usually potentially fatal to the State’s criminal cases. As one criminal defense attorney stated about one official caught lying, “One will have to question this kind of officer’s trustworthiness in every case” (Pawloski, 2012). Consequently, this kind of officer’s corruption could conceivably affect the end result of every solitary criminal circumstance in which this individual has spoken in the past or will state in the future. Since one of the duties of a police officer “in the field” is always to testify in court, his testimony could sometimes end up being unavoidable within a criminal circumstance, and permitting this official to testify would endanger one of the law enforcement officials department’s primary functions – providing reliable testimony in court.

If perhaps this official continued in the current task, not only might he certainly be a witness with questionable reliability, but the criminal prosecution would actually have to notify the defense about this officer’s questionable credibility. As we have seen from the designated cases, the prosecution may have a duty to reveal this officer’s dishonesty to defendants’ attorneys. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), the defendant and a co-defendant were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. At trial, defendant admitted his involvement inside the crime but denied that he individually killed the victim and stated the codefendant would the killing. Before trial, the defendant’s attorney asked the prosecutor to examine the codefendant’s out-of-court statements nevertheless the prosecutor withheld the codefendant’s confession that he murdered the patient. The defendant’s attorney did not find out about the confession until after trial. The Maryland Court of Appeals identified “that suppression of the data by the prosecutor denied petitioner due technique of law” plus the case was remanded to retry a defieicency of punishment (Justia, n. deb. ). In addition , in Giglio v. Us, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), a defendant moved for a new trial as a result of newly discovered evidence that the Assistant U. S. Legal professional promised leniency to a key witness in the event the witness could testify against the Defendant and also discovered that the prosecutor’s business office did not divulge it. Even though the prosecutor would not know about the offer although the assistant did not have the authority to help make the offer, the court identified that the prosecution still a new duty to present all material evidence towards the jury, the prosecution had not done so and the failure to do so “constitutes a violation of due procedure, requiring a fresh trial” (Justia, n. d. ). Furthermore, United States versus. Bagley, 474 U. T. 667, points out the meaning of “material evidence” discussed in Brady and Giglio, finding that “favorable evidence is material, and constitutional error results from its suppression by the govt, if there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that, acquired the evidence recently been disclosed to the defense, the consequence of the carrying on would have been different” (Justia, n. deb. ).

The Officer’s 12-15 Years of Services and Or else Relatively Clean Record Should be thought about

As the facts show, this kind of officer did for the Department pertaining to 15 years and provides two incidents of misconduct: one including an at-fault accident a decade ago; the current incident concerning outright corruption and essentially destroying his role as being a credible witness in lawbreaker trials. Because of these specifics, completely destroying his profession seems unduly harsh in addition to a waste of valuable staff members. There are several administrative roles within a police department that do not really require an officer to get “in the field” or testify in court; therefore , this official could even now ably provide in the Division in a cut down role.

The officer must be advised that he is taken from work “in the field” and that you will have no discussion on that period. That removing constitutes his “punishment” intended for his just lately discovered corruption. However , the officer may also be offered the opportunity to continue in the Department in an administrative function that by no means requires his testimony in court. If the officer accepts the alternate position, he may continue to be employed by the section and will be qualified for that various position, if necessary. If the police officer rejects the offer of your administrative placement, then this individual cannot continue working for the department. In this way, the division minimizes virtually any damage that has been or might be caused by the officer’s corruption but will not cavalierly strengthen 15 numerous years of experience. Following reviewing the reality and government bodies, this appears to be a swift, effective and fair technique of handling the case for both the office and the expert.


This officer’s proven dishonesty makes a significant difficulty for the police department.

1st, ignoring/covering up the officer’s misconduct is out of the question, not because the police office is a bunch of Boy Scouts, but since the possible breakthrough of ignoring/covering up that dishonesty would be devastating to credibility, not merely of the at first dishonest person, but likewise of the excellent or department that ignores or covers up the duplicity. Secondly, this dishonest officer jeopardizes just about every criminal circumstance in which he has spoken or can testify. Every police officer continues to be officially located to have dedicated a unethical act, his or her credibility would be questioned in every single case, which include past instances in which he/she has testified. In addition , the prosecution will have the duty to disclose that chicanery to every legal defendants’ legal professionals involved in any kind of future case that may require this officer’s testimony. As a result, this officer’s dishonesty can conceivably impact the outcome of every single felony case by which he has testified in the past or will certainly testify down the road. The head from the police office must reduce the damage simply by removing this kind of officer from your field. Third, this official has offered the division for 15 years and has two “infractions” on his employment record. Under these circumstances, his experience and possible performance to the police department really should be taken into account. There are many administrative functions within a law enforcement officials department that do not require an expert to be “in the field” or to state in the courtroom; therefore , this officer could still excellently serve inside the Department in a curtailed function. Consequently, the officer needs to be advised