Schoolcraft v. The City Of New York et al

Filing 500

DECLARATION of Alan H. Scheiner in Support re: 498 MOTION in Limine To Preclude Plaintiff From Offering Certain Evidence at Trial.. Document filed by Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 in his official capacity), Christopher Broschart(Tax Id. 915354 Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483, Individually), Kurt Duncan(Shield No. 2483 in his official capacity), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, Individually), William Gough(Tax Id. 919124, in his Official Capacity), Elise Hanlon(in her official capacity as a lieutenant with the New York City Fire Department), Elise Hanlon(individually), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 in his official capacity), Shantel James(Shield No. 3004 Individually), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840 in his official capacity), Theodore Lauterborn(Tax Id. 897840, Individually), Michael Marino, Michael Marino, Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370 in his official capacity), Gerald Nelson(Assistant Chief Patrol Borough Brooklyn North, Tax Id. 912370, Individually), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576 in his official capacity), Frederick Sawyer(Shield No. 2576, Individually), The City Of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G (Under Seal), # 8 Exhibit PTX 4, 6, 13, 16, 18, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 72, 84, 93, 95, 306, 308, 309, 314, 316, 400, 401, 402, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 420, 421, 426, 427 (Under Seal), # 9 Exhibit PTX 79, # 10 Exhibit PTX 81 (Part 1 of 2), # 11 Exhibit PTX 81 (Part 2 of 2), # 12 Exhibit PTX 404, # 13 Exhibit PTX 410, # 14 Exhibit PTX 411)(Thadani, Kavin)

Download PDF
PTX 81 e L:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02113/15 'Page þ o .o 1- of 72 g r rù -.ne. Ë rí.^T¡T.,.-r d rel'tdl -,..¡Þ r- l'1ft /'ií-i-Ë*f\,R.T g,Flt Elt HËt i:l E l\.-:f1l l-ï< E I tsv tr n5 EtTt _H. \-ltjtJ-iLB,-, Hj'r\.-,\r'.-r'.I,-.\-\-qE. ¡IJ À- .ø- tr suFl { A ìÀTT\i ¡fl]T Tr*T rfí-tTf Tì¡"Þ Et F"-[JË-r.H' U-m\.n, ; låI\ß/ À li1^ ^oo - la*.^n¡c-4 rc\ ä-lí rr.+-o'n.+.rt!,r"i å' 1,¡U."J.:} $J I Þ-Þ irt !. v,-E / L'.h. .t!t-rr.-¡¿1¡.nv$ *rv "r,ar**.z /ä .-:','lìi' tt Rfi EÈ EJ I lÐ A tñä ñ tr mt 'l ! [¡tten-xnfi"É .{f f airs Btç.reau. C+rranpÊion Frevellíji(:¡rh a.t?il.,A,nalysËs ElD EJiûig Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/l-5 Page 2of 72 Utr^ WÍtrIÍâïìir J" Bratûon Foiice Col'ii iri issicn er Ðavid TV. Seoúf First D eputy Commissio ner Walfer Maek ty Co rn lni.ssÍ o n er ïntel'¡ral AffaÍrs Ðep u Case l-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-3/l-5 trage 3 oÍ 72 .%. q'or tr J tir 'ñ H Ía ø EC FI H E il Ë ß ú É J.d ffæmÆrpÆdÆãtr psæp'W fffe sW ffiW F#fl€ ÆÆVÆF ,Æqffid-H$#s Fir ¡ñ þ:l .fti l!Ëd ül H Êl H.,,rgggw twgdqg Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/l-3l3-5 Påge 4 öt 72 ¿F #*Æ R u FTeærirr F æ wærurfl## tråN¿,ry Ærv*n¿.Hsd,s Fsn¡w Fr+3ect ,qtaff Cliarlcs r,/. Campisi Inspector Coiniiianding OffTcer Sgt. Vincent X{enry OÌUAP Sgt. Leopold Foje P.0. Ðert'ick Fel'vis S.A. iea¡i R.eËlly Case 1-:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/1-311-5 Fage 3 of 72 TÀBI,E OF COllllEÌ'ITS Pi\GE SUBJECT trqtrat trrlf l_rR sf rvt4,4q1' ^ a I t 1 lrtgvv i¡'ITRODUCTTON 14 HBTHODOLOüY 18 ct{À}icEs l,lrTHrN THE DEPè.RTMENT (rSsUE DEPÂRTNiEÌ,]T VALUtrS (ISSUE # # 1) ?6 2I 31 DEPÀRTHENT DRUG TESTING POLICY (TSSUE DEFINING CORRUPTION (TSSUE # 4 # 3) JJ 5) INTEGRITY TESTING (TSSUN 4) # REPORTING CORRUPTION.(ISSUE 41 6) SUPERVISORY TRÀTNTNG TSSUES ( ISSUE CORRUPTTON TRÀTNTNG 38 43 # 52 7) (ISsUE H 8) ANCILLÃRT TSSUES (ISSUE # 9 54 56 } CONCLUSTON suMl4ÀRY OF RECoIIMENDÀTTONS {¡rt¡CHpTENT "Àrr 61 ) 64 FOCUS GROUP OUTËTNES (ÀTTÀCHMENT ,'B'I } 66 BItsLIOGRAPHY 68 Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 EXECUTIVE Filed 02/1-313.5 Page 6ôf 72 SUV¿MARY At the dlrectlon of Fol lce Comn j.ssioner Raymond KelJ.y, bhe tnLernal Affalrs Bureaur s Corruption Þrevention and Analysi.s Unit (Cpeu) f ntLlabed a serf es of Focus Groups 1n order l:o ldent.lfy and explore some of the prevailing ablitudesr përcêptlons and oginions exísLinç among members of bhe Deparl.menL. tct*ard a range of integriþy re-Labed issues. This research projecb, çrhich corunenced in early AugusL and concluded in Iate December, '1993 ulLi'-'aì;eIy involved l-rvenLy tl''ree ( 23 ) groups of- of f icers of various ranjts and assignments wiLhih bhe agency, 6nd a tol-a] of over bhree hundred ( 300) members parl-icipabed in bhe !"ocus Groups. The projec',. *as underr-¿k-en 1n recognibion of t,he facb bhat the informal demands and constralnts of bhe poìice occupatíonaÌ of ten impacL as pobently upon ¡rolice discreti.onary cu lture bchavior as the formal policies and procedures prorilulgab,ed by the âEency. Vlhile