Essay On Police And Truthfulness
Police managers or executives do not take the decision to terminate a police officer or any criminal justice employee casually. This is especially true when it comes to making the decision to terminate a law enforcement officer. When police managers consider the termination of a police officer, it is usually for the serious violation of policy or with the compromise of the credibility of the officer. Nothing undermines the credibility of an individual more than untruthfulness. Truthfulness is one of the fundamental tenets of the law enforcement profession, and like trust, is part of the foundation for a good relationship between communities and law enforcement. A police officer, who is untruthful, is a liability for a criminal justice organization.
…show more content…
The credibility and integrity of a police officer, or any individual working in the field of criminal justice, are two of the principles that must remain unbroken. To have integrity implies trustworthiness and honesty (integrity, 2016). When an officer is untruthful, he or she is no longer honest, and their credibility and integrity is lost. The loss of credibility for a police officer is important in this discussion because of case law that is relevant in the admissibility of such lack of credibility as evidence. There are several United States Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the disclosure of evidence, officer credibility as evidence, and the liability of omitting such evidence during a trial.
Supreme Court Cases and Truthfulness as Evidence
At the heart of credibility and truthfulness during court proceedings are two Supreme Court decisions addressing the admissibility of exculpatory evidence.
These cases are Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The decisions in Brady and Giglio are further expanded in other decisions including United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995), and most recently in Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 165 P. 3d 1266 (2007). The Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland in 1963 resulted in a landmark decision that significantly affected the criminal justice system (Rothlein, 2007). Brady, the petitioner in Brady v. Maryland, was a co-defendant in a murder trial where the state did not divulge to the defense a statement made by the other co-defendant. The statement in question was an admission by the other co-defendant admitting to the actual killing that the prosecuting attorney withheld from the court. The withholding of this evidence led to the conviction of Brady. Upon appeal, the court decided that by withholding evidence favorable to the accused, the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause (Hochman, 1996). The decision in Giglio v. United States expanded the duties of disclosure the prosecution has in criminal cases. In Giglio v. United States, the concern was a deal between the state and the co-conspirator in exchange …show more content…
for leniency where “Giglio was convicted of forgery primarily on the testimony of an unindicted co-conspirator” (Judge, 2005). Again, part of the court decision held that the prosecution violated the Due Process Clause by not disclosing the deal made with the co-conspirator during the trial (Cassidy, 2004). United States v. Agurs is another case where the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence favorable to the accused because the defense did not specifically request the evidence (Judge, 2005). In Agurs, the Court again held that the prosecution violated the Due Process Clause (United States v. Agurs Case Brief, 2013 by not disclosing the criminal history of the victim (Deitz, 1976-1977). United States v. Bagley and Kyles v. Whitley also deal with the prosecution withholding evidence from the defense. Kyles v. Whitley is particularly important in this discussion because in this decision, “the Court determined that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police” (Spector, 2008). This decision interjects to the reliability of police officers and all government witnesses. The decisions of all the court cases contribute to the conclusion that the credibility or lack of credibility, as well as any documented history of untruthfulness of a police officer are exclusionary evidence subject to disclosure during a trial.
The High Cost of Untruthfulness
Some may consider the termination of a police officer for lying a bit excessive.
