Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al
Filing
497
DECLARATION in Support re: 495 MOTION to Preclude Expert Testimony.. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Expert Report, # 2 Exhibit B Deposition Excerpts, # 3 Exhibit C Deposition Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit D Under Seal, # 5 Exhibit E Email Chain Between Counsel, # 6 Exhibit F Justice Quarterly Article, # 7 Exhibit G Under Seal, # 8 Exhibit H Under Seal, # 9 Exhibit I Under Seal, # 10 Exhibit J Transcript, # 11 Exhibit PTX 66 Under Seal, # 12 Exhibit PTX 81 Part I, # 13 Exhibit PTX 81 Part II, # 14 Exhibit PTX 93 Arbitration Award, # 15 Exhibit PTX 159 Patrol Guide)(Scheiner, Alan)
Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 021L3/15 Page 34 o172
(29)
t,hat. many smaII c).tques (ofl-en revolving around common age or
ebhnf c fdentlty) have emerged, and Ehe facb thab fewer officer's
atb.errd preclñcL, : parbfes, or ob.her funcBlons. Several
part,ictpaãUs suggesbäd bhat t.hls fracb.ionalizabion has lmpacted
ðfflcer- safety, since an off--duby officer may nob be recognlzed
by of f lcers wi bhln his or her o'.{n conrnand, Several
parL.icipants also suggesLed that: bhe steady Lour concepb. mâT
iacilitat.e cor.rr-iption, since work groups are smaller and
and therefore less amenable bo supervisory
"tighter",
intervention and bhe deEecLio¡r of misconduct. The emergence of
close-knib cliques may also facilitate corruption and inhibib
it,s discovery by foslering secrecy and creaLing an implicif- or
explicii expecLabion of probecLion by ob.her clique members. ln
geñeraI, the parLicipanLs reporl-ed a deep divisiveness wiLhin
bhe culLure, and widespread dissabisfacliion wibh the impact.
the steady tour concepL has had upon the cultural environment.
nlbhough Èhe parbicipanbs voiced dissirtisfacl-ion wit,h the
impact of the sbeady t.our concepb, E,hey also agreed thab bheir
privabe lives were impact,ed in a positive tvay. They
recommended t.Lrat some aLbernative to Lhe sbeady tour concept be
implemenl-ed. fn partÍcular, they recommended bhat a "scootex
chàrt" be available but. ernphasizecì thab it should be "orì a
volunt.ary basis",
The Capbai.ns yrere asked to describe .the most signif icanh
charrge occurring vribhin Lhe Deparbment during t,he course oE
their c'areers. They responded wibh a variety of trends and
issues, including l-lre fact. bhab younger of f icers today have
Iess loyalty to the Departmenl- and i-hat t-hey do not feel that
they should have to "pay b,heir dues" before abtaining a choice
assignment. The Capbains saw a general decline in the level
and quali by of f irsb.-1i,ne supervísion, a f acL Lhey abtribubed
Iargely to younger and less experienced Sergeant.s who lack Lhe
capaciLy or interest to enforce discipline. rhe Capbains, Iike
other groups before them, believed EhaL many Sergeants have
become overly friendly r+ibh l-he off icers lhey supervÍser bo bhe
deLriment of t,he Deparl-ntent and i l-s overall leveJ of
discipj-ine. Furl-her, I-hey felt bhat Lhe first-Iine supervisors
are relieved of a greab deal of responsibili ty and
decision-making by procedures which ::equire the Duty Captain Lo
respond bo situabions which should be handled by Lhe supervisor
ab bhe scene. The on-scene supervisor should make bhe
decisions in mosb. of bhese j.nstances, and he/she should be held
The trerrd to increase the
accountable for them.
responsibitibies of Duty Capbains has reÌieved Sergeants of a
greaL. deal of åccounbabÍIiLy, placing iL instead upon Capl-ains.
Case 1-:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/L3/15 Page 35 of 72
(30)
one cap[afn sLabed thah. offlcers lack the sense of
Irumor requlred to be an ef fecbf ve cop, and that t,hey do not
enJoy thefr uork. Pollce work, he sald, ls supposed to be fun.
