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)

Download PDF
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 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 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 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 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 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 assesse<l Ín making Case 1-:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filecl 02/13/l-5 P.age 46 oI72 (40) thts debermlnation. Tlrey felt that free coffee and small an¡oungs of food (1.e., "a iight repast") have hf stclrf cally been be more seen as a form of sociat- lnterãci:ion, and would non-food merchandise or ããóãptaure bhan bhe acceptance of free ibem!, irrespecLive Of Lheir cosb, Concurrenbly, Lhouqh¡ t'hey called for a more deËinit-ive and }ess ambiguous response on the õ;;L--oi- t.he ageney bo acLs wlrich are deemed corrup[-ion or -¡ Þrrr_rrt\r\trv u lttl -Â--¡..ñ1- . the one capL,ain .sl:a'r:ed, and bhe obhers concurred, Lhat wibh policies bor+ard corruption are noL in synch DeparLment's some of ibs otñer poticies. He sbaLed, Ëot exanPle, bhab the annual nãp"ti:ienb r€griirã.s precinct commanrJer.s to convene ðn event', ¡eilc"¡slrip Breáklasl, pro'.'iding aSoub $360.00 for this ;; enbiräIy insuf ficieiri ãirìouñt Ín some con'nands' ConmanrJers Local caherers are constrained Lo reLy upotl bire good greces ofanci bhey must do venue, or-meeting halls to próvide a suibable meal. Consequently, e¡,r best-they ãan ftå provide a breakf ast bhey admonish t'heir bhe commanders haue liLbfe credibility when officers noL .Lo accepl free or discount'ed mea1s, coffee or other favors from local businesses or residents. Such policies breed cynicisn and fosE,er the percepbion of a double slandard for superior officers. The opinions and attibudes of the Guardlans Focus Group members , al t.hey speci f í cal ty reLa be [o b'he defini Eion of corrupb acbÍvity, did nob differ markedly irom lhe opinions expresse:d in other grouPs. in As in obher groups, these parEicipants had difficulty of police corruption. offering a precise definition Involveirent witn drugs and d::ug traf ficking, as welL as bhe receipt of bribes and gratuities, were cerLainly seen as corruþl acbiviUies. Some debabe surrounded the quest.ion of free ðoffee and/or doughnuts as corrupt acbiviby' The members of the poI icer{omen, S EndO'¡nenI AssOCiation Focus Group þrere tìo l'ess able bo oifer a cl-ear operabiOnal def ini Lir:¡ of corlupt ion than I'rere previous gror.ìps. In general, Ehey felb, that 'the lhef t of anything of value, l-he use of police porrers or aubhority to real ize a personal gain, or bhe conìmission of an ii-tegaI act can be construed as corruplÍon . They did staLe, bhough, t hat a "free cup of coffee" is acCepLable so Ìong as no expecl-at.ions of preferentÍaI l.reatment accompany it. The FEA Focus Group memt¡ers vrere also of the opinion LhaL drug abuse by a member is Iikely to lead to furbher corrupt,ion. Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-3/15 Fage M ol72 ( 4 1 ). ISSUE fl 5 fnbeoFitv Tesbínq Random and bargeted lnb,egrfty tests v¡ere discussed wfth each group. Questíons r¡eIe geared-to deLernine if Ínbegrfty üests -*ere peiceived as reåsonable or unreasonable' The Department, s iignt b.o conduct tesbs and Lhe leveI of intrusion was also discussed with each group. A. Taroebed Tests. Targebed ' inbegriLy besbs \'rere widely acceffiroupaialegii:i¡rateinvesbigat,ivetoo}. participants were supportive of "sl-ing" operations designed bo cal-ch individuals *nö Lhe Depart.ment "reasonably suspect-s" to ì:e i¡rvclr'ed in Ca¡rupt aCLi'¡ j.Eies. A f ew membe::s expressed targeted corìcer!l aboU"" being "in Lhe "rrong place" when a rr'ould be they individual was lesIed atrd quesbioned whebher srrbjecLed to sweepirrg disciplirrary acUion for ninor Violations (SCáf ISLop Corrupt Àctivities Now, an aggressive anti-Corrupbion prOgram that reSulEed in numerous Command Disciplineð for rninor adminisbrabive infractionsl activiEies r.¡ere ciLed ) . Other participanb,s f elb that i f an enLlre precincb o.r eornmand rvere bargeted many."good" PolÍce 0fficers would be subjecL.ed to discipltnary ac[ion even if they were nob involved in corrupt, acbivibY. There rvas some concern aboub being present during a "best'r, observing a violabion and not rePorbing the vioLation tO the fnbernal Affairs Bureau, Sorne officers expressed great relucbance to report deficiencies, even serious ones (this topic r,¡ilI be' discussed aL. greater J.engt.h in f ssue #6). There were some of f icers who complained thai inLegri t.y b.eshs made PoIice Officers suspicious of each r:Lher and hindered t,hem in the performance of t)reir duty, rr'hile other officers viet¡ed inteqiity tests a.s a mebhod of keeping everyone "on bheir toes". Àf [er discussing several dif fe::enL t.ests each group favored an increase in bargeted tesLing to catch bhose individuals who engaged in criminal conducb. B. Ran4om Te-sts - Part.icipants were splil- on lheir opÍnions of random inbegri l-y besbs . T'he nra jori by opinion was f avorable r+ith of f icers reJ-aying numerous personal and second hand tales of I¡rh.ernaI Affairs Bureau tesLs (many reported bests are nob substanbiated in Deparl-ment records). These officers felt thaE random Lests vrould deter some members of Ehe service from ignoring Depart-menL procedures and taking shorb cuts. Randorn tesbs ho',.rever, t/ere not considered Lo be a deterrerrb. for ltar-d.core corrupt cop.s. The minority opinion revc¡Ived around the issue of lack of brusb. These part-icipanbs f eIt Lhat random tesbs quesL.ioned Case l-:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02i13/1-5 Bage 47 o'Í72 ( 421 Lhelr tnLegrlt.y and v,'êrÊ tlrerefore insuILlng, Some members expressed õoncårn ab being ''enbralped" by random beshs +lhile otn..* comÞl.alned of being ùaken off patrol to process false expresslng l-he caIls for seuvice, Even officers rrrighb be necessary mlnorÍty to keep concluded Lhab random l-esLs ãpi"ion conLirrued l-esLing is officers honesI and mosb agreed íhat "ir*e a "necer*sary eviI", virt.ually aIl of t.he CapLains agreed bhab Ehe Departnrent by should pursuå some f orm oi randorn atld direcbed integri of advisabiìiby iesUing, bub feelings were mixed regardíng !h* a eangíbLe ¡e',rard sysEem for Llrose mernbers who pass such random tes¿sl t'ì'tey Ìie):e less op,p'ased to incl-r.:riing -nenl-ion- of having påsseO ân in'eegrity teet iñ an officer's Ccnfident.ral PersonneL Ïndex (CPI) fiÍe, or a IeLLer to thab effecb in l;he officer's personnel f oJ,rJe::. ì.lembers of bhe Guardialrs Focus GrouP were also surveyed regarding their opinions of {:he role of in[egrih'y bests Ín bhe anf:i-corrupt,ion sh.rategy. The overatl neþarbmeñU, s palticipents agreed that targeted Lests used to investigabe upecific allegaLions of corTuÞLion are useful and appropriabe. -pa¡Licipants approved of random gests, wibh the Oirly Lvro ( 2 ) remaÍnder obJecbing on Lhe grounds bhab such t'ests lr'êfê insulting anO a r.laste oi l-i¡ne. AII Participants related concerns that boLh randorn and targeted inbegriLy tesbs may be used to unfairLy targeb minority members. f,lembers of lhe ÞollcewOmen's Endoç;nent ÀsSociat-i,¡n FOcuS Group sbaEed Lhat inbegriby tests are a posibÍve and useful st-rabegy for bhe Departrnenb Lo pursue, so long as the tesl-s do nob focus on minor misconduct and PeLLy iSsues. They compared the need for integrit-y bests with the need for Ra¡rdom Dole Test ing, asserting thab Lhey are necessary and ç.