Documents

Fluffing Up the Evidence0001

Description
An article about police deception.
Categories
Published
of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  In BadBlood:TheMoralStigmatizationofPaidPlasmaDonors, MartinKretzmannoutlinesthewaythatcommercialbloodplasmacenterslabeltheclientswhosellthemplasmaasdeviant.Althoughdonatingbloodandotherservicesmaybeconsideredaltruistic,sellingitrenderstheclientdiscreditable,andthisdefinitionisforcedontodonorsbythepoliciesandpracticesofthecenter sadministrativeandmedicalstaff.Kretzmanncomparesthetreatmentofpaidandunpaiddonors,theassumptionsimplicitlymadeabouttheirstatusandtheworthoftheirblood,andtheimplicationsthishasfortheidentitylabelsthatclientsassume.ThejudiciallabelingprocessisthefocusofLisaFrohmann s DiscreditingVictims AllegationsofSexualAssault:ProsecutorialAccountsofCaseRejections. Frohmanndiscussestheorganizationaldynamicsoftheprosecutor soffice,focusingonthewaysinwhichrapecasesandrapevictimsare typified, withthosedisplayingdiscrepant(thatis,individualized)featuresdiscredited.Complainantsaremadetofeeldeviantanddevaluediftheircasesdonotmoldtothenorm,andtheircasesaredroppedfromfurtherlegalpursuit.Thiscaseisparticularlyinterestingbecauseitistherapevictims,nottheoffenders,whoaremadetofeeldisvaluedbyinstitutionalprocessingassumptionsandprocedures.Therefore,individualsoperatingwithininstitutionalframeworksarelikelytobeaffectedbytheorganizationaldynamicsshapingtheseframeworks.Theyareeitherspurredtodevianceorlabeledasdeviantbytheirbureaucraticmechanisms. 16 P RTIV 15  FluffingUptheEvidenceandCoveringYourAss OnPoliceLying TOMBARKERANDDAVIDCARTER lying ndotherdeceptivepracticesareanintegralpartofthepoliceofficer sworkingenviromnent.AtfIrstblush,one sreactiontothisstatementmightberatherforthright.Policeofficersshouldnotlie.Ifyoucan ttrustyourlocalpolicewhocanyoutrust.However,aswithmostissuesthematterisnotthatsimple.Weareallawarethatpoliceofficerscreatefalseidentitiesforundercoveroperations.Weknowthattheymakefalsepromisestohostagetakersandkidnappers.Wealsoknowofficerswillstrainthetruthinordertosparethefeelingsofarrimevictimandhis/herlovedones.Policeofficersaretrainedtolieandbedeceptiveintheselawenforcementpractices.Theyarealsotrainedtousetechniquesofinterrogationwhichrequiredeceptionandevenoutrightlying.Policeofficerslearnmuchofthisinthepoliceacademy.Wheretheyarealsowarnedabouttheimproprietyofperjuryandtheneedtorecordallincidentsfullyandaccuratelyinallofficialreports.Therecruitlearnsthatallrulesandregulationsmustbeobeyed.He/shelearnsofthedangeroflyingtointernalaffairsorasupervisor.Therecruitistoldtobetruthfulinhisdealingswiththenoncriminalelementofthepublicinthatmutualtrustisanimportantelementinpolicecommunityrelations.OncetherecruitleavestheacademyandinsomedepartmentswhereofficersworkinthefIeldbeforeattendingrookieschool-theofficersoonlearnsfromhis/herpeersthatpolicelyingisthenormundercertaincircumstances.Ourpurposeistodiscussthepatternsoflyingwhichmightoccurinapo liceorganization,thecircumstancesunderwhichtheyoccur,andthepossibleconsequencesofpolicelying. From FluffingUptheEvidenceandCoveringYourAss :SomeConceptualNotesonPoliceLying, TomBarkerandDavidCarter, Deviant ehavior V.11,No.1, Taylor   Francis.Inc.,Washington,D.C.,pp.61-73,1990.Reprintedwithpermission. Allrightsreserved. 