Several Capbalns belleved bhat bhe implemenLabÍon of CommunÍb.y
PoLiclng occurred too rapidly, and withoub proper planning. Ab
p5esenb, CPU of f icers reap aII bhe reward.ç, while of f icers
ãssigned t.o seclors are being neglected and overworked'
that. officers applying for Narcobics
posibions should firsb be assigned Lo
Divislon undercover
precincb, SNEU unibs for ninel-y (90) days, âfid evaluabed there.
SNEU Sergeanbp should also receive OCCB l-raining.
One Cap[aln suggested
Case 1:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
(3t
Filed 02/1-31L5 ?age 3Ç of 72
¡
rsSun # 2 DePartme-nt Value,s
euestions r./ere designed bo elicit ¡:e.sponses concerning bhe
pãrbici¡>ant's YerP asked about bhelr
neparãment. VaLues ,
in
k;;;iedge of Deparbment Values, applicabiliby of bhe valueswas
it
and whebher 'values.
ïh; OaíIy pertormance of their duby,
reasonabLe tò expect PoIice oificers Lo adhere to these
tr,âs quite dÍsconcerbing Eo flnd out that many
It
parbicipants *ðre ignorant of the Department Values - There
**ru other participanÉs..who indicabed a vague recollection that
à vrl.u*s ståtement was posbed Ín various Deparl-nre¡tt facilities,
col'¡hents of bhe
ánA only a fetr '..¡ere àctr.rally av¡are of the are preparing for
Even officers stating bhab Ehey
sbabemenÈ.
fne Sergeants eXam generally were una'¡lare of t'he Departmenb
resbale
Values. In every sessíon j.l vras rìecessary tothe VaLuesEhe
in
post a sample of
Values and in latel sessions to
topic' It should be
order to stimulate discussion on this
noLed ilrab. groups ín Round Three (3) (poLtce offÍcers assigned
r'rere knowledgeable of
to FTU ¡ s ánd the PoI ice Academy ) (2) groups.from Lhe Police
óãpartmenU Va1ues. In facb, the Lwo
ÁcãOu*y reJate that Depart-ment Values are recited each day at
the beginning of the gYm Period.
once the Department values ,,{ere statedr each grolP
concluded thaL it was reasonable bo expecb every member of the
service to adhere to them. Many participants felb bhese
Va].ues Here imparted to them early in their developmental
sEages by parenbsl beachers, reì.igious leaders and others. The
groúps afsð believed that the vasb majorÍby of Police _OffÍcers
ãnteied the profession rvith these values inbact, while a few
members entered the Departmenb with a complebe lack of values.
The groups unanimously felL [hat Po]-ice Àcademy training cannoL
instÍIl values that are not presenb in bhe individual prior to
hire. Police Academy training was seen as perfunctory. in
regards to ethics relal!ed t-opj.cs; Yet, l-he parbicipants
inãicaLed Lheir belief bhai training cannot develop vaLues
where none previously existedThere were Some members who quesLio¡red the purpose Of
sbabing and posting Departmenb Values. Many parbicipanbs
believed that Lhe DepartmenL Values sbatement. is an exLension
of a public relations canrpaign designed to acìdress community
concerñs. These same officers concl-uded Lhat. the Departmenb
meaning in l-heir decision making process.
Val-ues have li|tle
Case
1
:
l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/1-3/15 Page 37 ol72
(32)
Conbroversy and crlbicism concerning Departnent Values
arose when some parbfcfpanbs expressed what they believed b.a¡ be
conEradlctlons beLween polfcy and pråcbice' slhile Departmenb
values stabe'Lhat we wÍ1I "...aggressiveIy pursue vfolators of
the Iawr" in pracLtce, selective enforce¡nent curtails what are
generally considered aggressive Iaw enforcement efforbs.
References to overbime constrainLs were used to illusLrabe a
perceived nobion tha! an aggressÍve law enforcement policy is
secbndary Lo nronet,ary conside::at,ions.