¡orthwhile, and parbicipanLs sbated t.haL t.l:ey would nob be insulted if they Iearned EhaL bhey had been bhe subject of a random or directed integriby Lest, The participanLs raised the nol-ion Lhat sbne members may appreciate knowing thab Èhey l.ratl been {:ested ' if such nobif ication Eakes f-i:e for-rn of a "pat on the back. " they indicabed a 6eIief blrat- ofticers r.lilI perform bebLer if bhe Depart ment shows tlrem respect and reç¡ards them f or proper perforrflâ¡)ce of Eheir duties, and they believed bhat. bhe favorable resuLts of random int.egrity Lests shoutd be pLaced in membersr CPr fil-es in order Lo offset some of the predominately negaLive data rvhich ' currentLy cornprises those f lles. The rnembers of this Focus Group also recommended bhab the fnLerna] Affairs Bureau l-rack those individuals r,rho make chronic corruption complainLs againsb officers. Í' Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 021L3/1-5 Page 48 oI72 (43) rssuB # 6 RePoruqÉl co::ruPllon gtithin any organizaLion, occupaL,lon or profession, the indivlcìuat ethiòal decision whet'her or not bo officiaì-!y report variety of misconcluct or. corruption is constrained by t.he potentiaL fo:: social ostracism, personal facicrs, inc3.t-rdinE reluctance þo breach organizabional or cultural norms againsl: safeLy' disclosure, and in solne cases, fear for One's personAI may be bhese con t raints subcul ture of pol icing, In l-he nagnified by it.s membersr need for group idenbiby and a¡ti:.lation, bi'. tha shrençbh of: the cuLture's disclosure norms/ an,J by t-ìre irrl:erenb. dangers of pollce work which create a compelting need ior l-he support and trust of one's felLot'¡ cf ficers.. fhese and ol-her facbors in the police occupabional cu.Lture, taken as a whole, are frequenbly and generically referred to in t,he COmmon vernaCular as "the blue waII of silence." ThÍs Eerm is typicalty used in a disparaging mAnner, especially by those clit.ics r+ho lack a firm undershandÍng_ of thä forces and pl:e.ssures which creabe and shape it, as welL as of ibs extent and dimensÍons. As vras evidenced by Lhe comments of Focus Group participanLs, the "bLue wallI iS not an entirely insurmountable or rlonoLiLhic impediinenb Lo the dÍsclosure of organizational deviance, buE rabher it. has many inbricaEe cracks and gaps The consensus of opinion in most of the Focus Groups was that officers are highly reluctanb to reporb acts of corruption or misconduct. fn t,he more egregious cases, for example an officer engaged in stealing or selling drugs, most participant,s relafed bhab, if they would report b,hese instances they would only do so anonymously. One (1 ) group, (PBA delegates) however, staLed somewhab, anomalously b,hat hhey woul-d not hesilabe bo identify themselves Ín report,ing a rogue offÍcer for "serious" corrupb.ion .- a cop who sells drugs, they said, "is a perp, not- a cop, and deserves to be colJared. " they rnberestingly, several par{-icipant-s sba{-ed bhat if observed such crinrinality they vrould make än arrest hhemselves rather t.han nobif y l-he Inl-ernaì Af fairs Bureau, and that by taking this action they would encounl-er less risk of ostracism l-han if their anonymous reporb. were somehos¡ made public knowledge. Within the police cult,ure, iL appears that the cloak of anonymil-y connobes venaliLy arrd deceit., tvro (2)abtribubes which are anathema to Lhe culLure. Officers'¿rho are "up fronLil in their actions may be less l-ikely to incur the wrat-h of others, or may encounber a lesser degree of ost,racism. In less serious inst.ances, Lhough (for example, free meals), Case 1:i0-cv-ffi005-Rws Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/1-5 Page 49 ot 72 (44) parblclpanb,s slabed that by Ídenttfyirrg bilenselves bhey ran e iist oi ostraclsm and in some cases reprisals from oLher officers. InLeresLtngly, the proJect staff not,ed khaL those offícers vrho sbated most vocally Lhab bhe prospecL of e-xposure would not del-er bhern f rom report,ing corrupLion or fron taking indÍvidual act,ion ¡ corìcurrenLly appeared Lo be bhe mosl: self-confident of Li:e particicants, end hhose with bhe greaLesL sbatus in l-heir grouPs. If Lh'a project st,af f 's perception is accurate, ald 1f these high sLabus oificers can be enco¡Jraged 'on corl-uPtion, signif icanb inroads can be made Ín to speak out b,ermà of shaping Lhe occupat.ional cultures' plevailing atlii:udes. Exbremely serious allegations includS,ng drugs and weapÐns '.;ere not viewed riifferenbly by mosL of bhe partÍcipants. i,'î¿mbers 'niere consistent in their reluctance to officially reporL these transgressions. Officers were of the opinion that the disco'¡ery and the offÍcial reporting of crirninal allegabions and serious misconduct would not el-evate them in t,ire eyes of Eheir peers. These offÍcers believed they would be perceived as "rats", nob to be Erusled. The consensus was thab if an Índividual reported se::ious matters they would IÍkely reporb minor infractions as wel-l. The fear of being labeled a "rat" and subsequenLly divorced from t.he police culbure has a seerningly porverÊul¡ negabive impacE upon reporl-ing corrupt.ion. PhysÍcal fear surfaced several Limes during the discussÍon on reporting corruption. There were nuinerous references made about rogue Police Officers (¡lichael, Dowd in particular) havíng contacts v¡ith vÍolenE drug gangs and olher organized crime figures and having access bo confidenbial and personal information. Ib is this combinabion that, caused concern among many of Ehe officers who raised lhis poinb. Some officers were nob necessarily concerned v¡it,h their own safety, but bhey were concerned for the well being of their fa¡¡ily. The Focus Group of PatroL Sergean{.s l;ere split on i.heir responsds to reporl- corrupLion. tlalf of the group inciicated Lhey wou.l d report corrupbÍon ( criminaL acts or serious misconducl-) rvhile l-he oLher half of Ehe group i¡rdicaLed Lhey rvould onJ.y repor l- corruption anonymously. I e i s interesting to point out LhaE Pa[ro1 Sergr3¿¡[s share t-he police Officers def ini l-ion of corrupl-ion (see f ssue # 4) . ParbiciparrLs also spoke of bhe fact thab bhe Department, and in parLicular, fhe rnternal Affairs Bureau, frustraEe them from being as honest as b.hey r.rould l-ike to be. If Lhey fail to Case 1:í0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211311-5 lage 5Q oÍ 72 (4s) report corrurptionr or I f corrupEion oc curs around bhem, ib is are a t', not because t,hey approve of it' orpublfc mblvalent Eo it, Rather, even ln regard Lo t.he potenblal coibs of "going being seen egregious offenses, are b'oo high.' They are afrafd ofBureaur âh aé ñaving cast i-heir tob r+i bh the InL'e rnal Affairs breats even insfdious enemy which Iacks crediblLiL '/ and çhich bhe mosb honesl- of f icers unfairly and w i Lh suspicion ParticipanLs relabed bherÍr.suspicÍons of the Ini:ernaI several Affairs Bureauts processes t,O ensure CcnfidentÍalÍLy r+ould nob bhat members of b.he Internal Af falrs Bureau suggested be--averse bo "burning" arì oj:f iCer who made a conf ident'iaI bo hhe repclt . .