161   cceptedLying Certainformsofpolicelyingand/ordeceptionareanacceptedpartofpoliceofficers workingenvironment.Theliestoldiuthiscategoryareacceptedbythepoliceorganizationbecausetheyfulfilladefinedpolicepurpose.Administratorsandindividualpoliceofficersbelievethatcertainliesarenecessarytocontrolcrimeand arresttheguilty. Intheseinstances,theorganizationwillfreelyadmittheintenttolieanddefinetheactsaslegitimatepolicingstrategies.Onfacevalue,mostwouldagreewiththepolicethatliesinthiscategoryareacceptableandnecessary.However,atroublinganddifficultquestionis towhatextent,ifatallisit proper forlawenforcementofficialstoemploytrickeryanddeceitaspartoftheirlawenforcementpractices (Skolnick,1982,italicsadded)?Asweshallsee,theanswertothisquestionisnotsoeasy.Acceptableliesmaybeveryfunctionalforthepolicebutaretheyalwaysproper,moral,ethical,andlegal?Themostreadilyapparentpatternsof accepted policelyingarethedeceptivepracticesthatlawenforcementofficersbelievearenecessarytoperformundercoveroperationsordetectotherformsofsecretandconsensualcrimes.Policeofficersengagedintheseactivitiesmustnotonlyconcealtheirtrueidentitybuttheymusttalk,act,anddressoutofcharacter,fabricatingallkindsofstoriesinordertoperformtheseduties.OnecouldhardlyimaginethatFBISpecialAgentJosephPistonecouldhaveoperatedforsixyearsintheMafiawithoutthesubstantialnumberoflieshehadtotell(Pistone,1987).However,theoverwhelmingmajorityofundercoveroperationsarenotasglamorousnorasdangerousasworkingsixyearswiththeMafiaorotherorganizedcrimegroups.Themostcommonpoliceundercoveroperationsoccurinroutineviceoperationsdealingwithprostitution,bootlegging,gambling,narcotics,briberyofpublicofficials(e.g.ABSCAM,MILAB,BRILAB),andspngoperations.Thesedeceptivepracticesinundercoveroperationsarenotonlyacceptabletothelawenforcementcommunitybutconsiderednecessaryforundercoveroperationstobeeffective.Nevertheless,suchactivitiesarenotwithoutproblems.The DirtyHarry probleminpoliceworkraisesthequestionastowhatextentmorallygoodpolicepracticeswarrantorjustifyethically,politically,orlegallysuspectmeanstoachievelawenforcementobjectives(Klockars,1980).MarxalsoraisestheissuethatmanyofthetacticsusedbylawenforcementofficersinsuchrecentundercoveroperationsasABSCAM,MILAB,andBRILAB,policerunfencingorstingoperationsandanti-crimedecoysquadsmayhavelostsightof theprofounddifferencebetweencarryingoutaninvestigationtodetermineifasuspectis,infact,breakingthelaw,andcarryingitouttodetermineifanindividualcanbeinducedtobreakthelaw (Marx,1985:106).OneCongressmaninvolvedintheABSCAMcaserefusedthefirstofferofacashbribetoonlylateracceptthemoneyafterfederalagents,concludingthathewasanalcoholic,gavehimliquor(Marx,1985:104).Encouragingthecommissionofacrimemaybealegallyacceptedpolicepracticewhentheofficeractsasawillingvictimorhis/heractionsfacilitatethecommissionofacrimewhichwasgoingtobecommittedinthefirstplace.However,itispossiblefor encouragement toleadthesuspecttoraisethedefenseofentrapment.Accordingto  lack sLawDictionary entrapmentis theactofofficersoragentsofthegovernmentininducingapersontocommitacrimenotcontemplatedbyhim,forthepurposeofinstitutingacriminalprosecutionagainsthim (277).Forthedefenseofentrapmenttoprevailthedefendantmustshowthattheofficerorhis/heragenthasgonebeyondprovidingtheencouragementandopportunityforthecommissionofacrimeandthroughtrickery,fraud,orotherdeceptionhasinducedthesuspecttocommitacrime.Thisdefenseisraisedfarmoretimesthanitissuccessfulbecausethecurrentlegalcriteriontodetermineentrapmentiswhatisknownasthesubjectivetest.Inthesubjectivetestthepredispositionoftheoffenderratherthantheobjectivemethodsofthepoliceisthekeyfactorindeterminingentrapment(Skolnick,1982;Marx,1985;StittandJames,1985).Thismakesitextremelydifficultforadefendantwithacriminalrecordtoclaimthathe/shewouldnothavecommittedthecrimeexceptfortheactionsoftheofficer.The objectivetest ofentrapmentraisedbyaminorityoftheSupremeCourthasfocusedonthenatureofthepoliceconductratherthanthepredispositionoftheoffender(StittandJames,1985).Forexample,theobjectivetestprobablywouldexaminewhethertheproductionofcrackbyapoliceorganizationtouseinundercoverdrugarrestsisproperandlegal....Policeadministratorsarewellawareofthepossibilitythattheentireorganizationmaybelabeleddeviantbecauseofthedeviantactsofitsmembers.The rottenappletheory ofpolicecorruptionhasoftenbeenusedasanimpressionmanagementtechniquebypoliceadministratorswhoareawareofthispossibility(Barker,1977).Itiseasiertoexplainpolicedevianceasaresultofindividualaberrationsthanadmitthepossibilityofsystemicproblemsandinvitepublicscrutiny.However,candorandpublicscrutinymaybethebestwaytoinsurethatcorruptionandotherformsofpolicedeviancedonotoccurorcontinueinanorganization(seeCooperandBelair,1978).Thus,acceptedliesarethosewhichtheorganizationviewsashavingavi-ableroleinpoliceoperations.Thecriteriaforthelietobeacceptedis:Itmustbeinfurtheranceofalegitimateorganizationalpurpose.Theremustbeaclearrelationshipbetweentheneedtodeceiveandtheaccomplishmentofanorganizationalpurpose.Thenatureofthedeceptionmustbeonewhereinofficersandthemanagementstructureacknowledgethatdeceptionwillbetterservethepublicinterestthanthetruth.Theethicalstandingofthedeceptionandtheissueoflawappeartobecollateralconcerns.  6 PARTIVORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALDEVIANCE T XONOMYOFPOLI ELIES  FLUFFINGUPTHEEVIDENCEANDCOVERINGYOURASS 63   olerated ying Asecondcategoryofpoliceliesarethosewhicharerecognizedas lies bythepoliceorganizationbutaretoleratedas necessaryevils. Policeadministratorswilladmittodeceptionor notexactlytellingthewholetruth whenconfrontedwiththefacts.Thesetypesofsituationalor white liesaretrulyinthegrayareaofproprietyandthepolicecanprovidelogicalrationalesfortheiruse.Whenviewedfromanethicalstandpointtheymaybe wrong butfromthepoliceperspectivetheyarenecessary(i.e.,tolerated)toachieveorganizationalobjectivesordealwithwhatGoldsteinhastermedthebasicproblemsofpolicework(Goldstein,1977:9).Thebasicproblemsofpoliceworkarisefromthemythologysurroundingpolicework;e.g.,statutesusuallyrequireandthepublicexpectsthepolicetoenforceallthelawsallthetime,thepublicholdsthepoliceresponsibleforpreventingcrimeandapprehendingallcriminals,thepublicviewsthepoliceasbeingcapableofhandlingallemergencies,etc.