ùhe liLera[:ure of policing a¡rd of police deviance have lorig emphasizeâ bhe importance of culbural factors in determining police behavior' a greaL deal of that research Õn polÍce culbure is daled, arrd bherefore of dubious value. rn order bo EaÍn a more comprehensive and conbemporary understanding of the atLitudes, fercepbions and belief sysbems which are subsumed by the police subculture, and Lo provide bhis daba bo the Po1ice Commissioner in order to beLL.er Ínform his policy decisions, the research tean adopLed a Focus Group nrethodologry. Focus Groups involve i¡rLeracLive direc{-ed interviews of smalI groups of individual-s of similar backgrounds, in order to develop information and t-o reach concl-usions aboub other individual-s and groups possessed of sÍmil,ar characLeristics. Focus Group methodology was deemed a vÍable and approprÍaÈe formab for eficiting dal-a relabive t.o inbegrity issues, since bhe enduring potenbial for police corruption appears inevitabry to exist within the nexus of discretionary behavior, formal control Policiesr añd bhe occupalional culture's toferance for members, deviaûce. Consistenb wibh accepted practices of Focus Group research, each group was cornprised of approximaL.ely fif teen (1S) members, and twenLy ( 20 ) of bhe bwerrty l_hree ( 23 ) groups uere randomly selected by compuLer from the population of officers possessíng similar background characl-eris L.ics . The relevant backgrorrnd characterisbics, vrhich incl.uderJ r_-ank, [-enurÉ in the aggncy, . Lype of assignnrenb (i. e. , patrol . Communi L.y policing unit, ËieLd Training unib, Porice Academy recruil-s, iupervisorõ and middle managers), and irr so¡ne cases tne platoon to which bhe officers were steadily assigned, were sel-eðLed because these easily-operationalized variables appear most rikely Lo ptay a powerf uI role in determ j.ning r'¡ork-related atbi budes and Lrelieis . Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-31L5 Page 7 ot 72 (21 Thus, each of Lhe offícers atbendtng a Parbicular Focus Group sesslon had a com¡:arable career prof1le, and would L.lterefore be expecLed L.o have slmtlar abb.f tudes. By e).tmlnatf ng selecblon biàs througlr randornization lechnlques, by ensurlng that all nembers of a particular Focus Group shared Lhe safne or essenbially simlLar backgrnunds and work experiences, and b'¡ probirtg deepiy inLo the atbitudinal daEa bhey elici[ed, the project su¿rff are coiriiôcni: irr gen+raJ.j.zi:':-o these finclings bo õther simi. larly si{-r¡at ed groups and individuals wibhin the Department. This level of confidence t/as furLher enhanced by sliqhbty alLering the selecl-ion criteria of successive groups, and by 6þss¡ving Lhe slight differences in bhe beliefs and convictions espoused i:y L.hose. çr-cuPs. Tha scoPe and durab,ion of th.e pro jech also permi tteiì Lhe research ta¿m to eccurnuLa be a rreatth of general and specific daba concerning officers' belief systerrrs, ôs l;ell as Lc disce¡:n manv of the subtler a¡rd more nuanced cìynainics of bhcir se),f -reporLed behavior. Each of Lhe Focus Groups rdas conducted in a "round-table'r formaE, and participants were asked to respond bo an ídenL.ical series of open ended quesbions related to integriby and corruption. fn order bo ensure the reliabii-iiy of t.he daLa, Lhe facilitabors refrained fron introducing Lheir own opinions, and made every effort bo encourage candid discussÍon anrong parbicipents. To that end, participants were assured thab a).though not.es would þe Laken by one rnember of the projecb staf f , no names or identibies '*ould be recorded; ab Lhe end of each session, par[icÍpanLs v¡ere asked to review t,he ç¡rÍl-i;en nobes to guaranhee accuracy and anonymity. It should be ernphasized thai; the facilit.ators encountered l-itLle reluctance on t.he parL of of f icers t.o discuss Lhe issues and guestions posed to bhem. fndeed, bhe vast majoriEy of parLicipant.s seeared bo appreciabe bhe oppotLuniby bo share their views and opinÍons wiLh bhe projecb st.aff, in apparent hope Lhab their input would result in substanbive and posiCive changes ho DepartmenL poì-icies and pracbices. The following questions were posed to bhe Focus Group parLicipan bs 1. l{or+ has the job of polÍce off icer changed in t.he pasl Years ? 2. ' Àre Lhe Deparl-menL values reaso¡rab.Le or unreasonabte? 3. F/hab. Ís reasonable and unreasonable abou l- bhe Deparl-rnent/ s Drug Test,ing poì. icy and procedure? 4. How do Police Officels define corruption? 5. 9lhat role do inEeg:riLy tesLs ptay in the DepartmenL,s ant i-corrup[:ion ef for t.s ? 6. Hov¡ do He encourage Lhe reporLing of corrupbion? 