The fact is that the untruthfulness of a police officer, especially when under an official investigation or when documenting official records, comes with a very high cost. There is a cost to the officer, to the family of the officer, and to the organization. Untruthfulness may also affect past criminal cases, and current cases awaiting a hearing. For the officer and the family, it means loss of a job, income, and benefits such as health insurance. Additionally, it means that the officer may not be able to gain future employment in the field of criminal justice. For the organization, it may mean the loss of an experienced officer. However, the loss of the organization by terminating an officer is minimal compared to keeping an officer with the stigma of untruthfulness. Even if an officer was untruthful only one time, the reality is that the officer crossed the line and the integrity of the officer is no longer intact. The fact that the officer lied speaks boisterously of the character for the officer. The Bible addresses of importance of truthfulness in Proverbs 14:5 (NIV) which states, “An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.” From the moment, an officer has a documented incident of untruthfulness; the courts can no longer consider the officer a credible witness. In turn, the police officer will never be able to testify again in a court of law, especially when
defense attorneys find out that the officer has a history of untruthfulness. Defense attorneys will question every case the officer ever investigated. The officer will forever be a false witness. Keeping an officer who has been untruthful will have a negative impact on the organization, and open up the organization to liability suits. An organization that elects to retain an untruthful officer will be liable for negligent retention. The negative impact will also affect the relationship a police organization has with the community it serves. Once the words gets out the there is a liar with the ranks of the police department, there will be a loss of trust from the community. Untruthfulness is not only a breach of trust that affects the relationship between the officer and the organization, but also a perceived breach of trust between the organization and the community, if the organization retains the untruthful officer.
Fairness in Termination.
The notion of fairness is one that society poses today. Is it fair to terminate an officer for lying during an investigation when the organization allows officers to lie to individuals in order to solve a case? The answer is that there is a difference. It is constitutionally acceptable for police officers to deceive suspects as long as the deception is reasonable about what police know about the crime, and where the deception will not produce a false statement or confession (Rutledge, 2007). On the other hand, it is not acceptable for police officers to lie or be untruthful during official internal investigations or in official documents or other official proceedings. To retain an untruthful officer is to compromise the principles of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court decisions relate to the untruthfulness of officers or government witnesses during official investigations or proceedings.
Policy recommendations.
Police officers must set the example for the communities they serve, their families and the children who look up to them as role models. This means accepting responsibility for their actions even when they are wrong. With this in mind, the policy recommendation will include the directive for all law enforcement officers to maintain their credibility and integrity at all cost. The Supreme Court decisions would be included in the introductory paragraphs of the policy to include the decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995), and Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 165 P. 3d 1266 (2007). These decisions will set the stage for justification for termination when an officer is untruthful. In addition, the policy will outline the Garrity warning and the importance of truthfulness during internal investigations. Policy would outline a clear Code of Conduct to include honesty and truthfulness. Policy recommendation will include termination for untruthfulness based on the breach of trust between the officer and the department, and the inability of the officer to perform all official duties, which includes court testimony. The policy would outline that the inability to perform properly the duties of court testimony lies with the loss of integrity and credibility resulting from the untruthfulness. The policy would cite the case of LaChance v. Erickson as the case law for the ability of the law enforcement administration to terminate the employee for untruthfulness. The policy would also offer the ability for redress and appeal according to state law.
Conclusion.
Nothing undermines the credibility of an individual more than untruthfulness. Truthfulness being one of the fundamental tenets of the law enforcement profession, and part of the foundation for a good relationship between communities and law enforcement, is necessary to maintain trust. Spector (2008) outlines in his article Chief's Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy? the many Supreme Court decisions that build up to the importance of being truthful. A police officer, who is untruthful, is a liability for a criminal justice organization. Prosecuting attorneys have the duty to disclose any record of untruthfulness or dishonesty to the defense. Failing to divulge such evidence is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because honesty and truthfulness are crucial to establishing trust, it is imperative for organizational transparency and honesty when establishing a solid relationship with the community served. Spector (2008) concludes that honesty is the best policy on many levels from building strong community ties, to reduced issues of credibility, and a reduction of civil rights violations and lawsuits. The fact is that the decision to terminate an employee is a difficult one, but it is a decision that police administrators have to make from time to time in order to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice organization. When a police officer or any criminal justice employee lies under oath, their integrity, and credibility is broken. To retain such an employee is negligence on the part of the organization that opens the organization of for liability. Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV) states, “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.” The termination of an untruthful employee is the right thing to do. Society holds police officers and those who work in the field of criminal justice to a higher standard. Those who work in the field of criminal justice must hold their principles, morals, credibility, and integrity to the highest standards, at all cost, because without those principles unbroken, the individual has nothing to look forward to as a criminal justice employee.