ã.b Least fcur ( 4 ) o!: the groups gueried as and the of the fnte::nal .qf f air Bureau's Acbion Desk iÃLegriLy true anònymity of a caLler's idenb,i ty expressed ,.skepbiclsm... rfl*i U"iiå"*a' thah f:he modern technoLogief of.'lClller ID" an<J voÍce i<Jenbificabion eould or woul<i be used io .ieLer-ir,ille a caller,s idenEity. Most of bhe part'icipants were uniamiiiar with the Depar[ment's corruption hot line -- 21z-CORRUPT (or the Parh.icipants suggested t'hat' the new 1-800-PRIDE-PD) . aggressive informaflon campaign [o Deparfment init,Íabe an puLticize and promobe the new 1-80O-PRIDE-PD number, and to äs"ure fhe pubfic ês rqell as offÍcers i:hat CaIIe¡ Several Identi f ica'r:ion Lechnology þras not being used . participanf:s favored an onl-going precinct dialogue program wiLh members- of the Internal AffairS Bureau As a neans Lo sensitize officers from boLh gro\¡P5 l-o the objectives and goaJ.'s of Lhe . obher. Other parbícipanbs suggested bhe sLrong need for Ihe InLernal nffäirs guieau l-o change its image and iEs met'hods of operation. fn parl:icul-ar, they vocally criticized the f nternal ¡ifairs Bureau cus[-om of Ísstring "no hats" and "t+hite socks" complaints, charact-erizÍng bhis practice as I'playing a numbers ganà" at the expense of hard vtorking honest' oÊficers. The Internal Affairs Bureau has been associated wit.h' a r+illingness to close Õut serious al.legations either as "UnsubãLanl-iat-ed" OÍ as "Ol:her MiScOndUcb NOted" through issuance of a Command Disci¡>line for ninOr administrative infractions. Of f icers are concerrred Lhat. 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" 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 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 <iefinitions: Lhe sutrÊrvisory and fCO roles encomPäss and denand bhe repolting of corruption. and no expÊctaticns of compl:Lcity or sil.ence is Placed upon them. 1{hile both the task en'¡ironnenL of the pat,roJ- officer and the dynamics of Lhe sper:ific "paLroI officer culture" operate to encovrege solidarity and bo discoDrage officers from scrutinizing too closely the behavÍor of l-heir peers, Lhese features are nob a part of the supervisory role. Supervisors, particularly ICO¡s, are not expected by l-heir Peers or by their subordjnates Lo rernain silenÈ in the faCe of misconducb .or corrupbion. i'íoreover¡ their f unctionaL exclusion ftom the specific IpaLrol officer culture" t-ends to immunize them from the subtle or overt sancEions lhab culture mighb impose, simply staLedr supêrvisors and ICO's åre expected to reporL mjscollducL and corruption, and bhey have Litble to lose by doing do. The Lieubenarrbs in this Focus Group that Lhey ;.-oui-d have no proble¡n rcporbing en officer l*hose corrupt activities were of the type evident- in l-he Michael Dowd case, and they t¡ere unconcern,:d with any repercussiorrs wìrich might result from reporbing such an oJ:ficer. À9ain, the Case l-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/1-311-5 Page 53 of 72 (4A) proJecb t,eam members aLtribut,e thls }ack of concern wi f:h tepÁr"usslons or socl-al sL.lgma to the Lieubenants' supervisory roie. Unlllce those st,eeped in the patrol of f icer culL,ure, lhe superviscry role entaiLs no expectat,ion of silence or compì.iciLy, On l:he contrary, their ovrn social reference group .3s r.rel-l as the patroJ. of f icer ctrlture expects Lhem fo treporl an}, corruptlon oi misconduct coming Eo b,heir atLention, airnÖs{: wi.f;houb regard bo the severit-y or e:..tent. of that misconduct or corruption. It is imporbant [o emphasize thab the parbicipabing Lieutenants believed quibe strongly t,haf Lhe average offÍcers wouLd have Little difficul[y reporling corrupt, acts commiBt,ed i:y peers. fhe Lieutenants, lÍke bhe fnEegriLy Conbroì. Off icers' and Sergeanbs' grouPs vrhich prececled L.irem, Hêre quite suprised and dÍsrnayed when the project sLaf f informed tlre¡n Lhab Police Officers convey a great, reluctance bo reporb corruption. Several irnportant impLications may be drawn from this misperception among supervisory personnel. IU is alarmingly apparertt lhab our supervisory personnel are dreadfully out of bouch wibh bhe oPinÍons and,udes of those they supervise, and it ís unlikeLy Lhat. inLegriby Ís the only spbere in whlch such misapprehensions occur. Given the signif icance and graviEy of inL.egrÍLy and corrupt.ion prevenbion within the agency, though, ib should be quite reasonable to expecb bhat superior officers rvould have an accurate perception of abLibudes and beliefs in t.his area if they regularly discussed integrity matbers with their subordinates. Ab least bhree (3) potential inferences can be drawn from the dispariLy bel-v¿een pabrol officers' self-reporbed abtibuQes and their supervisorsr percepbions of bhose attitudes. Fi rs t , we rnÍgh L, inf er b,hat supervÍ sors do no t regularl y engage in dialogue wÍ bh bheir subord j.nate.s regarding inbegr.i ty and corrupl-ion r eib.her from a Lack of concern or because they do ooL. appreciat,e the gravity of the issue or it.s conseguences, Implicit in Lhis proposiEi'rn is bhe viabl-e assumption that pat-rol officers are culLurally consbrained not bo raise integri ty-re).ated issues, r.rhile supervisors are complacenlabout ib; bhe Focus Group findings tend to support. Ehe hypothesis that, neÍ l-lrer group feels compelled bo raise or dÍscuss t he matter openly and honestly. ThÍs supervisory complacency nìay be explained as an arl-ifacl- of bhe supervisors¡ tenure in the depart.rnenL, particularly if we are inclined bo accepb the view that tlre bypes and Lhe extent of corrupbion Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 40û-3 Filed 02/1-3ll-5 P,age 54 ot 72 (4e) existing t.oday were less prevalenb r+hen older supervlsors l.