1. whaL are t-he train.ing - needs for porice supervisors? (quesl-ion posed L,o supervisory. gtoupsi 8. How effective is corruption training? : Case l-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-31L5 Rage B'of 72 (3) Às nobed, participanLs' responses Lo Lhese questlons resulþed 1n bhe conrpllaLton of an abundant. base of df verse dat.a concerning the depbh, dimenslons and prevalence of partlcular at{:ttudes boçrard lntegr{by and corruptlon r+iLhin bhe agency and wlthin specific populat,tons of ibs personnel. The exbensive and in|rÍcate nature of Lhis dat-a set, in iact, presenbed bhe project staf f: wi t-h sor¡ìe dÍ f f iculty in disLilLing and condensing i b Lo a icrrnab sr;: table f or bhis reForb. Based upon bhe raw dala obbaÍned, however, Lhe projeçt staff have developed a host. oí Eindings and conclusions reìaLive to Lhe dynamics of Lhe fiolice cu1L,ure and {-he level- of inlegrity wil:hin t.his Depar[ment, These daEa have also resulbed in a number of speci fic polÍey rÊcûíiìÍììenCe'cicns. îr'hile bhe bul-k of bhese f indings and recoinrìende'¿iu.ns êre contained v¿I Lhln the body of Ehis report, some of the principal cribical findings are sunnrarized below' fL should be noLed Lhab wherever possible bhe projecb sfaff have atLernpbe.d [o capture, in Lhis sumnary and in the repori,, Lire bypical language and connotatÍons used by Focus Group particípants. ISSUE #1 Hcrv htu; bhe job.-oË-Pql"iqe Of-fig¡¡r c-hanqed? I'ice-breaker" guesbj.on Has int,ended bo this inibiaT sbimulate díseussion aroong parlicipants and bo idenb.i f y broad rn raising these issues and trends wltich cc,ncern officers. issues early in [he þ'oeus Çroup process, pfojec[ sbaff were ab]e nob only Lo gain Ínsight into the general level oi morale, but to prevenL Lhese issues from Iat.er inbrudinçr upon and disbracting from discussions of inbegrity-specífic issues. In virtually aII of the groups, a similar seb of percept.ions and bhemes emerged; bheir recurring nature is evidence of their pervasiveness and of bhe fact thab bhe culLure holds bhem unguesbionably as valid bru bhs . Àmong those in the Police Officer rank, Sergeanh.s were roundly cri bicized for an Íncreasing lack of ìnberacbive co¡nmunication skills ãnd job knot+J.edge, as vrelì- as for lheir Iack of impartialiLy and Lheir poor decision-making ski11s. These sentiments were echoed by Capbains as weII. Inereasirrglyr SergeanLs are young and inexperienced, and úheir practice of social.izing off-duby r,,'j.th srrbordinahes is det,rimental bo their on-dul-y command and conLrol. Precinct--based Field Training Un its (F'TU/ s) brere harshly crib,icized for failing Lo adequabely schooì-.rookie officers in the reali by of porice t¿ork . The now-clefuncb Neighborhood SLabilizaLion Urrit.s (tlSU's ) are regarded as a riìore ef fective f ieLd training st,rategy in which seni.or pat,ror of ficers teach a common sense approach to police r.rork, tâther hhan the "by the book" slyre evídent arnong sergeants. The FTU concept sljfles Case L:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02ll-3115 Page 9 a'f 72 (4) fnlttat,ive arrd mat.urity, and 1s almosb unl\,ersalIy characterlzed as a "summons detall" designed prlmarlJ.y bo generate revenue. The .sLeady tour concept has had a dtvlslve and delel,erlous impacL, fraci:ionallzIng each preclnct into '"four' separabe commands" in whlch officers lrave no relaLionshlps, interactions, or affinity for officers assigned to obher plat.oons. The concepb because officers is "destr'oying the job" and creating conflictr*he follow:r].ng tour. f ew inhiì.ri [-ions aboui- "durnpirrg jobs" cn have Officers miss the informal camaraderÍe and Iocker rooÍn banl-er, and numerous cI iques have f ormed. Cliques f acil f i:ate rnisconduct and corruption by eroding posibive peer pressure and by inLensifying in-group J.oyalty bonds. GreaL tension and , aninosiL'; e:,.ists beL',teen Community Folicing Unib (CPU) and sector officers. The perceoL.Íon is thal CPU officers spend bheir bime unsupervised, socÍalizing r¿Íbh reside¡rts wlrile pabrol of !i.eers rJo the bulk of polÍce i-¡ork. They do not resporrd Lo caLls for service, especialJ.y gun runs anci arrest situaLíons. CPU Officers consbibute a privileged class; they benefib from Lhe "dial-a-tour'\ concepLr t.heir requesbs for days off are more frequently granted, and bhey do not "fly" bo debails or backfil-I secbors. CPU Officers do nob dispube many of these claims. RecruiLment and hiring sLandards have faIIen dramabically, and ofiicers åre ouLraged aL. the number of new hires v.'ho have had felony arresLs wiLh misderneanor convicLiorrs. Many patrol of iicers quesbionecl Lhe int.egri ty and Lhe characLer of rookies, and are relucta¡rL to work xit,h thenr for t.his reason. Applicant invesbigators are seen ãs processors of paperwork, raLher bhan inveshigabors who conduct. credible backEround and characber i nves L.iqabions . Participant"s'. RecornmendaLions : Rev i se the Basic Managernent ori enl-a bion course l-o emphasize cCImmunicatíon skirrs, leadership, and personnel managemenb. rrnpose a higher years-of-service requiremenb