Tbe maJorit,y opinion vras bhab the public is unaware of h,he
comple.xities of poì.icing in Ner+ York City and expressed bhe
need for public educabion on b,his issue. Generally, bhe
participanLs were supportive of the Deparl-rnent's "NEt+ YORK crTY
coPS CARE¡' adverbising campaign and expect it r+ill have l-ong
term posi bíve ef fecb.s ,
L
Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/l-3l1-5 Paqe 38 pÍ 72
f'
(33)
# 3 DegartmprrL-Drug TesLinq-PoltcI
In discussing bhe Department, s drug tesblng pollcy,
quesbions t+ere pi'epared bhab would assist ln det,erminlng
unclertylng feeliñgs concernfng bhe admlnistrabion of bhe DoIe
,iãst,. ' pãrticipants were asked aboub b'heir knowledge of
Departmenb proðedures, the reasonabLeness of the current
pa¡iicy, their satisfacl:ion with safeguards and b.heÍr opinÍons
tonceining enbry bests, tests for cause, and random b'est's.
fn bhe early stages of each FoCus Group discussion it lras
evident that Èhere were many misconcepllons aþout t'he
Department, s drug test.ing policy. - ...Pårticipants did not,
unåerstand termõ Such ai "rándom" and "for cause, "
l4isinformation aboub Iaboratory procedures and handling of
evidence clouded tlre discussion. A brÍef synopsis of bhe
Department,s poliey vlas Pl'esenbed to clarify issues and move
ISSUE
bhe discussion along
Each of the Focus Groups displayed an inLol-erance of drug
use by members of t,he service. Their position Has strongly
stated Lhat the Department, should do all it can to seek oub
members who use drugs and remove bhem fron PolÍce service.
Their positions Here firm on terminating any ¡nember, regardJ-ess
of reaion and seniolity, who uses drugs. Sone members believe
that the Department, príor to terminaEion, should offer
rehabilibabion to any mernber using drugs. Upon completion of a
program, however, bhe member's services ShOuld be Eerminat.ed.
À small minority of parL.icipants suggesLed thab pension righÈs
should be preserved for members so qualifÍed.
À, Entrv Level- Tests- - Drug screeninq bests for police
applicants lras overwhelmingly accepted by each Focus Group.
paiticipanbs felt thab applicanbs should be subjecbed lo
multiple random test,s prior to being hired. The current
procedure r+here an appJ.icanb is notified weeks in advance that
he/sl:e is scheduled for a medical- examinalion which íncludeb a
Many participanLs felb
drug screening tesb, was crÍtÍcized.
that prior recreabional drug use should aul-omat-icatly preclude
an applicant from being hired.
Drug screening Lesbs used as a prelude Lo promotion or
enb.ry inLo a specialized unit ç¡as also widely accepbed as
members continued Lo Voice opposition wibh working wibh anyone
who uses i)-tegal drugs. This opposition to drug use by other
members derived bobh from individual safety concerns¡ âs well
as from Lhe frequentLy sbated position that PoLice Officers
Case l-:l-é-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02l13/l-5 Page 39 ot 72
( 34 )
should be a "cut above" Lhe general
lmmersed ín Lhe drug culb,ure'
public,
t+ho
are vlewed as
For Cause Tests - Drug screeni.ng bests for cause met tuith
unanimous approval by each of t.he Focus Groups. t'Jhile some
group memìrers st.ab.ed L.hab a Level of proof less than reasonable
suspicion should be used Lo order a test, other mernbers were
concerned about Lhe violation of individual righLs. Albhough
B,
t,he protection of Police officers'righbs Has an issue
ih,
seemed that t,he group's hard stance of "zeto tolerance"
oubweighed bheir concern aboub a violabion of an individual's
There r.rere a fer+ instances, however, where
righLs.
paibicipants felE thaL an unchecked syslem of "for cause"
LestÍng would lead to other violations of indÍvidual rights by
the DeÞartmenb,
Random Tests, - Their nisinLerpretation of t,he random
C.
besting procedures not withsbanding, each grCIup supported
randorn drug screenÍng tesLs. Group concerns Here centered on
bhe possibilÍty of human error and false posiLives in the
{:esting process. Those members who have been subjecLed to
random tesl-ing al-1 sEab.ed they Ì4ere sabisfied wibh the
Department's ef forts to maint.ain proper cusLody and lrandling of
sarnples. Iraboratory procedures however, r.Iere gues tioned and
confidence in lab technicians were at Lhe hearb of their
concern. An on-sÍbe lab tesL wiLh rapid resulLs was suggested
by a few group members. Tire individual would be informed of
t.he resulbs and if bhere were an ypr oblems (a claÍm of a false
positive) addibional LesL.s coul dbe performed [o resolve the
issue. Each group suggesbed ani ncrease in bhe number of
random tes[s.