¿ere Police Offlcers. Many of Loday's Lleutenants and senlor Sergeanbs t/iere, if¡ faCl, products of the era inmediabely post[,-K¡app, *rhen drug-relaled corrupbion wås much less paid l-o shielding þromineut and when bremendous aLbention t'rasis l-herefore quiLe äf f icers from exposure [o corruption. It Iogical bo expect LhaE the cadre of officers who entere<i the Ðeþartnent durì.ng and afLer bhe era of Knapp reforms would have a markedly differenL view of the poLenbia)- exLenE of corruptÍon than Lhose r+ho entered f if t.een (15) or L.wenLy (20) years laLer. fn bhe alternative, \.re mi ght surmise bhab such dÍalogue does occur, but that patrol of flcers acbively mislead lheir supervisors inb,o believing th ab they would reporb acts of corruption or serious miscon<iu ct comi ng to i:hei r a t t en bion . This unlikeLy scenario assumes, vrithoub, creciible evidence, thai a pervasive forrn of conspiracy to mislead supervisors exists among pabrol officers. Finally, we mighL infer bhab when such dia).ogue occurs, iI is of a .superficial and pro forna nature, and thab litbte real attention is paid Eo the substantÍve issues invoLved. This proposition, r.rhich is sripported by informaL observat.ions as wet] as l¡y an inbuÍbive undersLanding of l-he dynamics of the supervisor-subordinate dialogue process, is' lrighly plausible and may part-ially derive from and work in concert with bhe firsL scenario presented above. Despite the fact that Ehe Department na¡rdates annual inteQrity intervier"¡s and presents other passive reminders of [he nded for integrity, a perception prevaÍIs emong many officers of aII ranks that ûhe agency became }ax and. did not pursue corruption or pronote integriby as aggressÍveì.y in the severaL years prior bo bhe Mollen Cornmission as iL did earlier. is hiqhly rÊcornnênded that the to dispel the prevalenl attitude among senior supervisory personnel that paLrol officers as a grout) are not averse Lo reporbing corrupl-ion. Sinrilar)-y, it is recornmended thab t.he Depart,ment aggressively pursue efforts bo increase and enhance dialogue concerning corrupLion¿ ôrld tilat- such dialogue involve members of bhe servÍce of all ra¡tks, Such a progrå¡-'r would have several beneficÍal effects, including the dissipaLion of misconceptions and mispercept,ions. Ì4oreover, àfl increased awareness and reaJ.istic undersl-anding of l-he corruption hazards faced by RECO|.î/,SNDATION: Ib Depar[rnent immediabely adopb aggressive measures Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (so Filed 02/13/l-5 Page 55 oÍ 72 ti ¡ offlcers may provfde personnel wlLh the prophylacblc . capaclEy corrup¡lon and to avoid tfreir. Ànüecedent cif scusslons of EhemseLves lnto project ðË"ui behavlor, in uhich offlcers ethlcal,Iy problemabfc sibuabions and co¡rsiderathe conseguences behavioral 6¡ their'a"¡jonu. ean be expect-ed t'o ac¡ as situations. check and if of f lcets acbua).1'7 erlcounLer l-hose uhen slightly mofe t,han half the capbains believed Lltah Ehe average óf eiôer vrbuld burn in ar:olher of f icer whose corrupbion Of b.hose, the CaPbains mabcháA thaI of Michael Dowd , óvá¡tì"refmingty feI'¿ that bhe off icers r.touLd do so only rvíLh the ãu"urance oÁ ån,lnymi by. Thi s PercePbion, i t .slrould be no[ed, differs markedJ-y fiom lhe þercepbions of Serçeanbs and iiertenant,s, who believed quiie sl-rongly bhab mosb officers l*cu).d rnake the reguisite notif ications. The Captains stat'ed that officers whó Eurned in a "Mlchael Dowd" could have no e.xpecEation of support from their fellow of f icers, and r+ould in faðt be osb.racizedl tnts percepbion Has more ln line r+ith bhe reported beliefs of Poltce Officer parüicipants. The capbains belteved thab [he Department's system Lo encour"age reporLing of colruplion could be strengthened if a LobaÌly- anonymouS system were devised and promuì-gated. They believe thôb the forrner Internal Affair Division's repuLabion f or inves[igabing minor mi.sconduct { "r,rhite socksrr) whi]-e ignoring seii.ous- rnÍsconduct and corrupl-ion has negat ively iirpacted tf¡e Internal Àffair Bureau's credibility and capaciLy Lo gain the brust of officers, noBing thab l-his percepbion must be changed before substanfive*term gaÍns can be made. fn lheir ofiinion, the Internal Àffairs Bureau shou]d deal- soIeIy with cases of serious misconduct and corruption. It is critjcal to ensure Lhab trust be established¡ ând h.ha[ bhe idenbity of off icers v+ho report corruptlon be kept absolul-eIy secret, but those who do come forward should be rewarded. They suggesLed Lhat the Inbernal Àffairs Bureau change ibs image and aütempt bo gain [rusL bhrouglr l-he h6nest and objective dissemÍnaLion- of informat.ion, and Lhat this training be conducbed by credible individuals. They also sLa[ed Lhat an s)rould officer/s Confidenlial PersonneL lndex (CPr) file posi l-ive irlformation in add i L.ion bo t.he Iargely conl-aln negahive data currently retained there. 1'he Captains also beljeved guite sbrongty LhaI precinct Integrity Contro]. Officers and commanders should, when possible and pracLiCable, be nrade a\{are of on-going IAB invesbigaË.iolrs r+ithin their commands , ðûd that IÀB shou 1d ul- i I i ze the knowledge and experLise of commanders and ICO's l-o a fuller extent. Case X-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document400-3 Filed 0211-3/1-5 Page-56 of 72 (sl) MemberS of the Guardians Assoc{a[1on Focus Group were getìç¡¿JJy in ågree¡ììent with the atbÍtudes and oPlnions éxpressed by ol-her groups concernlng the reporhlng of corrupblon. The parbicipanþs sbabed that t.lre reporting of corruption can be encouraged r+hen the prospeçb of . reLribubion fron co-vJorkers and supervisors is Oininishcd. =hei' <ieL"l¿ed Èhe effícaCy of a-ret{ard system to encoufage Ehe reportÍng of corrupbion, but the majori[y of parbÍcipanbs sbat.ed that the Depar-tment is "sweepiñg cõrruption under Lhe rug" by not pursuing it aggress'iveIy. SIi1I, African-Àmerican officers are ielucLant l*o come íorr+ard, aI Llrough L.ìre participanis sïated bhaL t-hey were noL part of Lhe "blue fral-erni'cy." In contrasl tc nosb of l:he previcus and Fredorninantly male Focus Groups, Lhe menbef s of Ehe PoIiceÌ'.'onen's Endovrmenb. Àssociabion Focus Group unanimously stabed Ehab as individuals bhey would have no problem "turning in" an of f icer t"¡hose misõonduct approached that of MÍchael Dor*d. They did acknowledge, blrough, thab obherr;omen miEh'c be rel-uctant Lo come forward with information, for fear bhat they r+ould be labelted a "rat" and lose the support of iheir male peers. fn light of the barriers Ehey face, particularly r+ibh regard to bheir perceived credibÍliBy about nale offÍcers, wonen officers must expend significant effort. in a process of "proving bÌrenselves, " and some may be cons h.rained by the f ear of jeopardizÍng what. credibility and sbatus tl:ey have gained. I'foreover, the group members not.ed that by virtue of bheir gender, female offÍcers are prone bo "Iabelling" for acts ol omissions vrhich they have nob cornrniLbed. Às e resul-t, they may be rnore circurnspect abouL taking bhe risk of coming forward to report corruption, Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (s2 Filed 0211-3/1-5 ?age 57 oT 72 ) # 7 Sup,ervj-soqr Traln.fnq-l€s!J-e.E The firsL-Line supervisor ptays an integral part in Cetecting and Preventing corr-uption, f n f ecogni Eion of the i;nportanÉ rolá Sergeanl-s frlay, in t,he Department's anti-cOrrupEion Programs a series of questionS ltere presented to bhe Fócus Group of Sergeant,s in an efforf: bo obt.ain information concerning how v¡elI Índividuals are prepared for ParLicipanbs were also Lhe challenqes of their netv position. querieú fo- deierinine Lhe k¡:cuiedçe and skil-Is Lhe'l need to perEorm their duties The -(ergeants were very reproachful about supervisory training in generaL and Lhe Basic ManagemenL OrienbatÍon Course The Bl'lOC course was vievred as a Pa{:rol (BMOC) in particular. iuide'refräsher course designed to rehash the basic "do's" and don , bs'r of police Procedure . The par h,lcipanLs f el b 1i bble Many Sergeants ef forl .