for promobÍon to Sergeant. Abandon L.he ¡'Tu concept in favor of the Nsu Lraining concept. ULiJize Lhe l-alenl-s of senior pal-roI of!:icers [-o menbor rookies. Give rool<ies more realisLic "hands-on" tr:aining in " re al " pol i ce tvork Re-inl:roduce å scool-er charb or some obher rotabing bour sys b.em, pårLicuIarIy f or rookie of f icers. RecruitmenL and hiring sbandards must be raised, and t.he appl icant' s characber musl- be of prirnary concern. Applicant invesLigal-ors mus b conducL, actual invest.igaLions, unhampered by . t_ I Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/l-3/15 Page tO of 72 (5) quoÞas or ot,her hlrlng rsslrB 2: .tre thg oeua¡Lment. valJeÐ Leasonable or r.lnreasonable? /f mandates ' Many offÍcBrs hlere cOmplebely unaware of Ehe Deparbmenb Vaiues, tc the exf:e¡rt Lhaf projecf staff í:elt it necessafy to bring a copy of bhe VaLues fo group sessions as an examplar, . Many Of Lhose uho Here aware derided hhe values as plabibudes or a public relabions gimmick, frequenbly sbatinq thab the nepartment itself does nob uphoJ.d bhem. In pracEice, overtime uoncerns deLernine hos aggresÈíl:ely ',riclators r.¡i1Ì be pursuad and arresbed,' the age¡tcy shows liELle rèspecb for the dignity of ibs members; pol i tics overrÍde imparbial Íty in enf orcing lar^rs; inbegri Èy :'..s e]r.nêcted of of f icers, but ranking of f icers easiì.y receive disability pensions. Values cannot be J.earned t-hrough publ ic sl,atemen ts , or taughb bo Lhose who do not possess t.hem prior to joining Lhe Departmen t, . Other Lhan PoIice :À.cademy recruits, fer+ believe that the Va.lues sbatemenb, per se, Ís of any Þractical use or bhab ib inforrns their evety-àuy decisions Notwithstanding these criticisms, members almosb universally agreed that the values were reasonable standards of conduct, ISSUE #3: Àre.-9he Departmen9ls_druq testínq policies reAsonaÞIe? Nurnerous misconcep[ions and a greah deal of misinforrnahion regarding drug besbing policíes and procedures hrere discerned, bo bhe exl-ent thaI projecb staff felt compelled to preface bhis quesbíon wi t,h an expJ.anabion of 3.aboratory besting and chain-of -cusbody procedures. l,fosb nobably, l-he true randomness of Lhe.random seLection process is doubted. Bvery Focus Group displayed a complete intoJ.erance for drug use by I'IOS. Older of f icers of all- ranks Lended t,o f avor rebenbion of pension rights for vesl-ed enrployees, but overallmost supporl-ed Lhe polícy of immediate terminat,ion wi th l-oss of all pension rights. A few favored drug rehabilibabion prior bo t,erminabio¡1, and only a handful sLat;ed tbat. drug users merib a second chance Þfenrbers vJere highly supportive of increased random drug tesEing, despíte their confusion aboub Lhe administration oi tests. Î'¡ibh the excepl-ion of the participants from the Guardians i I ! I I ¡ I, I I Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/L3/1-5 Bage Ll ol72 (6) Assocj-at-1.on, vlrLuaIIy etL were saEisfted wibh teshlng procedures as we1l. p.FrLicÍpan t.s' Recornmenda Lions Lhe "fôf cause" : Increase Lhe numbe¡ and percenlage oÊ mer¡bers randomly [esbed, and consider random field tesLs c¡f large groups of officers, Q.9.,aE Ehe oubdoor range. PoÌÌce appliCants should also be subject bo random drug tesLing, since the currerr[- p-rêctice of -çcheCtr]íng medicaLs in advance måy af ford Lhem t he opport uni t:'¡ Lo "clean uP" Lemporarily. projegt SL.af f '-g Recomûtgnda-bion si The DeparLment should i.niBiaEe a formal. campaign bo dispel film misconcepbíons aboub Þole Testing. including a brief depicting the acLua} process from generation of daily random [es[ing lisbs through laboratory LesLing. Tlris fi]m shou]d be vÍ ewed by members selecLed for tes ting, anc'l incorpora bed i n to PrecincE LeveÌ ?raining. Given bhe acceptance of Randorn Dole ?esbÍng among officers and Lheir Iack of tolerance for members using drugs, the DepartmenE should consider increasing the nunber and percentage of members bested. ISSUE #4 How do Police Offiçer$ deflne corrupl-ion? elbhough parLicipant-s experience great diffÍculty in articulating a precise definiEion of corrupbion, project 'sbaff obtained a fairly delailed undersbanding of l:he types of behavior officers consider corrupt. A criminal act, the aclive pursuit or solicitabion of a personal gain¡ accepEing money under any benefí b for circumstances, or Lhe explicit expectaLion of a benefit as the result of one's duEies ås a Police Officer clearly fell r+ithin the real-m of corrupíion. Free coffee, and to a l-esser extent, discounEed meaLs, were generally considered to be corrupt when no implicit. or not explicit officers are 'confident expectaLion of recìproci by exists. Lhab they can dísLinguísh situaLions vrhere such Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/l-3/l-5 Fage 12 of 72 (7) expecLa[ions exisb. Offlcers had sorne dlfftculty in cornprehending Lhe current Board of Ethics ruling's dlsllnchf on bebr+een acceptlng a J.tght repasb ln a social- or non-social sebting, and many l'tere unaware of blre ruling ibself Overr+helmingly, parLicipants voiced a favorable atbibude Lc\r+ard a st,rcng inLcrnal-.