The suggesEe di ncrease ranged from 25t
(currenbly the DeparEment L,esbs 20+) to 100*.
Suggesbions were made bo conduct random Lesting in t.he
fÍeld rabher Lhan at Health Services. The suggestion was for
HeaIt,h Services bo randomly select a command and a plaboon
wÍthin that cornmand for testing. Personnel would be tested
during roll- cal.I v¡ibh a minimum disruphion of pabrol
capabilities.
Albhough Lhese suggestions musb be evaLuat.ed againsb many
,
different standards, Lhe sb::ong stance againsb drug use and thè
suggesLions to increase bhe number of random tesLs is more
signif icanb l-lran bhe m'ebhods suggested. rL is recommended Lhab
informaLion concerning bhe randomness of þesbing, the chain of
cusLody and besl-ing procedures, and b.he resuLts of drug Lest.s
be more r+ide1y dÍsseminated [hroughout the Departmenb. To
Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
(35
Filed 02l13ll-5
fug"
$A of 72
)
altay bhe PoIiee Offfcerst sttspiclons about the accuracy of
laboiatory testLng and bhe poLenLlaI for nrlsidentlfylng
samples t a brief video presen[at.ion slrould be vÍewed by all
The presentation can be made ab
Pollce OffÍcers,
braining and can be repeab.ed ab Healbh
Borough Based
Services prior bo Lhe adminisLr:aLÍon oE a drug sereening besb.
The video should contain up-Lo-date informabion about drug
screenlng test-s and can be used in conj.uncblon w!bh other
braining currently beÍng consÍdered by Lhe Drug Prevenhion lask
Force
-
To a greaÞer exLenb [han had been found in Focus Groups
comprised oË Iess-tenured of f i cers, the parbicipal;ing
LieuLenants were oÊ bhe strollg opinion thab pension righbs
should be preserved for bhose lnembers r^lit.h l-wenby (20) years of
service who Lesb posÍtive in the'random drug besting Prograh.
t4oreover, several parCicipanbs were of the opinion bhab. a drug
rehabÍlitation program, similar bo t-he programs currently
available to members who abuse al-cohol, should be available to
Regardless of whether these members are
drug users.
subseguenbly dismissed or retained, several f,Íeutenants
believed Lhat drug rehabiLitation should be made avaÍIable.
Their opinion regarding the preservaLion of pension righLs
seems to be reflective of a general trend among more-tenured
officers regardless of rank: perhaps because they have a
greater investment in bheir pension and 'theÍr career, bo[h
financially and in terms of Lheir years of service, older
officers Lend to be more concerned wibh bhe possibiLity of
)-osing Lheir vesLed pension rights. As a corollary, bhe older
officers concurrenbly arbiculate less faibh in the pobenbiaJdeberrent effecb of harsh sanctions for drug abuse than do
younger officers.
WiUh regard to the Þepartmentfs drug Lesting policies, all
the parbicipanbs of bhe Captains Focus Group agreed Lhat the
process was basically sound, bub mosE índÍcated thab, the number
or percentage of officers l-ested under the random procedure
should be increased. SeveraÌ parbicipants also favored the
developmen{- of a drug rehabilitabion po}icy prior bo disnissa},
and a few indicated bhab members shoul-d be given one chance l-o
enber a rehabiliLation program and remain in the enrploy of Lhe
DeparL,ment. No second chance should be afforded to drug
users. Consistenb wit,h bheir tenure and the trend observed
among other tenured officers, several members of bhis group
also bended to favor a guarantee of pension rights, albhough
others Jn the group \4ere in adarnanL oppqsition to pension
retenlion. They appeared l-o be about equally divided on this
Case 1-:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/1-3115 Page 4L ot 72
(36)
The parblclpanLs also lndtcabed that, lncreased
lssue.