íias nade to inparb leadership skÍlls. issues related to suggested bhat guesl speakers should speak on t.he- eifecb.ive managemãnb of personrrel and ob.her resources end not give {:hern a "canned speech'r. PoIice Acaderny instrucbors, especially those conduct'ing Bl'10C and Cent.ralized Managemenl- Trafning Courses vrere crÍbiciaed for their feaching abilitiee and their lack of Durinq a recent, training session one of bhe Focus credibility. GrouÞ members had occasion Eo guestion the information being presenLed. During bhe exchange the insLructor is leported' to hav" jusbified his comments by stating bhab he "hasn't been on patrol in a long time". Other instructors have admitted to The perceived lack of ipending "very liLtLe time on ¡ratrol". credibility and b.raining skiLJ-s of PoIice Academy insLrucbors has had a debrimenbal effect on supervisory braining. During llre,discussion of b.hls issue many supervisors compÌ.ained aboub an unrnanageable span of ct¡nl-roI. Parbicipant-s sb,ated that rnany h,imes they ari: bhe only supervisor on pabrol, covering the entire precinct. Even durÍng those t.imes bhat bhey are tlre sole Pabrol. Supervisor, bhey are routinely dispatched to handle jobs. Group members f eIh l-hey vrs¡s noL given bhe opportunity to properly supervise their officers, Yob Þrere held bo a high sUandard of accountabÍIity. ISSUE Case 1:,1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/L3/l-5 Page 58 ol72 {53) Ib is inberesttng Lo nobe bhaL group r'rembers chlded t'heir for. becoming.. overly frlendly r'rlbh youngãi "ofiãtgu"" þuttlcipants bold of "car pools", and "drfnklng åuU"i¿fnates . and Orcãiãrl' bhab includeä supenrisorst'ion bhe ¡ne."¿bers of ihef r as superviSors t{ere SergeanLs f el-t theÍr posf sguads. because of bhe acbions of their peers. Jéopardized The LieutenanLs' Focus Group identified several training lssues ¡+hich the Deparf-nlelrL should åddress, The LleubenanBs ;i;b;á bhat. Lhe sasfè Manasement OrlenbabÍon Course (Bl'fOC) and bhe Lieutenants, Orienbahion Course should be more realisbic une "lìånds-on, " particr¡J.arJ.y r,rith regard bo the deployment of pãtsonner, cånauäctng rol,l cal-l , and handl ing d9*F dubies . buch tralning, they stated, shou}d not be conveyed by lecture in a classloo* te[, bu[ rabher bhe trainees should be affo¡ded the opporbunity bo pracLice these skill-s in a realistic and pracl-icaI environment. specialized posi tions for Lieubenanbs Í ,e. , Ico and require specÍalized Þ.Cminilbrabive Lieutenanb positions training in preparabion of forms, the proPer flor* of. paperwork/ Such sþecÍalized training is not currentJ-y being etc. províded, and Lieutenants newly assigned to bhese. positions iack t-be resources bo perform their duties adeguabely, The participants ai-so decried the Preval-enE pract ice of . assigning ñewly promobed Lieutenant.s bo the ICO and AdministraLive Lieutenant posit.ions, a prac[ice whÍch occur because Lhese are bhe leasb desirable and l.easb ret'tarding for Lieutenanbs in pa b rol eomrnands . The PEA group also believed Ehat. supervisors (especially Sergeanbs) are afrai.d Lo make decisions, and that supervÍsors too freguenbly disLrust the officers vrho work for Lhem; in general, they believed bhab the overall qualiby of supervision has declined subsbanL.ially in recenb years. They characterized bhe PoIice Àcademy L.raining as inadequaLe and impracticaL, and t-hey called for a reburn f-O a more "guasi-military" training style. fn addil-ion, l.he parbicipant.s quesBioned bhe competeney and experience of many Police Àcademy staff nenbers. Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-311-5 F"g. 5B o172 (sa¡ Issue # I Corfup-l;l-on TFafn-inq fn response bo an lssue bha[ was tdenbffled durlng bhe iniblal rouñds of Foeus Groups, proJecb sbaff soughb bo Probe the percept.ion of newly hired PoIlce OfÊicers concernlng inLegriby/corruption brainÍng being implemenbed. Questions Here presenLcC bo evoke discn*qsion of how well PoIice Academy corruption braining adeguabely prepared young officers for the pibfalls they miglrL ertcounter while on pabrol- Both g¡:oups of of ficers assigned to Fiel.d Training Unjbs beliezed the AcaCemy Lraining was unrealisbic and repetiL,ive. Ì{u,---erou.s officers v,,ere criticaL of a series of inbegrity films being presellted aL Lhe Àcademy (believed t'o be [he "Erosion Seriàs'r- Lapes). Tlre group fnembers felt bhaI t,he deplctio-n of an "honest cop" who obtajned a disCount for a meal early ilì Lhe film and shórtly thereafber degenerated into a "criminal" engaged in "corrupLion" and being led away ln handcuffsr was unrealisLic. In addition, officers felt the LraÍning program could be shortened and cibed bhaL lnstructors repeabed fhe same Ínformation over and over again. Moreover, members of bhe Field fraÍning Unit Focus Groups relat,ed bhab t,he examples and scenarÍos presented for discussion were either overly sirnplistic or extrene. Some of t.he behaviors which instructors characterízed as corrupb were, in view of.particÍpanbs' more properly chaiacterized as minor misconduct, Às a result, L.he disbincbion betrveen corruption and minor breaches of adninÍsLraEive rules became blurred for sorne studenbs, leading to some confusion over their cwn duties as weII as the role of bhe Int,ernal nffairs Bureau. One parLicipant, for exanple, sbabed lhaL an ins{:rucbor re}ated a case in whicb an officer used a PoIice Depar{:menb dumpsber to dispose of personal brash, and þhat this v,as charact-erized as corrupt.ion. fn conducting the discussion it became eviden! bhat approximately ha} f of l-he parbicipants t'/ere lnstructed ' by members of i-he Inl-ernal Af fairs Bureau Training UnÍL while the oLher half Flere insbrucled by Police Àcaderny sbaf f . À recent change in policy regarding corruption/integri'ty training has been implemenLed. police Acaderny staff using InternaL ¡ffairs Bureau Training Uni h Le.sson plans and insbructor guides is current)-y presenbinq bhis bl.ock of lraining. Academy instructors wele perceived as nob bakÍng the cottrse material seriously ' llllustrabions of instrucbors r+ho read f rom thei r notes, could nob ( or r+ould not. ) answer questions, an instructor r+hose whole prese¡tbabion was to pLace Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (35 Filed 02113/15 Page 60 at 72 ) and rerTlove a serles of overhead proJecLor SI ides, a gym pressed 1nùo an acadentc SlbuaLfon who ltas lnsLructor obviOuSIy rrervous and unsure Of hlmself, an insL'rUct'or who "rusheci" 'Lhrough [-he mal:erial because fhe Com.pany '.Jas lrehind f n "obher" academic matüers Here given and confil¡ned by the group nembers. "Letr s get Ehro,rgh this" and "9ìe have tO cover bhiS" were confnon phraSes instructC¡rS Here reported Eo have used while inlroducing Lhe Lopic to t'l"e compar,y' ÀcarJemy sEaff were iepclrted fo have-advised'recruits bo "å1v¿áys have a story" and to "C.Y.