\ffairs functiOn r+hich wOuld concent¡abe on "reaI coríuption" ral-her bhan the petby, "t+hi Ee Socks" infract.ions upon rvhich it iras previously f ocused. ConcurrentJ.y, parbicipanbs had a hiqhly negabive opinion of Lhe InEerna] Àf fairs functÍon as it has operated Lo dal¿e. I¡ltsr,.-Êl è,ffairs inve*sbi.gatorsr âs a group, are seen as poorly skiJ-1ed a¡rd inexpericnced in..,esbigators vrho possess IiLtle knowledge of or empaihy fo'¡ pracLical policing or for other of f j-ceri. and vrho ar-e ¡noie conL,eirl- bo iield "ground ball" cèses r+hich re.suIL in "easy nurnbers" than' to do real investigations of LruIy corrupl- cop.s. . Fêr Li cina_n ts' Recorrurlqnda b,i on s.i The De¡rarhnenb should fost,er and faeiliLate candid and open discussions of corrupbion problems and issues, iñ order Lo inform, educate and sensi bize officers.. Such dialogue, Ín may ecL as a deterrent: to corruption if the "Slippery itself, SIope" hypothesis is correct. Proiect,Stâf f / s Rec_ornmendation :. The Board of El:hÍcs should meet to discuss and clarify bhe Deparhmenb's Policy regarding Lhe accepbance of a light repast in â social seLting. Examples should be provided to avoid furbher confusion, This ruling should t-hen be disseminated to aII members of the service and incorporated i n l:o l-he training curriculu¡n, l?hÀb rqlg do rlrt-egrihy Lesbs ptav in i-co{rupt ion ef forjLs? TSLIJE #5an L th_e DeparJnent's Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02l1-3/l-5 Page Ls-ot 72 (B) Targeted lnt.egriby Lesbs, carefully administered and dfrecLed boward of,flcers who are reasonably suspeeted of serlous mlsconduct or corruptlon, t'tere seen as a leglt.lmabe lnveshigabive tooL. Reservatlons were exptessed aboub non-suspecb offlcers "beÍng in bhe wrong place ab the rvrong Eine, " and l"ests focusÍng on administrabive sf¡ors and minor misconducL. Con'3erns ai:out random b,est.ing bypicalJ-y involved anecdoÈes aboub besLs unfairly adminisl-ered by Inbernal Affairs¡ or those in which officers were F'unislred for ¡ninor' adminisbrative violations. f,thile randon tesbs may deUer some members from minor acLs of corrupbion, hard-core corrupb officers wiLl noL be Feì{ of f icers trr:s[:ed the integri by of the randorn cieberred . bes ts Llremselves , and Lhe i.ssue of enLrapment Has f requently raised. Some officers, irìcluding nosf of the Guardians Focus Group, believed that the Lesbs have been directed agaínsb parbicular individuals (or groups) under the guise of randcmness. À handful of officers belÍeved thab. the EesLs imputed a lack of trusb for an officer's integriby, and bhey stabed they would be offended if they knew bhey Here bested. ParbÍcipan bs t Reconunen.dêLi.ons : If random or directed integrib.y tests are used by the Departrnent, special pains nrr¡st be taken to ensure bhab, they are fairly administered and carefully controlled. They should address serious corruption onì.y, and any rninor adminisbrative violab,ions discovered should not resulb. in disciplinary action. Of f icers who pa.ss a random or direcbed inbegriÈy test, should be notif ied of bhat facb, and rnention of successfulJ.y passing a random tesb should be included in a members, personnel and CpI files. ISSUE #5 Hpw can the renof þing of, corrupb.iqn_b€ encouraoe.d?. Those in bhe Políce officer rank evinced greaL reluctance to report acts of misconducL or corruption among their peers. onty the mosL egregious cases, ë.g., an officer stearÍng or serling drugs, would typicalLy resul-t in an officer corning fórr+ardj eveñ in Llrose cases, officers are reluctanb Lo report corrupLion and wouId prefer Bo make t.heir leports anonymously- poli"ä offi"uru stated [haþ 'they risked bhe ostraeisúr of their peers and a i i I Case l-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/1-5 FaEe L4 ol72 iï) repuBabiOn as a "rat, " and bhat t,hey would be suspectgd-of having reþorred ¡nirror rnlsconcluct as vrelI. Some of flcers sbated oubrlght thät Lhey vrould be afratd of Physlcal reprlsaLs againsb LhemseJ-ves and Eheir farnl]j.es by corrupL offlcers or by drug dealers, and íear that elren honest of f icers woul-d not back bhem up on jobs. $op.ewhaL âr¡DmalousIy, several oif :'-cers including all of the PBÀ delegat-es stated that they wouÌd irave rro h¿si'"abion in repùriing serious corrupl-ion, and would have no fear of physlcal or sociãl repercussions. À few officers even sbabed bha[. Lhey would personally effecb an arresh rather [han l-o nake a reporl bo Lhe InternåL Af:fairs BuIeåu. Projecl sLaff noted lhab these officers appeared to be Ehe most self-confidenb of ¡rarbicipants, as weLl as Lhose vrith th,e high.p.sL staLus' participants it'ef,ê generally skepl-ical of IA8/s capaciby to ensure conEident.laIiLy, vrith severai sugEësting lhat I.