unannounced rañdom screenlng of candldabes should bake place
durf ng,b.he appllcant invesllgatlon plocess; they observed Ehat.
the current þractice of schedullng medleaL exarns up to one (1)
monEh {n advance mlght permfb some candidabes enough
forewarning þo t'clean bñemselves up'r prlor to t'he test. The
Capl:ains also proposed Lhab large groups of of f icers be
randornly tesbed en masse, perhaps testing enLÍre plaboons
within a. precinct, or v¿hile officers abbend the Outdoor Range.
They evinced no concern, cynicism or difficult.y with the
procedural aspecbs of the current policy'
The Focus Group consisbing of members of the Guardians was
also gueried as to lbheir opinions regardíng the reasonableness
of bhe Depart.menb/ s drug tesLilrg procedures. The parbicipants
generalLy agreed that office:cs who are detected using drugs
should 'be l-erminated, regardless of the seniority or prior
disciplÍnary record. Àboub one quarh,er - (,1 / 4) of Lhe
parhÍcipants in t,his group sbated thab not,wit'hsbanding the
termlnatÍon policy, bhe pension rights of mernbers who had
achÍeved twenty (20) years tenure in bhe agency should be
preserved. The participanEs voiced numerous concerns thab Lhe
DeparLmenL does not. follow its own procedures in many drug
test,ing cases¡ specifically in regard 't,o the chaÍn of custody
for urine samples. Part.icipants recounted Íncldents in which
bhey alleged that urine samples had been Lefb unabtended for
several hours on a vrindow silÌ, and fernal'e officers who were
permibEed Lo provide bheir sample while unobs'erved. Other
participants stated thaE t.he Organized Crime ConLrol Bureau did
nob always adhere to it.s own detoxification and sick leave
policies regarding undercover officers who were forced Lo
ingesb a controlled subsbance. These. offícers were allegedly
tol.d to eonb inue in hheÍr undercover act,ivi ties $o bhat
on-going cases reould nob be compromised, and it was alleged
t.haI ab ]easb one (1) such undercover off icer vras subsequent,Iy
fired for drug use afber having been inÍbÍalIy refused
detoxification treabment by the Department. Ib musb. be
emphasized that with l-he excepL,ion of general concerns aboub
chain of ctrstody, previous þ-ocus Groups raised none of bhese
issues. T)re participants aLso conbended L,)rab the random drug
tesbing procedures are not truly random, and asserted bhat
minoriLy individuals have been singled out for besbing wibhoub
cause, under'bhe guise of random selection. ParLicipants also
evinced a bel,ief bhat whibe superior officers have been
notified in advance of an impending random l-est, and have been
perrnitt,ed to guietly retire prior to testing. fn general., bhe
particÍpants appeared to believe thab both the random and
Case 1-:1-0-cv-Ô6005-RWS Document
400-3
(37
Filed 02ll-3/L5 Page 42 ol72
)
"fgr cause" drug Eestlng policfes are regularìy used Lo barget
tles, and that a L.acit double sbandard exisbs '
Me¡nbers of i:he pol lcewonen's Endotr'ment Àssoclatlon Focus
Group concurred with members oi Þrevlous Focus Groups in
asserting bhat the use of iIIici b drugs ìry rnembers of the
seuvice cannob be condoned or bolerated, and [haþ Lhe
Depart,llcnL ¡ s currenb di:ug f e-cting pclic'¡ requires litl'-le or no
modif ication.
Severa] members of l-he group indícabed a belief
bhat the current pollcy does not adeguaLely address Lhe prob)-em
of anabol-ic steroid use, and tlrey believed bhaL alcohoÌ abuse
is a far greaber and more peÍvasive proÞlem than drug abuse.