(Goldstein,~977).Mostpoliceadministratorswillnotpubliclyadmitthattheydonothavetheresources,thetraining,ortheauthoritytodosomeofthedutiesthatthepubicexpects.Infact,manypoliceadministratorsandpoliceofficerslackingtheeducationandinsightintopoliceworkwouldbehardpressedtoexplainpolicework,particularlydiscretionarydecisionmakingtooutsidegroups.Theythereforeresorttoliesanddeceptiontosupportpolicepractices.Policeadministratorsoftendenythattheirdepartmentspracticeanythinglessthanfullenforcementofalllawsratherthanattempttoexplainthebasisforpolicediscretionarydecisionsandselectiveenforcement.Wecontinuallyattempttodealwithsocialproblemsthroughtheuseofcriminalsanctionsandlawenforcementpersonnel.Mandatorysentencingforalloffenderscommittingcertainfelonyandmisdemeanoroffensesisoftenseenasapanaceafortheseoffenses.Forexample,inrecentyearsmanypoliticallyactivegroupssuchasMothersAgainstDrunkDrivers(M.A.D.D.)havepressuredlegislatorsforstrongerlawswithmandatoryenforcementindrunkdrivingcases.However,theirsentimentincasesnotinvolvingaccidentsmaynotbesharedbythegeneralpublic(FormbyandSmykla,1984)orthepolice.OnecanonlyspeculateastothenumberofdiscretionarydecisionsstillbeingmadebypoliceofficersinDUIoffensesindepartmentswherefullenforcementistheofficialpolicy.OneoftheauthorslearnedofanindividualwhohadtwoDUIoffensesreducedandaskedapolicesupervisoraboutit.  arker ThechiefsaidthatallDUIsuspectsarechargedandthoseoverthelegalbloodalcohollevelneverhavethechargereduced.Infact,hesaidthisataM.A.D.D.meeting.Yet,Iheardthat(--)hadtwoDUIoffensesreduced. Supervisor Thatistrue,Tom.However,(--)ishelpinguswithsomedrugcases.M.A.D.D.maynotunderstandbuttheydonothavetomakedrugbusts.Thepointofnoteisthatthepolice,inresponsetopoliticalpressure,makeapolicyonDUIcasesandvowthatthepolicywillbefollowed.However,inthiscase,thatvowwasnottrue.ThepolicemadeadiscretionaryjudgementthattheassistanceoftheDUIoffenderindruginvestigationswasofgreaterimportancethanaDUIprosecution.Thus,thispolicydeviationwastantamounttoalietotheM.A.D.D.membership-alietoleratedbythepolicedepartment.Thepublicalsoexpectsthepolicetohandleanydisorderlyoremergencysituations.TheAmericanpublicbelievesthatoneofthemethodsforhandlinganyproblemis callingthecops (Bittner,1972).However,inmanyoftheseordermaintenancesituationsthepolicedonothavetheauthority,resources,ortrainingtodealwiththeproblem.Theyoftenfaceasituation wheresomethingmustbedonenow yetanarrestisnotlegallypossibleorwouldbemoredisruptive.Theofficerisforcedtoreachintoabagoftricksforamethodofdealingwiththecrisis.Lyingtothesuspectsorthecomplainantsisoftenthatmethod.Forexample,...indomesticdisturbancespoliceofficersfacevolatilesituationswherethenecessaryconditionsforanarrestoftenarenotpresent.Frequentlythereisamisdemeanorwheretheofficerdoesnothaveawarrant,anoffensehasnotbeencommittedinhis/herpresence,andtheincidentoccurredinaprivateresidence.However,theofficermayfeelthatsomethingmustbedone.Consequently,theofficermaylieandthreatentoarrestoneorbothcombatants,ortakeoneofthepartiesouttothestreetorthepatrolcartodiscusstheincidentandarrestthemfordisorderlyconductorpublicintoxicationwhentheyreachpublicproperty.Anotheroptionistomakeanarrestandlieaboutthecircumstancesinordertomakethearrestappearlegal.Obviously,thelatterstrategywillnotbeatoleratedpatternoflying.Itwouldfallintothepatternofdeviantlyingtobediscussedlater.Officerssoonlearnthattheinterrogationstageofanarrestisanareawherecertainliesaretoleratedandeventaughttopoliceofficers.ThenowfamousMirandav.ArizonacasedecidedbytheU.S.SupremeCourtin1966quotedexcerptsfromInbauandReid