À.8 trould Thay also nob be averse to "þurning" an inforrnant oificer. Desk uses 'tcaller rD'r and voice analysis. be1ieve t.hat bhe Action Few '*ere famÍ1iar +.¡ith the corruption hobline ' 21?-CARRUPT. Parbicipants conbemptuously characterized rnbernal Affairs as a "white socks and no habs oubfit,." To maÍnbain L.heir ba[ting average, investígabors issue Command Disciplines for adminisbrative violations and clôse out allegaLions as "OLher i4Ísconducb Notedtr or "Unsubstantiated" rather bhan completing a f u-l-l invesLigation which rqould resuLt in exoneraLion. Of f icers âre concerned that these notations remai¡l on their Cenbral Personnel Index files and nay be used bo unfairly deny bhem detail assignmenLs o¡r promoLions. They remain skeptical aboub Lhe rest,rucLured IÀBrs ¡sr^t image. SergeanLs r./ere generally sp1 iÈ on their repor[ing of corrupt ion. ÀpproxÌmately half indicated they r+ouId openly reporB corruption v¿hile the olher halE s[abed, they would only report corruption anonymously. In sharp contrast to the PöIice 0fficers, self-reporLed attitudes and behaviors, LieutenanLs as a group believed bhat the Police Officers they supervise t¡ould have titt,le reLucbance to report colrupl-Íon and serious misconduct, ?hey appeared very confidenL thab officers would come forward, either openJ.y or anonymously, if they knerv of corrupl-ioh. Captai ns, hor.¿ever, believed itr 'highLy unlikely bhat police 0ffÍcers would come forr.lardr êv€Íì in serious cases. Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/1-3115 Page 15 of 72 (10) Partf c lpan Ls t Reg>nrnen-cìahLons : Jnformabion aboub the corrr.rption hoblj,ne should ba widely notÍon disseninaLed throughout the agency, and blie'callers Lhat' fÀÐ mus L, be ¿es t echnoJ-Ogy bo . iden bi f y anonymotls uiii i Àbsolube confidenbÍal"iLy or anonymit.y ßust be assured dispelled. to officers who rePort corruPtion, If IAB is t.ò gain credibiliLy iL, musE change iL,s "whibe Socks" image anú concent-raLe only on Serious misCOnduct and Corrui>{-icn. I.a-B persçnneL musb be experienCed invesblgatorS. ih'¿ prècticã of closing cases tlrrough "Unsubstantiabed'r or "Other Misconduct I'IoLed" classificat.ions musb be curtailed, and an attempt, rnusL be rnade Lo fulty investigate and exonerabe cf f icers when possible. IÀÞ should be solely concerrred wi{ih serious misconducL. and corruption; minor misconducL and administrative violations should nob be wi[hin IAB's purview, nor should IAB issue Command Disciplines 'for rninor matters. The qual.i f;y and reputation of rAB invest igaLors must be improved i f the Bureau í s to )rave credibi l- i by and gaÍn the rnvestigators must be aggressive in cooperation of officers. identifying altd arresLíng co::rupt cops, but only corrupt coÞs. An on-going precinct dialogue program wilh memþers of. IAB should be init,iated, as a rneans to sensibi.ze bobh groups Eo the objecLives and goals of l-he other, and b.o change Lhe negabive image oÊ IAB. rssuL #7 Whab are tlre traininq needs of supervisors? SerqeanLs and LÍeuLenanEs onlv) tÀsked of. Sergeants and Lieubenanbs were dismiss:'.ve of the Basic Orient,ation Course (BþÍOC) and Lieutenanbs OrienlaLion Course (r,OC¡, r.rhich bhey characterized as a PabroÌ 'Guide refresher. These courses consisb prinrarily of, a series of ilLalkíng lreads" çrho discu-cs fhe operations of lheir various unÌts, and little efforb is expended to imparb leadership and effecbive management and supervisory skiLls. The cont,ent of [he trainÍng rnodules \{ere a}so criticized for failing bo realist.ica).1y address Lhe practical issues facing supervisors today, âDd part.icipants strongty emphasized the need for nhands-on" and interactive mebhods of Ínstruclion. Police Àcademy staff in general, and BMOCII',OC insl_rucbors in particular, were criLicized for bheir mediocre teaching their ]ack of'praclicaì experience, ând bheir lack of abilibies, Management 400-3 Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document Filed 02/13/15 PAge 1.6,of 72 (ii) Pollce Academy sl-aff have liLLte lnEerest overall crediblliLy. or apLltude ln conveying Lhe course materlal, ancì far Loo many breaks vrere glven Lo sl-udenbs. The courses l-ltemsêlvgg were characL,eriaed as a wasLe oÊ time, and specif lc modules (e.9. , compub.er brainingr report ivriLing, l-eadership workshops) vlere either under-resourced or coinpletely inadeguate. Fa¡ticipanbs L''eLieve bhaI bhe BMOCILOC courses are given primarily to aIIay Lhe Departmenb¡ s b.raining iiabiiii.y, rather bhan bo actually ¡rrovide supervisors wi [h useful realisbic braining. Supervisors also complained aboub an unmanageable span of co¡:t-rol. sLalÍng ¡*hab bhey are ofLen respoßsible for supervising aa