Às ã group, Èhey ;n,3irrb¿ined lhet the number or percenbage of
menbers tesbad urìder Lile F.anCorn Dole TestÍng prccedure should
be lncreased , and [hal the DepartmenL shou]d [est for steroid
use ås t"lel L a,s f çr tbe rnÕre cúrnrron nar-cot ic drugs. In
part Ìcular, t!ris gror-ì p felt hhat younger officers should be
LesLed more frequently du ring their probationary çeriod,
To a
greaLer extenb than tJas evidenE in other groups, these
partfcipanLs bended bo supporL the concept of providtng drug
rehabilibatÍon for ntenbers prÍor bo te¡minaL j.on for drug abuse.
?his group did nob, raise t,he issue of forced ingesbion of
narcob,ícs among meml¡ers assigned bo OCCB as the Guardians,
5'ocus Group had, but upon the project staff's inquiry they
stat,ed that in such sibuations some women may be reluctant to
report forced ingestion for fear that they would lose their
nrinorf
hard*xon
OCCB
assiç'nment.
Case 1-i1-0-cv-'06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02ll-3/15 Fage 43 ol72
(38)
# 4 neftnlng eolruÀtlon
fn
Focus Group partlcipanLs had some difflculby
pr-ecise def Ínilion of poJ.lce corrupblon. fhis
arbiculaLing a
dif f iculty árose- primarily frorr the facl that "corruption" {s a
fairly ambiguous herm r,rhich can be used in several con{-exts,
has mùf f iple ccnnobations, and i s of ben misLakenly egua{-ed wif:h
misconducb, as well as from Lhe facL thab ib deals wit'h ebhÍcal
articut aEed. Af ter
issues r+hich are of ben not, easily
carefutly guiding and sbrucL.uring l-he guesblons posed to the
group, thã faciiibators r{ere able Lo obl-ain a fairly debailed
understanding of the types of Þehavior police Officers consj.der
í:o Þe corru,ot, To achieve thi.s r¡nderstanding, Ehe parbicipants
r{ere asked 1-o provide exanpì.es of behavÍor thab r+ould and wou}d
noi, eonsLi bu'ce polÍce corrupf ion.
VirtuaIIy aII of the parh.icipants agreed t-hab' a PolÍce
Officer,s oommission of a criminal acE, as defined in bhe PenaL
Lavr, constltutes corruption. Further, they stated fhat any
behavior in which a PoIice officer acbively seeks a specific
personal gain or- benefit by virl,ue of the facb bhat he/she is a
PoIice Officer. cìearly constilutes corl:upbion. Officers bended
to agree bhab, the impS-icit or explici t expecbat.ion of
the quid pro quo - is a critical facLor in
reciprocity
debermÍning whebher an act is corrupt. Participanbs were quick
to address bhe issue of corrupbion by unanÍmously poinbÍng oub
that they do noL. believe bhe acceptance of a free or discounted
neal- is corrupLion. In the case of a free cup of "cof fee,
officers strongly agreed thaL a cup of coffee "freely given and
freely taken" is not corrupt.ion. \ihen, however, the of f icer
believes bhab lhe benefit is accompanied by some overt or
unstated expecbabion of reciprocity bhaE he/she rsilI or will
no[ do their job in return for the benefit - it becomes
The parbÍcÍpants cited bhe scenario of an
corrupt.
officer enLering an establÍshrnenI wÍt"lt no intention of paying
as an exampJ-e of corrupl-ion, but were less aCamant about
receiving a discounL Lhey had not expected or demanded, It is
well r-;orl-h rroting thaL the parLicipants evinced a.strong bel-ief
Lhat they were capable of comprehending r+hen an Ímplicit'
expecbation occu¡:red, and sLaLed {:hab they r.¡ould not. accept any
benefit under such circumsbances.
Parbicipanbs had great difficuì.Ly separaLinq an offer of
f ree cof f ee (or other repast ) in a social setb.ing and a
non-social se{:ting. Of ficers }rere unabLe b,o clearly see the
dífference between the two setbings.
to
References
ISsUE
CaSe l-:10-cv-G6005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/i-311-5
|ug" 4!
ot 72
(3e)
"frlendstrips" esbablfshed over a period of bime ldLrl:e used f:o
lIlusErate hhe bellef bhab free or dlscounhed meals Here
offered and accepted unencumbered.