À.", Part.icipanbs also relayed bhey were repeatedly ad:*cni-"herl bo stay aytay f::om bhe "hairbags t+ho çili. only qeÈ you j.nto trouble. " The acìv j ce reported Èo be given to bhe rrrield Trairring UniL Eroups 'J,'as supported by the recruil- Focus Groups wìrO added tlrab neny L!rles academy Ínstrr-rctor,s grefaced theii remarks vrit.h "for Acaciemy purposes" leadit-rg 'chei¡ to believe bhere is a chasrn between bheory (being taught at. t-lte PoIice Academy ) and realÍty ( b,he sereeb). fnternal Affair Bureau insbructors on bhe other hand lrere viewed more posibively. The members felE the lnstructors were sincere and took lhe i*esue of corrupbion nore seriously Lhan Àcadeny insf:rucbors. It appears bhe presence of bhe fnternaL Àffairs Bureau gave more importance to the lesson and Ínore credÍbility bo Lhe questions being answered. Case 1-;1-0-cv-.06005-RWS Document 400-3 (ss rSSUE Filed 0211-3/1-5 Page 61- ol72 ¡ # 9 Ärrcll-l-a-rv-.fss'ue-s a In the course of conducLing bhe lrocus Group sessions t bhe issues arose r+hich, while nob directly reLated to nurnber of projecb' s defined goals and objecEives, are nevertheLess çorbh rnent-Íoning. one sUch issue eoncerned lhe Depar t,ment I s policy on wearing hat,s. l{hen a paf ticipanl. would ralse bhÍs perennial issue, a najoriby of [hô group members inevibably agreed bhab åtfoqeLher [.oo muc¡r emphãsis was put on enforcement of Lhis and thaL this empñasis resulted in a 'dast.e of DÞpartment iuf "i and resources. They charact,erized Lhe DeparLmenb'S Eime' posture regardÍng habs as diaconian and petLy, notinq thab a spenb iup*rvisor, é 't.iii,ã and ef forb ';ould be ;nore ef f ectl'.'ef )'members Focus Group issues. adåressing more suþsl,a¡ibive rec<¡mmendéd that t.he regulation hat should be opþional equipment, ab leasI during bhe summer monLhs, and thab officers bé gi, some discreLión in choosing t+hen and under whab circumstances bo wear it'. Another concern þras a widespread perception thab the Departmenb is over)-y responsive [o Po]itical pressures and They believed quibe strongly that Ehe meàia influence. DêparL,nent and iIs ofÊicers should be independent of such pressuresf and thab. its actio¡rs and policies should be direcled Ëoward best serving t-he needs of bhe enbire citizenry rai-her bhan the needs and whims of special interesb groups and There exists a particularly strong poliEical officials. ieeling bhat. the ãgency's poJ-icies are increasingly shaped by ext.ernáL political agendas, rah.her than by the l-rue needs of communitiel, and bhese sentiments breed tremendous resentment and cynicism. Repeabedly¿ Pârbicipanbs from varied groups referräd to speciã1 "Qperation All Out" posbs as "DÍnkins Re-EIection PoibS". They saw political- influence uPon hhe DepArtment as pervasive, coutrt:erProduct,ive, and conbrary to Lhg ideats bhat Èhey and Lhe Department esPouse, and several parbicipanbs equated such yie.lding wibh corrupLion' Inbernal poJ-ÍticaI inf.luence t'ras also a frequent, topic various Focus Croup,s. Parf icipant,s are of bhe opinion that merit and senioriLy are not- as influenLial in cìetermining choice assignments as the proverbial "hOOk" is. The "who yo\r know, not vrñaL you kngw" belief r.¿as pravalent during each group discussion. l'lañy Of f icers exPressed frustraLion aL perceived favoritism in Lhe selection of indivÍdua1s for discretionary among bhe Case l-:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400.:3 Filed 02l3-3ll-5 I"g* 62 o172 ( 57 ) promotlons cyrr1clsm and abou L, special assig¡lnents. À clearlY Depart--me¡rb-wlde opporbunlhles e.Ypressed Has qulLe apparent. One graup 1n pa¡bfcular (group /i 1 2, from Brooklyn Norbh) believeá Lirab tñeir Patrol eo::oirglr is considered a "dumping ground" witirirr Lhe ageilcy. Tþey sb.abed L,hab bhey are regarded by of t)cers from other Eorougii.s, as -,leIi as by t}le Ðepa::l,i-"ent's eiecubLve cadrer ds a colleccion of misfits, inco¡pstents, mal ingerers, and undesirables inhabi bing a series of "shíLhouses". This perceptlon coexists wibh, and perhaps has created, a idenbiby marked by an undercurrent of perverse pride in bheir oevianf sbai:us. Sublle evidence alsc ónerged bhab aL times these officers acb ç'ut lheir de'¡iant status for Lhe benefi[ of other officers, oft,en in a bid to demonstrat,e af iirii t¡' fcr fhe gïcup iCenbi t¡r. Concurrently, they speak oE the facb tiral Btooklyn Norbh cops are more courag eous Lhan off icers 1n otber Borougl-rsr and h.hat they deal vr i t.h a level of crime and disorder which obher cops couLd not tolera t.e . rhi s group rei LeraLed their long-s L,anding b elief thaf B rooklyn North Precincl-s rL'cejve Less exr¿ernal suPerv ision Lhan p recincl-s in other Boroughs, because ranking official s are a fra id to come bhere. As in bhe past, Lhis consclou srle s s translates Lo a view bhat the'¡ are scme'¿¡hat j.nsuLated front Èhe scrutiny of InternaL Affairs offlcers, whom L.hey denigrat eas bimid and a¿:prehensÍve afficers who are unt+iIling to e xPose thernselves to the <iangers of working in Brooklin Nort.h. The officers from grooklyn North also believe lhat their Patrol Borough should be considered a training ground for new members of lhe servlce, rabher lhan a reposilory of rejection. rhis percepLion was qui[e strong wibhin the group, and members provided several potent anecdotes to describe Lhe bases of their assertions '. at. detail assignments, for exanple, they contend thab they are regularly assiçned bo the l-easb desirabl-e posts, âs f ar as possibLe from the public eye. Il is hiq,hly recaanenderl thab posit ive action be quickly taken to di-spel this alarmi ng set of percepbions and self-ident-i Lies. Focus Group part-icipants believed [hat Lhe Departmenl-'s bmenÈ and hiring pracl jces a¡:d policÍês llave CecLined in recenl- years. Many of t.he part.icipants arl-iculaled a connecliion betr';een t.his rlecline in hiring standards and corrupLion, predicbing hhat the con(:inued decllne '¡i.i.L irrevitably }ead to the emergerrce of widespread corruption. The fach Lhat bhe DeparbnenI has bired individuals arresbed for felony crirnes, which were pleaded bo mÌsdemeanor convictions, recrui Case 1¡l-0-cv:06005-RWS Document 400-3 Fited 02ll-3/15 ,P"q" 63 of 72 (s8) alarmed bhem greahly. Tlrey -"ss l-hese individuals as havfng a pfoven crlmlnal- mlndset, and bhey are.slnrll,arly convinced [hat *any lndfvlduals who have become Pollce Officers âre former crimlnals who slmply were noÍ: idenbifled, either by officiaL aírest or by the Deparl-merlt's aPplicant screening processes . Lo They believe thaI bhe Depatt-n,ent should have the aubhorily r,rìâ! charact:e¡. is in any flaÈ1y burn down applicanbs whose sgspecE or who þave been Lhe su'ojecb of police inl-ervention, Se.,rèral parbicipênLs, ib should be noled, cì.4 imed t,hab bhey had personAlly arrest-ed felons who are now PoliCe Officers, and -tnat as ã mabber of policy Applicant ProcessÍng DÍvision had given sufficient considerabion Lo bheir recornmendatlon not agai ns B .hÍring . The Lier-ltenants concu::red with vÍrtually a1l of [he previous Focus cToups (wii:h [:l'rê êxceplicn of recruib offlcers] tnaC entry-Ievel sbandards have faIJ.en t+il-hin Ehe agency Ín the pasb severaÌ yeârs. Again, l-hey raised Ehe issue Of inadequate background investigaþions and the Depart,rnent's pol.icy of permibbing applicants with misderneanor convictions for serÍous felony charges bo be hired, Qveral}, they see t,he calibre of younger officers bo be