errbire precinct and are boo freguenLly assigned bo cover iîìore t.han one precÍncb. trarLicuJ.arJ-y in the high crime precincLs where effecLive supervisíon is nosb crÍtica1, they are freguently dispa Lcired bo hand Ie 91 1 jobs tiur ing per iods of bacÞ.loç, in addibion to Lheir ordinary supervisory duties. Thei' complaln bhab despibe their high level of accounLabilit.y for Lhe actions of subordina[:es, Lhese factors precìude effecLive supervision, "the more [-enured supervisors also chided younger SergeanLs for becoming overly friendly with subordÍnates off-tiuty and on. fhis issue should be addressed by t.rainÍng, since Ít jeopardizes their own posibion of authority and reduces respecb for supervisors in general. Lieut.enanbs in h.he ICO gfoup clairned bo have received no Lraining in Lheir cìubies, much less in invesbigative Lechnigues. They are over¡'þslmêd wit.h paperr+ork and under-resourced. They are not apprised of any inLernal invesLùgations Laking p3-ace within their commands, and beLieve that their knowJ-edge could be of greal- assist,ance to such inbernal investigabions. The fCO posi ticln Ís the least desirable or remunerative Lieubenant position in a precinct, and is conseguenLly given bo the leasL experienced Lieutenant. Part ici pan_Ls, _ Recolrrmenda i: iolrs : Tlre BMOC and LOC courses reguire extensive revision in order to provide adeguate insbrucLion in practical issues faced by superv Ìsors Lieutenanb rco's should receive speciar trainirrg in Lheir parbicular duties and should receive the personnel and oL,her resources t.hey need; an incentive or r"*"id. sysLem should be incorporaLed. IÀB should make fulLer use of thãir knowtedge and . ta1enLs. Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/1-5 Page 17 o172 (1.2) prolecL sjatf 's. RÊce-nnd.alJea; The role ôf [he Precincu/Unit. ICO needs to be reviewed. An in-depLh anaLysis of current dubies and resPonsibilÍbies should be coäducf:eci añO a clear see of Euidelines should be promulgated. ISSUE #8. ArtcillarY fssues During the cçlurse oß bhe Focug Group SessiOns, issues freguenb.L;r- arose uhich, while not direcLLy related bo the g...o ject's goäIs and object.ives, neverb,heless merit menlion. : - Of f icers ctraracb.erized 'bhe Deparbmertb's policy on wearing haLs as irrelevanl-, draconian and petby. They relaLed frequenb anecdobes concerning Officers on emergency runs who 'rle¡e disciptined for not nearing habs. Ib should Þe noted i-haL â change in DeparLmenb policy regarding habs clurÍng the course of bhe projecb may render this issue moot. The PoIice Deparl;ment is enhirely Loo responsive bo poli bi cal Pressures, despi Le its rheLoric about. inparbial They argue forcefully bhab the enforcenenb of the lar+. oeparl-rnent and its offfcers should be j,nsulaLed from such pressures, and bhab ibs acbio¡rs should be directed aL serving the needs of Lhe entire cibizenry rat.her Lhan t.he needs and tihims of special inL.erest groups. The agency's policies are increasingly shaped by exbernal political agendas, raLher t.han by bhe needs o.Ê communibies. Community PolicÍng has dangerously extended and Parbicipants were highly enhanced this polibícal control. resenLfuL and cynical aboub the poliLicizabÍon of the ägency, characberizing it as pervasive, counter-productive, and conträry to Èhe ideals thaL Bhey and the Department espouse. Severalparbicipanbs equated this politicizabion v¡ith corruption, and guÍ L,e a ferç opined thah poli ticizaLion fost.ers and protects police corrupLion. officers have litble hope bhat this trend in poìiEieization will be reversed ParLicipanl-s in bhe Brooklyn North Focus Group asserbed bhab [heir e¡rf-ire PatrÕl Borough and'nearly aIl bhe precincts r+ithin it are regarded as "dumping grounds" poputated by misfits, malingerers and incompeten[-s. Tliey take a perverse pride in this devianb identiLy. They reiterabed a belÍef bhat ranking officers and inLernal investigaLors are afraid lo venEure -inLo bhe rrsþifh6sss' preeincbs, and bhat they receive less exbernal supervi:iion, Overwhelmingly, parLicipants believed thab lhe DepartrnenL,s recruit,menb and hiring practices have decl-ined, and bhey 400-3 Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document Filed 02/3.3/l-5 Page IB ot 72 (13) articulahed a connectlon between thls decline and corrupllon. l4any índividuals arresbed for felony erlmes have becolne Pollce Of f icers ¿ ês have rùany others v¡ith ques b lonable backgrounds . ParbicÍpanbs belleve t,hat polibieaÌ pressures bo hlre J.arge nunbers of officers mllitabe againsb Lhorouþh background investigahions and disqualificaEton of unsuiLable officers, participa:rt s aue highli d j..stxuabf uI of i ounqer of f icers. ,Seve¡:a1 parbicipanbs claimed to have personally arrest,ed individuals who ãre r,otl PoIice off icers. Participants Her-è nob opl-lnlstic that the Departmenb will soon change