s CriminalInterrogationandConfession texttoshowthatthepoliceuseddeceptionandpsychologicallycoercivemethodsintheirinterrogationofsuspects(George,1966:155-266).Thelatesteditionofthissametextgivesexamplesofdeceptiveandlyingpracticesfor...skilledinterrogatorstoengagein(Inbau,Reid,Buckley,1986).Asanillustrationofthesetechniques...thebooknotesthataneffectivemeanstointerrogatemultiplesuspectsofacrimeis playingoneoffenderagainsttheother. Inthisregarditissuggestedthatthe interrogatormaymerelyintimatetooneoffenderthattheotherhasconfessed,orelsetheinterrogatormayactually tell theoffenderso (emphasisadded,p.132).Thisattitude,whichisborneinthefrustrationsofmanyofficers,setsadangerousprecedentforattitudesrelatedtocivilliberties.Whenlawenforcementofficersbegintotolerateliesbecauseitservestheirends-regardlessoftheconstitutionalandethicalimplicationsofthoselies-thenfundamentalelementsofcivilrightsarethreatened.  6 PARTIVORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALDEVIANCE FLUFFINGUPTHEEVIDENCEANDCOVERINGYOURASS 65   eviantPolice ies Thelastexampleraisesthepossibilityofthethirdcategoryofpolicelyingdeviantlies.Afterall he(thesuspect)canliethroughhisteeth.Whynotus? Deviantpoliceliesarethosewhichviolatesubstantiveorprocedurallawand/orpolicedepartmentrulesandregulations.Thedeviantlieswhichviolatesubstantiveorprocedurallawareimproperandshouldnotbepermitted.However,organizationmembers(includingsupervisors),andotheractorsinthecriminaljusticesystemareoftenawareoftheiroccurrence.NoteddefenseattorneyAlanDershowitzstatesthatpolicelyingiswellknownbyactorsinthecriminaljusticesystem.Heclearlyillustratestheseasthe RulesoftheJusticeGame. Inpart,therulesinclude:RuleIV:AlmostallpolicelieaboutwhethertheyviolatedtheConstitutioninordertoconvictguiltydefendants.RuleV:Allprosecutors,judges,anddefenseattorneysareawareofRuleIV.RuleVI:ManyprosecutorsimplicidyencouragepolicetolieaboutwhethertheyviolatedtheConstitutioninordertoconvictguiltydefendants.RuleVII:AlljudgesareawareofRuleVI.RuleVIII:Mosttrialjudgespretendtobelievepoliceofficerswhotheyknowarelying.RuleIX:AllappellatejudgesareawareofRuleVIII,yetmanypretendtobelievethetrialjudgeswhopretendtobelievethelyingpoliceofficers.(Dershowitz,11983:xxi-xxii).Thismaybeanextremeposition.However,othercriminaldefenseattorneysbelievethatthepolicewilllieincourt.Infact,onestudyconcludedthat thepossibilityofpoliceperjuryisapartoftheworkingrealityofcriminaldefenseattorneys (Kittel,1986:20).Fifty-sevenpercentof277attorneyssurveyedinthisstudybelievedthatpoliceperjurytakesplaceveryoftenoroften(Kittel,1986:16).Policeofficersthemselveshavereportedthattheybelievetheirfellowofficerswilllieincourt(Barker,1978).AnEnglishbarristerbelievesthatpoliceofficershaveperjuredthemselvesonanaverageofthreeoutoftentrials(WoIchover,1986). AI; partoftheresearchforthischapter,oneoftheauthorsaskedanInternalAffairs(IA)investigatorofamajorU.S.policedepartmentaboutofficerlying: Carter DuringthecourseofIAinvestigations,doyoudetectofficerslyingtoyou? I