declinlng, and bhey find the officers they supervise to be unacceptably irnmature. Rookie officers were described as "cry-baÞies" who complain incessantly about minor issues. The lrieutenanbs see an j.ncreased need fçr more remedial l-raining of rookies by supervisors. Participants also raised {:he issue of bheir contracu's iive ( 5 ) year sL:.'ebch-out provision, which they characberi¿ed as demoralizing ãnd inadequaLe. They strongly believe bhat their level- of not commensuraLe wibh bhe extent of compensation is aecounbabilii.y anti responsibitity they ho.ld, and for bheir spån of conLroÌ wibhin Þatrol commands. The participants from the bhird round vrere critical of bhe Officers conplained about Þoliee Academy faciLiby. insufficÍent Loeker-room space and bathroom/sltower facitities ihab ãre often oub of service or maLfuncLioning. These officers wer-e skeptical oI an Academy disciplinary syst-ern thaL "does nothing" r.rhen sonìe(lne is [he recipient of numerous "sl-ar cards" and/or Comnrand Di;ciplines. ALbhough none of these Anr:if J-ary issues rvere introduced by Lhe projecb staÊf , the facb thab Lhey \'¡ere raised repeatedly by officers is tel}ing. Perhel)s more than some of the ol:her issues discussed elsewhere in this reporb, participants were excepbionally vocal and vehernenL in inLroducing and discussing bhese. The projecb sLaff beLieve thaE these issues are closeì.y Case n:10-cv¡06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-3115 ,Page 64 ol72 (59) Itnked t-o bhe developmenb of cynicism, and bo feellngs of anb.tpathy for the DeparLme¡rL. Tlrey certalnly permft offfcers bo question and Lo denlgrat.e [-he overall lrrtegrfty of the Department's pollcles and pollcy makers. A number of aucillary issues were raised bY the ICO group. They percçive an inordinal-eIy high turnover rate among ICO'sr atbirbuting this bo the facl thab bhe PIaLoon Comrnander's posibton is much more attracbive, in terms of qesponsibility, bhan their olr'n. Feu ICO's, accoun'uabilify, and flexibiliby, they said, would not prefer assignmenL as a Plaboon Commander, and they at.bempb. Lo secure such assigrrnien Þs when vacancÍes occur. ,a-s a resul t, they be-lieve i'.hah ICO¡ s åre also generally Ehe l-east tenured and Leasl experj.enced Lieubenants r+ithin a precinct çsinÍ-rrê.Dd Às nobed, l-he rco/s feel thaL their knowiedge, skilis and abilities are urrder-ubilized¿ Pðrbicularly in regard bo conducting investigatÍons and liaison with bhe Internal Affairs Bureau and Borough Inspecbions Units. They would like Lo see some sort of career path credit toward investígative assignmenbs, and would like the same overtime and chart day opportunities enjoyed by PIatoc'n Commanders. The ICO's also claim to Þe under-resourced. The clerÍcaI trorkload bhey currently carry warrants the assignrûent of a supervisory assisLant and a civilian cÌerical sL,af f mem'ber, ãs t'¡eII as a dedicated computer and unmarked car. llib.h such resources' the IcO's beLieve that Lhey can devote more bime bo conducting field observations and investigaLions, which are currently aII but precluded. The ICO/ s also complained thaL thgy are overburdened with cleri-ca} work, to the extent thaþ they cän rarely conduct adeguate f ield observabions of Lhe of f icers in t,heir commands. One ICO noted tha[ he currently bears the responsibiliBy and bhe accountability for inbegriby in a high êrime command of over three hundred (300) officers, and thaI an addibiona]. sixty (60) officers are expected to be assigned there in February 1 994. Given the fact bhat the rCOt s also reÞorb that Commanding Officers ofben assign bìrem addit.ional clerical Lasks and responsibilibies only mar.-girraJ.Iy reJ,ated Lo their ICO duties, their comp).aints corrcerning inadequate bime and resources bo do l-heir job appear [-o have some meri t. Specifically, t.hey called for Lhe Deparl-me¡rt Lo provide l-hem (an assis [-ant ICO ) / compuiers and çri t.h additÍonal staif computer training, and a dedicerted vehicle- At present, tlrey st.ate bhab Þhe ICO's cars are frequently bolrowed by Commanders and Execubive Officers. I . I i Case l-il-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02ll-3/1-5 Page 65 of 72 (60) . Several anclllary issues arose durlng the course of Lhe Guardlans AssocÍation Focus Group, lncJ.uding t.he perceph,ion of uufair evaluablon practlces rihich adversely impact mfnorfl-y ihe parbicipanLs beliet,e bhaL in conLrasb bo Lhe ol.d of ficers. system.6E evaIuab.ion,. the recently revised evaluatÍon process is less fair Lo m¡'.nority of f icers, As in previous grouPs, Lhe problem of inexperienced supervisors arose again, as did Lhe perce'p'cion bhaI r¡ora.le and discipline have declf ned. rhe partiðipanbs evinced a view bhat ib is exceedingly dtfficulb for miñorit-y officers bo geL into "debail'r assignments, and that th.Ís js an artifacb of the systemaLic racism ano sexism exisbing r+ithin the Department. The participanbs belleve t.hab Àfrican-Ànerican and obher rni.noriby officers are treated unfairJ-y as a result of this le.cist and sexisE posture, which pervades the recruitment, discipline, Promcruiorr ãrrd Personnel assignment sysLerns as v¿elI as almost every aspecb of Lhe The redressal process, Department and its policies. parLiçularly bhe Office of EquaI Employrnent Opportuniby, does not v+ork for African-American officers, the parbícÍpants said. Case 1:1-0-cv,-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (oi Filed 02/L3/1_5 Page 66 of 72 ¡ c_0.Nc-LUsroi{ The systemablc use of Focus Group mebhodology as a managernent bool For the idenkificaLlon oF organizablonal problems and enplo'¡ee concerns, and for Lhe ldenEifLcablon of cogenE s Lrategies to remedy these problems and concerns, provides executives wibh ðn appropriabe artd viable vehicle for implemenbing change. Focus Groups would seem [o 'oe a part icularJ-y ef f ect, nanagemenb bool- wi thín the f ÍeId of policing, since bhe dÍmensions and character of the police occupaLional culture impacb tremendously upon bhe aclrievement of organizabional goals and objectives. P¡oficient police e.v.ecutÍves a¡le wel.l aware of Lhe culb,urers capaeit,y to eiiher faciliÈate or inhibit change, and of bhe need to manage and direct, Ehe culture as carefrtlly as they wou.Id any olher resource. By providing opporLunÍties for officers Eo parbicipafe in egency managernen b th::ough mernbersh ip in Focus Groups or advisory panels, police execubives concurrentì.y encourage officers to assume "ownership" ,)f bhe agency and oi ihe changes taking place wibhin it. Focus Groups engender cooperation in the process of implementing r;h¿ngg, and ühey enhançe the overall. lever of LrusL and unanimily within bhe organÍzabion. rn this regard, Bocug Groups constitube a far more effecbive modaliby for implemenbing charrge bhan merþ execuEive fiat. Perhaps the most essenbial facbors in the ultlmate success or fail-ure of t.hose changes, however, are the shief executive's con¡rniLrnenb to bhe process and to bhe underrying assumpbions thal process makes aboub the capaeities and capabiJ-ities of employees to identify and generaLe solutions for Ltre critical issues facing the