The credibility and integrity of a police officer, or any individual working in the field of criminal justice, are two of the principles that must remain unbroken. To have integrity implies trustworthiness and honesty (integrity, 2016). When an officer is untruthful, he or she is no longer honest, and their credibility and integrity is lost. The loss of credibility for a police officer is important in this discussion because of case law that is relevant in the admissibility of such lack of credibility as evidence. There are several United States Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the disclosure of evidence, officer credibility as evidence, and the liability of omitting such evidence during a trial.
Supreme Court Cases and Truthfulness as Evidence
At the heart of credibility and truthfulness during court proceedings are two Supreme Court decisions addressing the admissibility of exculpatory evidence.
These cases are Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The decisions in Brady and Giglio are further expanded in other decisions including United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995), and most recently in Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 165 P. 3d 1266 (2007). The Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland in 1963 resulted in a landmark decision that significantly affected the criminal justice system (Rothlein, 2007). Brady, the petitioner in Brady v. Maryland, was a co-defendant in a murder trial where the state did not divulge to the defense a statement made by the other co-defendant. The statement in question was an admission by the other co-defendant admitting to the actual killing that the prosecuting attorney withheld from the court. The withholding of this evidence led to the conviction of Brady. Upon appeal, the court decided that by withholding evidence favorable to the accused, the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause (Hochman, 1996). The decision in Giglio v. United States expanded the duties of disclosure the prosecution has in criminal cases. In Giglio v. United States, the concern was a deal between the state and the co-conspirator in exchange …show more content…
for leniency where “Giglio was convicted of forgery primarily on the testimony of an unindicted co-conspirator” (Judge, 2005). Again, part of the court decision held that the prosecution violated the Due Process Clause by not disclosing the deal made with the co-conspirator during the trial (Cassidy, 2004). United States v. Agurs is another case where the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense exculpatory evidence favorable to the accused because the defense did not specifically request the evidence (Judge, 2005). In Agurs, the Court again held that the prosecution violated the Due Process Clause (United States v. Agurs Case Brief, 2013 by not disclosing the criminal history of the victim (Deitz, 1976-1977). United States v. Bagley and Kyles v. Whitley also deal with the prosecution withholding evidence from the defense. Kyles v. Whitley is particularly important in this discussion because in this decision, “the Court determined that prosecutors have a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf, including the police” (Spector, 2008). This decision interjects to the reliability of police officers and all government witnesses. The decisions of all the court cases contribute to the conclusion that the credibility or lack of credibility, as well as any documented history of untruthfulness of a police officer are exclusionary evidence subject to disclosure during a trial.
The High Cost of Untruthfulness
Some may consider the termination of a police officer for lying a bit excessive.
The fact is that the untruthfulness of a police officer, especially when under an official investigation or when documenting official records, comes with a very high cost. There is a cost to the officer, to the family of the officer, and to the organization. Untruthfulness may also affect past criminal cases, and current cases awaiting a hearing. For the officer and the family, it means loss of a job, income, and benefits such as health insurance. Additionally, it means that the officer may not be able to gain future employment in the field of criminal justice. For the organization, it may mean the loss of an experienced officer. However, the loss of the organization by terminating an officer is minimal compared to keeping an officer with the stigma of untruthfulness. Even if an officer was untruthful only one time, the reality is that the officer crossed the line and the integrity of the officer is no longer intact. The fact that the officer lied speaks boisterously of the character for the officer. The Bible addresses of importance of truthfulness in Proverbs 14:5 (NIV) which states, “An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.” From the moment, an officer has a documented incident of untruthfulness; the courts can no longer consider the officer a credible witness. In turn, the police officer will never be able to testify again in a court of law, especially when
defense attorneys find out that the officer has a history of untruthfulness. Defense attorneys will question every case the officer ever investigated. The officer will forever be a false witness. Keeping an officer who has been untruthful will have a negative impact on the organization, and open up the organization to liability suits. An organization that elects to retain an untruthful officer will be liable for negligent retention. The negative impact will also affect the relationship a police organization has with the community it serves. Once the words gets out the there is a liar with the ranks of the police department, there will be a loss of trust from the community. Untruthfulness is not only a breach of trust that affects the relationship between the officer and the organization, but also a perceived breach of trust between the organization and the community, if the organization retains the untruthful officer.
Fairness in Termination.
The notion of fairness is one that society poses today. Is it fair to terminate an officer for lying during an investigation when the organization allows officers to lie to individuals in order to solve a case? The answer is that there is a difference. It is constitutionally acceptable for police officers to deceive suspects as long as the deception is reasonable about what police know about the crime, and where the deception will not produce a false statement or confession (Rutledge, 2007). On the other hand, it is not acceptable for police officers to lie or be untruthful during official internal investigations or in official documents or other official proceedings. To retain an untruthful officer is to compromise the principles of the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court decisions relate to the untruthfulness of officers or government witnesses during official investigations or proceedings.
Policy recommendations.
Police officers must set the example for the communities they serve, their families and the children who look up to them as role models. This means accepting responsibility for their actions even when they are wrong. With this in mind, the policy recommendation will include the directive for all law enforcement officers to maintain their credibility and integrity at all cost. The Supreme Court decisions would be included in the introductory paragraphs of the policy to include the decisions in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), and Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995), and Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 165 P. 3d 1266 (2007). These decisions will set the stage for justification for termination when an officer is untruthful. In addition, the policy will outline the Garrity warning and the importance of truthfulness during internal investigations. Policy would outline a clear Code of Conduct to include honesty and truthfulness. Policy recommendation will include termination for untruthfulness based on the breach of trust between the officer and the department, and the inability of the officer to perform all official duties, which includes court testimony. The policy would outline that the inability to perform properly the duties of court testimony lies with the loss of integrity and credibility resulting from the untruthfulness. The policy would cite the case of LaChance v. Erickson as the case law for the ability of the law enforcement administration to terminate the employee for untruthfulness. The policy would also offer the ability for redress and appeal according to state law.
Conclusion.
Nothing undermines the credibility of an individual more than untruthfulness. Truthfulness being one of the fundamental tenets of the law enforcement profession, and part of the foundation for a good relationship between communities and law enforcement, is necessary to maintain trust. Spector (2008) outlines in his article Chief's Counsel: Should Police Officers Who Lie Be Terminated as a Matter of Public Policy? the many Supreme Court decisions that build up to the importance of being truthful. A police officer, who is untruthful, is a liability for a criminal justice organization. Prosecuting attorneys have the duty to disclose any record of untruthfulness or dishonesty to the defense. Failing to divulge such evidence is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because honesty and truthfulness are crucial to establishing trust, it is imperative for organizational transparency and honesty when establishing a solid relationship with the community served. Spector (2008) concludes that honesty is the best policy on many levels from building strong community ties, to reduced issues of credibility, and a reduction of civil rights violations and lawsuits. The fact is that the decision to terminate an employee is a difficult one, but it is a decision that police administrators have to make from time to time in order to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice organization. When a police officer or any criminal justice employee lies under oath, their integrity, and credibility is broken. To retain such an employee is negligence on the part of the organization that opens the organization of for liability. Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV) states, “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.” The termination of an untruthful employee is the right thing to do. Society holds police officers and those who work in the field of criminal justice to a higher standard. Those who work in the field of criminal justice must hold their principles, morals, credibility, and integrity to the highest standards, at all cost, because without those principles unbroken, the individual has nothing to look forward to as a criminal justice employee.