It ls also r+ort,h nottng bhat mosb of the participanls were
unaware of Lhe Board of Ethics rullng regardinç a fr:ee cup oi
cof fee "and liqht repast" in a .social sebEing, çhey agreed
thaü this and any subsequenL rulings should be vigorously
disseminaEcd to mernbers of the se¡:vice. T'he ParbicipanIs also
stated'that bhe Inbernal Àffairs BurÊau should noE, be concerned
wibh these a¡rci obher "rùillor'r infracLions, t¡hich' crearry farr
oubside theÍr definition of corruPtion. Àtbhough Lhey Here
skeptical of the abilit.ies and t,he moEivabions of Int'ernal
.r-ffãÍrs Bureau inve.sbigators, the participanbs seemed to favor
t,he notion of z sf-ronq and ef f ective Tnt,ernal- Af falrs function
ç¡hiCh would corrcenl-rabe on "re.rl" corruptíon, rather than the
pe{:Ly ittfracbions yhich bhey beLie.red I','ere bhe nraln focus of
concern, In f-heir vievl, InLer:naI Affairs Bureau ínvesi;igators
have poor invesbigative skiLls and IiEbIe experience or regard
for officers on the street.
fn t,errns of providÍng an operational definition of
corruptÍon, {:he participanÈs in bhe ICO Focus Group generally
agreed vribh members of previous groups in asserbinq Uhab PoIice
Offieers can be considered corrupL rqhen bhey cornrniE criminal
acbs or use Lheir posibions and potters as Police OffÍcers to
obbain some subst.ant,ive personal benefiE. They did not consider
such minor acbs of deviance as accep[ing a free cup of coffee
bo const.i-but,e a corrul)b ac[, ålthough bhey agreed that such
behavior Has â violabion and migl:t, in some circumstances,
consliL.ube corrupbion. As uas evidenL in previous grouPs, the
ICO's believe thal the indivÍdua1 officer's inbent in accepbing
free coffee is a critical factor in their definition oi
corrupbion: they consider officers who acbivel.y pursue or
solicit free coffee or free or discounbed meals Lo be ebhically
compromised and' perhaps, in a t.echntcal sense, corrupt.
Nevert.heless, they do not apÞ\ear Lo feeÌ that such ethical or
lega] violabions are parl-icularly egfegÍous offenses.
The CaptaÌns broadly derfined corruption in terms of an
officer t.aking someLhing bo l+hich l-hey are nob enLitIed, and
I-hey favored a fai.rly subjective sLandard in evaluat.ing
rçhether an acl such as free coffee is corrupb. Each incident
should be judged, they saidr or its individual merits and the
f acLuaI cÍrcurnsf:ances surroundinq lhe sj LuaLion, and bhe
specific inb.ent of the officer should be assesseline for ninOr administrative
infractions.
Of f icers are concerrred Lhat. l-he.se notations
remain on {:heir CentraÌ Persol¡rel- Index fi}e and rnay be used L,o
unf airl.f derry them debail assigrrrnen{-s or promotions. Some
characEerized "UnSubstanl-iated" ca.se closutes as evidenCe of
ineffecbive fnLernaL AffaÍrs Bureau investigators and of
attempts to bolster performance i¡rdicabors, even tçhen a more
complete investigabion mighL resuLt in exonerat-ion. ÀÌbhough
Case 1:'1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 02/l-3/15 Page
5t ol72
(q6)
explalned thal: admlnlsIrative violaLion
pro)ecE staff
comþtalnts are no longer lssued by the Inl-ernaI ¡f falrs Bureau,
many parbicipants remalned skepti cal. They will belleve ib,
Þhey said, ''when Lhey see i b . "
rt Has evident bhaB Lrust p.Iays a pivoL'al role in an
ofíÍcerS, tlecÍsion to report corrr.rpl-ion. 0Êficj-aI arrd
anonymous feporbÍng apPears to be direcEly correlated bo tire
tevel of trust an individual has in Lhe Inl-ern¿l å.f fairs Br¡reau
and the confidenbiality of the reporbing system.