Investigator Yes,allthetime.They lllieaboutanything,everything. Carter Whyisthat? I Investigator TotellmewhatIwanttohear.Tohelpgetthemoutoftrouble.Tomakethemselvesfeelbetter-rationalizingIguess.They resousedtolyingonthejob,Iguessitbecomessecondnature.Ananalysisofdeviantliesrevealsthattheintentoftheofficerintellingdeviantliesmaybeeitherinsupportofperceivedlegitimategoals,orillegitimategoals.DeviantLiesinSupportofillegitimateGoalsLiesinthiscategoryaretoldtoeffectanactofcorruptionortoprotecttheofficerfromorganizationaldisciplineorciviland/orcriminalliability.Deviantliesmaybemanifestinpoliceperjuryastheofficermisrepresentsmaterialelementsofanarrestorsearchinorderto fix acriminalprosecutionforamonetaryreward.Lyingand/orperjuryincourtisanabsolutenecessityindepartmentswherecorruptactsoccuronaregularbasis.Soonerorlatereverypoliceofficerwhoengagesincorruptactsorobservescorruptactsonthepartofotherofficerswillfacethepossibilityofhavingtolieunderoathtoprotecthim/herselforfellowofficers.  7 FLUFFINGUPTHEEVIDENCEANDCOVERINGYOURASS DeviantLiesinSupportofPerceivedLegitimateGoalsThedeviantliestoldbytheofficertoachieveperceivedlegitimategoalsusuallyoccurto putcriminalsinjail, preventcrime,andperformvariousotherpolicingresponsibilities.Thepoliceofficerbelievesthatbecauseofhis/heruniqueexperiencesindealingwithcriminalsandthepubliche/sheknowstheguiltorinnocenceofthosetheyarrest(Manning,1978).Frequendy,officersfeelthiswayindependendyofanylegalstandards.However,thefinaldeterminationofguiltorinnocenceisintheJudicialSystem.Theofficer(s),convincedthatthesuspectisfactuallyguiltyoftheoffense,maybelievethatnecessaryelementsoflegalguiltarelacking,e.g.,noprobablecausefora stop, noMirandawarning,notenoughnarcoticsforafelonyoffense,etc.Therefore,theofficerfeelsthathe/shemustsupplythemissingelements.Onepoliceofficertoldoneoftheauthorsthatitisoftennecessaryto fluffuptheevidence togetasearchwarrantorinsureconviction.Theofficerwillattesttofacts,statements,orevidencewhichneveroccurredoroccurredinadifferentfashion.Obviouslywhenhe/shedoesthisunderoath,perjuryhasthenbeencommitted.Onceamatterofrecord,theperjurymustcontinuefortheofficertoavoidfacingdisciplinaryactionandevencriminalprosecution.Theseliesarerationalizedbytheofficerbecausetheyarenecessarytoensurethatcriminalsdonotgetoffon technicalities. Acentralreasonforthesedeviantliesisofficerfrustration.Thereisfrustrationwiththecriminaljusticesystembecauseoftheinabilityofcourtsandcorrectionstohandlelargecaseloads.Frustrationwithroutinizedpracticesofpleanegotiationsandintricatecriminalprocedureswhichtheofficermaynotfullyunderstand.Theofficerseesthevictimsofcrimesandhasdifficultyinreconcilingtheharmdonetothemwiththewidearrayofdueprocessprotectionsaffordedtodefendants.Nevertheless,theofficerhasfalleninto theavengingangelsyndrome wheretheendjustifiesthemeans.Theofficercaneasilyrationalizelyingandperjurytoaccomplishwhatisperceivedtobethe rightthing. Theofficer sviewsareshort-sightedandprovincial.Thereisnorecognitionthatsuchbehaviorisathreattocivillibertiesandthatperjuryisasfundamentallyimproperasthecriminalbehavioroftheaccused. PARTIVORGANIZATIONAL INSTITUTIONALDEVIANCE  
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks