|
POLICE CORRUPTION by BRANDON HOLLOWAY December, 2002 Keywords: Police corruption, police misconduct, cop crimes, integrity Police Corruption is defined as the abuse of police authority for personal or organizational gain. This comes in many shapes and sizes, from the major drug trafficking and money laundering to looking the other way on minor everyday violations of the law. Ever since the concept of rules and regulation came about there have been certain people who were chosen to enforce those regulations. Some of those law enforcement personnel have been persuaded to look the other way on certain violations committed by their friends or family. Payments for these inconsistencies could come in the way of personal favors, bribes, or gratuities. Other corruption activities involve more serious crimes such as brutality, drugs, and framing of suspects (Schmalleger, 2003, pp. 227-229). Police corruption is a complex phenomenon, which does not readily submit to simple analysis. It is a problem that has and will continue to affect us all, whether we are civilians or law enforcement officers. Since its beginnings, may aspects of policing have changed; however, one aspect that has remained relatively unchanged is the existence of corruption. An examination of a local newspaper or any police-related publication on any given day will have an article about a police officer that got busted committing some kind of corrupt act. Police corruption has increased dramatically with the illegal cocaine trade, with officers acting alone or in-groups to steal money from dealers or distribute cocaine themselves. Large groups of corrupt police have been caught in New York, New Orleans, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles. (http://www.cyberessays.com/politics/141.htm, 2002) Analysis Corruption can be broken down into two sections, internal and external corruption. Internal corruption is the illegal acts and agreements within a police department by more than one of the officers. External corruption is the illegal acts and agreements with the public by one or more officers in a department. For a corrupt act to occur, three distinct elements of police corruption must be present simultaneously: 1) misuse of authority, 2) misuse of official capacity, and 3) misuse of personal attainment. It can be said that power inevitably tends to corrupt, and it is yet to be recognized that, while there is no reason to suppose that policemen as individuals are any less fallible than other members of society, people are often shocked and outraged when policemen are exposed violating the law. The reason is simple. There deviance elicits a special feeling of betrayal. Most studies support the view that corruption is endemic, if not universal, in police departments. The danger of corruption for police, and this is that it may invert the formal goals of the organization and may lead to "the use of organizational power to encourage and create crime rather than to deter it. General police deviance can include brutality, discrimination, sexual harassment, intimidation, and illicit use of weapons. However it is not particularly obvious where brutality, discrimination, and misconduct end and corruption begin. The external corruption generally consists of one ore more of the following activities: 1) Payoffs to police by essentially non-criminal elements who fail to comply with stringent statutes or city ordinances; (for example, individuals who repeatedly violate traffic laws). 2) Payoffs to police by individuals who continually violate the law as a method of making money (for example, prostitutes, narcotics addicts and pushers, & professional burglars). 3) "Clean Graft" where money is paid to police for services, or where courtesy discounts are given as a matter of course to the police. Police officers have been involved in activities such as extortion of money and/or narcotics from narcotics violators in order to avoid arrest; they have accepted bribes; they have sold narcotics. They have known of narcotics have entered into personal associations with narcotics criminals and in some cases have used narcotics. They have given false testimony in court in order to obtain dismissal of the charges against a defendant. A scandal is perceived both as a socially constructed phenomenon and as an agent of change that can lead to realignments in the structure of power within organizations. New York, for instance, has had more than a half dozen major scandals concerning its police department within a century. It was the Knapp Commission in 1972 that first brought attention to the NYPD when they released the results of over 2 years of investigations of alleged corruption. The findings were that bribery, especially among narcotics officers, was extremely high. As a result many officers were prosecuted and many more lost their jobs. A massive re-structuring took place afterwards with strict rules and regulations to make sure that the problem would never happen again. Be that as it may, the problem did arise once gain... Some of the most recent events to shake New York City and bring attention to the national problem of police corruption were brought up beginning in 1992 when five officers were arrested on drug-trafficking charges. (http://www.cyberessays.com/politics/141.htm, 2002) Most police officers will not even talk about corruption. When they do talk about the subject, the typical comments are made. In an interview with an officer of the McGehee Police Department in McGehee, Arkansas, the officer’s comments were of the same nature. He said that no matter how small or how big, corruption was the illegal way of personal gain. However, he stated that gratuities to the whole department such as free drinks at the local pizza place were not considered corruption because it benefited the entire police force. Although the good cops do not necessarily condone the misuse of power by the corrupt officers, the brotherhood of law enforcement officers keeps them from condemning the illegal acts. The good cops usually look the other direction and rarely stop the wrongful behavior. By not exposing the corrupt, officers who do not break the law are in fact corrupt (http://www.copcrimes.com/homepage.html, 2002). Actual Crimes In 1997, six former law officers from Texas were indicted on drug trafficking and corruption charges for smuggling more than 1700 pounds of marijuana into the country. In July 1994, Hidalgo County Sheriff Brig Marmolejo Jr. was sentenced to seven years in federal prison for taking $151,000 in bribes for allowing a drug trafficker to have special privileges in jail. Also that year, a federal investigation in nearby Zapata County resulted in drug-related convictions of the former county judge, sheriff and county clerk. In 1995, former Hidalgo County Judge J. Edgar Ruiz and several other county officials were indicted on charges of awarding county business to favored companies for more than $30,000 in kickbacks. (Arrillaga, 1997) Near Fort Smith, Arkansas a woman named Pat Eymer, mother of three, was shot once in the shoulder when a group of officers broke down the door of her trailer home. Ms. Eymer -- whose children, ages thirteen, four, and four months, all witnessed the shooting -- was holding her four year-old daughter in her arms when she was shot. Ms. Eymer's thirteen year-old daughter passed out after seeing her mother shot. The .45 caliber hollow-point bullet destroyed most of the bone in Ms. Eymer's right shoulder. She is listed in stable condition, but is not expected to re-gain much use of her arm. No guns or weapons of any kind were found in the home. The other three adults present, Ms. Eymer's husband, her cousin James Hinkle, and his friend Tammy Bedwell, were charged with "possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and use of a police radio in the commission of a felony." Mr. Hinkle, however, claims that there was nothing illegal in the home and that the evidence against them was planted by police. (http://www.copcrimes.com/arkansas.htm, 2002) In Houston, Texas, internal affairs Sgt Adres Reza and his girlfriend were arrested and charged with the kidnapping of a Pasadena businesswoman. She was the wife of another Houston police officer. Reza stated that he could get away with the kidnapping because he was a police officer (http://www.civiliansdown.com/copcrimes%20page%201.htm, 2002). Laws Enforced by the United States Department of Justice Federal laws that address police misconduct include both criminal and civil statutes. These laws cover the actions of State, county, and local officers, including those who work in prisons and jails. In addition, several laws also apply to Federal law enforcement officers. The laws protect all persons in the United States (citizens and non-citizens). Federal Criminal Enforcement It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts "under color of law" even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Federal Civil Enforcement This law makes it unlawful for State or local law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. § 14141). The types of conduct covered by this law can include, among other things, excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, coercive sexual conduct, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. In order to be covered by this law, the misconduct must constitute a "pattern or practice" -- it may not simply be an isolated incident. The DOJ must be able to show in court that the agency has an unlawful policy or that the incidents constituted a pattern of unlawful conduct. However, unlike the other civil laws discussed below, DOJ does not have to show that discrimination has occurred in order to prove a pattern or practice of misconduct. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the "OJP Program Statute" Together, these laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from the Department of Justice. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d(c)). Currently, most persons are served by a law enforcement agency that receives DOJ funds. These laws prohibit both individual instances and patterns or practices of discriminatory misconduct, i.e., treating a person differently because of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. The misconduct covered by Title VI and the OJP (Office of Justice Programs) Program Statute includes, for example, harassment or use of racial slurs, unjustified arrests, discriminatory traffic stops, coercive sexual conduct, retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation, use of excessive force, or refusal by the agency to respond to complaints alleging discriminatory treatment by its officers. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 prohibit discrimination against individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability. (42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794). These laws protect all people with disabilities in the United States. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if he or she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all State and local government programs, services, and activities regardless of whether they receive DOJ financial assistance; it also protects people who are discriminated against because of their association with a person with a disability. Section 504 prohibits discrimination by State and local law enforcement agencies that receive financial assistance from DOJ. Section 504 also prohibits discrimination in programs and activities conducted by Federal agencies, including law enforcement agencies. These laws prohibit discriminatory treatment, including misconduct, on the basis of disability in virtually all law enforcement services and activities. These activities include, among others, interrogating witnesses, providing emergency services, enforcing laws, addressing citizen complaints, and arresting, booking, and holding suspects. These laws also prohibit retaliation for filing a complaint with DOJ or participating in the investigation.( http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs/polmis.htm, 2002) References Arrillaga, Pauline. (1997). Six law officers indicted on drug charges. Abilene Reporter-News. Available: http://www.reporter-news.com/texas97/corrupt092597.html Schmalleger, Frank. (2003). Criminal Justice Today: an introductory text for the twenty-first century. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. (2002, November). Analysis of Police Corruption, Available: http://www.cyberessays.com/politics/141.htm (2002, November). Addressing Police Misconduct. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/pubs/polmis.htm (2002, November). Internal Affairs / Something worse than a rogue cop, and Houston has it. Available: http://www.civiliansdown.com/copcrimes%20page%201.htm (2002, November). Copcrimes-Arkansas. Available: http://www.copcrimes.com/arkansas.htm (2002, November). Police brutality, the copcrimes homepage for law enforcement and government corruption. Available: http://www.copcrimes.com/homepage.html This page available at: |