ågency. Focus Groups and qualiLy circres inevÍLabry enbail the sharing of power and responsibirity, but do not allay the executive's accountabiì. i Ly for {:he changes which occur. Perhaps l-lie nlosb irrporÈanL informal-ion to ernerge from this seh of Focus Groups i.s [he fact bhat police of ficers seem genuinely inberested Ín want,inq corruption Lo be eriminabed, rhey- ar-L,iculate very Iil-ble tolerance for corrupbion or serious nrisconduct in their. midst, ând many speak openty to the pride bhey still feeL in beirrg police officers. rhey ieem to believe wholeheart.edry in bhe notion t"hat f-hey are fundamentaì.1y different frorn Lhe pubric they polÍce. They arso speak oi their embar:rassment when off iceis such as t.llchael Dowd are exposedr ônd bo l-heir anger at. hirn and at obhers lrho v¡ou1d tarnish their image. Their anger is evidence of the culture,s Case f-i10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/l-3ll-5 .Pug" 67 ol72 (62) vitallby and of bhe high posiliive regard l-hese offlcers have for Lhemselves and for their peers. The Focus Group process holds greâE pror'rise aS one oi qn arrey of ,LooIs avãi1ab.le to poJice executives inclined bo prac[ice par-l-icipabive management bechniques. - The- process þrouides þolice executives wi[h a useful and altogether ñecessary ieeóback mecira¡risrnr and ã nìeans wibh which to assess and measure the lmpacb of new or propoSed policy changes among the work force anä *ithin bhe subculture. By consulbing with employees regarding policy development, rnanagement is.afforded amþle opportunibf Lo glean essenbial daba r¿hich cãn infotn And shápe bhose pollcies, ultimalely enhancing tÌreir effecbÍveness. As has been dernonstrabed j.n Ehis project, PoIÍce OEfÍcers anri DeLecLives irr tiris Depãr"uätet'^t have a lo';l tolerance for corrupt behaviÞr on the parl- of Lheir pûers, a facb '¡hich ts rePort not - mí b,iga[ed by bheir relucb,ance bo of f icially corrupbÍon r,ribhout full assurance of confidential-iby or anonymi ty . Rabher, t,h is f i nd j, ng poinfs uP several- areas for poltcy refinemenL, and perhaps for major revision of exisbing t.he þoficles, SpecÍficaIly, bhe officers who participabed ínacute Èocus Groups arþiculabed a pressing need as weII as an desire for policies and procedures which r+iIl permit, them to report, c,)rruption withoub bhe f:ear of Consequence, either fr0m ihe agenoy ' s hierarchy or f rorn bheir peers. To al-Iay thetr current high level of cynicism and disLrust ior manôgemenU ln general and i:he internal invesLigaEive funcliion in particular, Lfiey must first be convinced bhab bhe Departmenb is "on bhe 1evel". police Officers, whose working environrnent and subculture make t.hem particuLarly attuned to decep[ion and dissenbly, must be convinced bhab management decisions are made pr imar i v or) f-he basis of f airness and equity, and t.haU politica T and parochiaL issues only minimally impact those J- dec i s ion S. fn a heuristic sense, the preser'ì[: Group project has also idenbified a need for co¡lbinued st,udy and for additional Focus Group sessions on these and other topics. the va-ì.ue of these addibioral sessions mig)rL r.reIl- be arrgmented b,hrough the adminisbrabion of various survey i¡rsb¡urnenLs (e.9., Llre Niederhof f er Cynicisrn Scale, the Fishman-McCormack Scale 'of police ProbiL.y and Improbity, Lhe Buzar.¿a Police Job Sat,isfaction Questionnaire) to ¡-ocus Group members a.s well as t,o obher operat.ional officers. Once est-abl-islred¡ ân empirical baseline fot bhe Deparþment and for various sub-samples of bhe Case 1,:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02l3-3ll-5 Page 68 ol72 (6s¡ ì agency can be carefuJ-ly monlLored Lo raeasule the exbenb and direcLlol of aLfftude chalrqes tn resPonse bo policy modlflcaLions. Future Focus Groups mighL also be comprlsed of previous parl-icipants, reuni l-ed to discuss Lhe changes they have seen es a resulb of the pr:ojecb' As police aLLibudes.begin and contÍnue Èo change, par[ÍcipaLive management concepLs derrra¡ld lhai, execur"ives st.ay abreasb of bhe changes and bheir nuãn6es. 1'he management of police cuIEure, perhaps to greater exLenL t.han obher resources/ requires co¡'rsist-ent accurate feedback and constant aLtention on Lhe part of concerned execul-ives wlro are cornmitt,ed l-o Positive change. I I i I I Case 1-:l-0-cv-06û05-RWS Document 400'-3 Filed 02l1-3ll-5 Page 69 of 72 (6i) 1l r ll ¡\ A'mACHt'{Eb{T SUMM/\R.Y OF RECOI4MENDATIONS FROM FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPÀNTS: # An increase in the years of service requirement r-or promotion so that Serçeants can gain sofne practical sEreeb ISSUtr 1 exPerience. - glj.minabion of lhe presenb FTU syst-em in favor of a tiai.ning scheme r.odelerl a f ter t.he NSU' s . Àn a1l-e¡native bo the st.eady tcur concepÈ' À "scooter chartrr available on a voluntary basis. rSSUE # 2 Derrartment values need to be integrated into lralning to heighten awareness. À clear definition of corrupLion and ethica] issues needs bo be revieç¡ed. ISSUE # 3 Randont increased. arrd for côuse ôrug screening Departrnent policy on drug reviewed and clarified, Training procedures. TSSUE H tape to inform aIl use bs *should be by members should be Les members on policies and 4 A clear policy statenren! ( eoard of Ë bh ics Rul- i ng ) concerning f ree or d iscoun becl meals needs l-o be incorpora bed into Eraining, ISSUE H 5 Inbegrity tesl-s ( targebed and random) should be increased Case 1-:'10-cv-06005-RWS Document40t-3 Filed (5s ISSUE H 0211-3/1-5 Page 70 aÍ 72 ) 6 l' rniLlabJ.o n of an aggressive inforrnaElon campafgn to publlcize and promobe Lhe new 1-800-PRIDE-PD number, and Lo bhal: CaÌÌer assure l-he p untic as +rell as officers fdeul-ificallon L echnoJ-ogy is not being used. An on*going precincÙ dialogue Program Hith rne¡nbers of Lhe Inbernal 'Àffairs tsureau as a mrfans bo sensibize ofiicers from boi:h groups Lo bhe obJecb.ives arrd goals oE the other. The InternåI Affaírs Bureau change lLs image and its rnethods of operab.ion. Changing bhe fnl:ernal Affairs Bureau real or percei'*ed poJ-icy oÊ permitbing invesbigaLors Lo close out serious allegabions èi bher as "ijnsubstai¡Liafed" or as "otlrer I,lisconduct Noted" through issuance of Corrrmand Discjplines for administrative infracLions. ISSUE # 7 Supervisory braining should emphasize leadershÍp and management skiIIs. Revise first. l-ine supervisory trainíng. rssuB # I Tlte Internal Rffairs Bureau should be invo.Lved in corruption training. PoIice Academy instructors need more training in corrupb,ìon matters. #9 - the regulabion hat should be optional equipment, ât least during the surnmer months, and Lhat officers be given some discrehion in choosing when and under whal- circumstances to ISSUE wear i b. Brooklyn l{orth parbÍcipants believe bhat bheir Pat¡ol Borough should be considered a training ground for nell members of Lhe service t Tàther than a "dumping ground. t' This senLiment was quite strong wil-hin Llre group. Posil-ive act,ion should be quickly taken self -idenbi l-ies . Lo dispel this set of percepl-ions and I I I

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?