:':ci',,.¡i'chsbanding l-his essenbial caveaE, two ( 2 ) f requent
and endurÍng features of the poLice occupåEionaì culture which
have frequently been noled in connecbíon r,ribh corruption are
loyalty and secr-ecy. Tþe e'ciotogy of these f eatures are
exbremely complex, and Eheir dimension and boundaries can ¡g¿i¡1
be expecl-ed to vary over binte and in regard l.o specific
circumstances. Moreover, fhe }arger culture oubside lhe pOlice
agency provides supporb for loyaLby norms arnong peers Ín any
group/ and Lhe larger culture's anbÍpabhy toward informers and
"rabs" has also been imporLed into bhe occupabional culbure,
where bhe reallt,ies of policÇ work creaLe a crucible in r+hich
loyalty and secrecy noríns arefamplified and expanded. Loyalby
and secrecy norms in bhe polÍce occupational culture derive
frorn several sources, includl-ng the close physical proximit.y in
r^¡hich PoIice Of f icers frequently work for exbended periods, the
real and perceived dangers oÊ police work, and Lhe inevibable
social ísolation and alie¡'¡abion engendered by assurning the
police role in socieby.
These and ol-her for.ces conspire Lo create a st,rong sense
of mutuat interdependence and af f init.y arilong of ficers, and to
facilitate bhe creation of a poreerful loyalby eEhjc. In
Ítself, Lhe loyatby ethic is a highly funclional- and beneficial
abL.rÍbube r+hich usually conbributes significantly to the
org.anizab,ion, s pur5uib of legitimaie goals and objectives.
Taken bo the exLreme, hovrever, lhis Ioyalty Lo fellor'¡ of f icer.s
can conflicL wiLh a¡rd jn sorne cases ove:rr,¿hel.¡n the officer's
sense of loyalLy bo bhe organizabion and bo bhe rule of law.
rn the extreme, this misplaced }oyalby may induce some officers
to protecE other deviant officers from official discovery,
When confliet occurs between loyalby to bhe organization and
loyalty to fellorv officers, bhe inforrnal subcul[.ura] ebhic may
prevai I,
and sorne of f icers rnay cLose rarìks behind the
proverbial "blue wall. of silence".
Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document
400-3
Filed 0211-3/1-5 ?ug" 52 o'n72
\zrl
IU should be emphasized LhaL. the prevalence and scope o!
L.he 'rblue'waII" of sècrecy are f requenbly overstabed by casual
oÉu"rrr"t" of police culture, 'parblcularly by f;hose whose
critlcaL orlenË.ation or agenda overpôwers their obiectívlEyTìrese crilics are usualty either lgnora-nt of Or unconcerned
vribh t.he positive and fu¡rctional aspecLs of loyalby _and it's
cont.¡:ihr¡tioñ [o the aì:t.ailr:nent oi IegibÍmaEe çoals. Too
unrestraineci or draconia¡r ef forts tc
f requenIly perhaps r
-tfreoccásional elnergence of . exceSsÍve seclecy has
desbroy
unforeieen deleberious impact upon the toyalty ethic, and
ultimaLely both bhe organizal-ion and t-lre public suffers the
A more cogenb straLegy is tor l-he police ,e;(ecubive
ef fects.
t; car:efuIIy monitõr and rnanage Lhe conditioos u¡lder vriricì't
secrecy can f Lourish, concÔrrÍ bantly nurl-urÍng Lhe Poslt'ive
elernenLs of group and or:ganiz,aLional loyaIty.
The IntegrÍ ty Conbrol O¡:f icers wilo par ticipaled in bhe
Focus Group vrere very suprised bhab officers in previous Foeu5
Groups v¡eie relucbanL bo offÍcially report corrupLion, even
when Èhe offenses invoLved were of Lhe order of Lhose commÍtted
by naíchaeL Dowd, They sLat,ed bhab they would not hesiLabe [o
oificially reporL such behavior if Lhey became aware of it, and
they seemed to genuinely believe that most offiCers in their
comrnands woutd aJ.so report sucil colrupblon r+i thoub hesi babion.
The proJecb sbaff surmises thal- the fCO's avowed willingness bo
lake aòLion Ín such cases is a funcbÍcn of their rank and
position, and iIs atb.endant role
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?