ibs recruibmenL and hÍring PräctÍces, ParEiciganL,g' Eecqrnmendabiolrs : The Department must resisb exLernal poliEical Pressures and SLeps to focus upon bhe ídeals of Ímparbialil-y and faírness. b polit icization occurring as the result of Conmunity Policing must be taken. Braoklyn North should be useú as a braining ground, noL a dumping ground. t"fore st.ringenL background invesbÍgaLions musb be conducbed all applicants, and bhose wiLh guesEionable backgrounds must on þe elimÍnated. Individuals with a criminal- hisBory shouLd receive bhe greatest scrutiny; the Departnenb should not bear the burden of disgualifying such applicants, bub rabher the indÍvidual should bear Lhe burden of proving his/her ÕHn suit.abiliLy. l.imi Pr.ojec t.. S La f f s, Recomrnendationi The Depar[ment rnust take immediate affirmative change bhe deviant idenb.iby of Brooklyn Norhh officers s beps to Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 /l r 1al, Filed 02/L3/1-5 Page l9.of 72 1 POLTCE CORTUTTIOH À},fD CUI-'TURB: A FOCUS GROUP I'ÍETTIODOIÐGY -IIËBQPg-EI.I.QN Àb bhe dlrect,Lon of the Police Commissfoner, t.he Corrupbion Prevent,Lon and Ànalysis Unfb (CPÀU) of the Inbernal ¡ff alrs Bureau recently convened a serf es oJi Lwenty-t.hree (23) Focus Groups to idenbtfy and explOre some of tlre prevai),Íng abbiIudes, percepblons and opinlons of PolÍce Officers tor,¡ard a range of inbegriLy-reIat.ed isSues. This research projecb vras undertaken in tecogniiion of the fact. thab a greab deal of discretionary po).ice behavior is shaped and determined L''oth by Llre formal rules and poJ.icy dÍrectÍons promulgabed by the organization and by Lhe }ess formal bub perhaps equall"y potenb demands and consbrainbs of tl:e po).ice occup¿tLionaL culb,ure. rn LÍghþ of the fact tha! a greaL deal of policê v¡ork is noe sub jecL Lo dí rect supervision anci Eakes pletê in ant!:lguous clrcums Lances r or in si tua bÍons which may sêerï bo presen t Çoi-rrpelling J-egÍLimate cause to deviate from formaJ. policyr åIl understanding of police belravior nust bake these ínformal factors Ínl-o account. When such behaviors faII vribhin bhe realm of ethical- conduct, where pressures to deviabe from policy nray be magnÍfied, lhe subculbural deberminanb,s of police behavior take on an increased salience. WhiIe an agency's f orrnal writf en poJ.icies or direcbives are easiì.y discerned and articulabed, Ehe subtler and infiniL^-Iy more complex dynamics of bhe police subculture are Less ame¡rable to quanl-if ica{-ion and comprehension. Focus Groups provide an apprCIpriat-e and viable research meb.hodology with r¡rhich to seek a more comprehensive undersLandíng of bhe complex deL.erminants of police behavior, especially r.ri t.h regard to inbegriLy and corruption. For several decades, Focus Groups have been r.ridely used jn bhe social sciences and in market research Lo explore, to describe, and to explain atti l-uöes and behavioral- dynamÍcs which defy simpl"e quanl.ification. Focus Groups are a particularly effecbive research mebhodology when complex or multifacel-ed attitudes and behaviors are- the subjäct of inguiry. Morgan (1988, p. l2l nobes, for example, bhat the socÍologisb RoberE Merton initialry developed rocus Groups as a means of probing bhe practical impact and effect of warti¡ne do¡nestÍc propaganda efforts upon behavior. Foeus Group methodology entails bhe formabion of a group typÍcalry consÍsting of t'¡elve (tz¡ to fifbeen (15) menbers ç,rho share sorlìe common and rerevant aEl-ribube(s), and involves a process of guided group discussÍon aimed al producing the of data and insighbs v¿hich might not be accessed r*,ibhoutLype Ètre Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-311-5 Page 2G o172 (1s) type of lnt.eract,ion found ln a grouP sebbing. These grouP part.lcfpanLs an oppgrtunity Lo diÁcusslons afford as a sroupr bo focused questlons respond, bolh tndividuarry.and Based upon Lhese posäA by Lhe facilitator/moderator. freguent-Ly refirre his/her facil.iLat-or iesponsei the inbo questions Lo probe nore dee=ply"rlIl the issues ¿nd opinions and to explore Lheir: ori-oins and inL.ensity. Thê Eroup iaised, dynamic aLso pernits participants bo quesbion Lhe responses of othersr or to add imporhanl- details and clarificatÍon to their own or anob,her's response. Focus Groups permii, the faciLitaLor to gI j.mpse mäny of the subblebies and emoLÍcnal subsbance r+hich underl i es spec i fic responses, and to draw appropriaLe inferences fronr thenr. As â result, the facilibator/moderaLor is provided wibh a richer ancl rnore refj.ned seb of daLa. In poinbing out the advantages of Focus üroup rnel:lroriology, EarI Babbie (1992) asserts bhat bhe technique is a flexible and relatively inexpensive rneans of capturing real-IÍfe daba aboub social behavÍor, and bhat ibs results have a high degree of face validity (p. 255). A guidirrg principle Ín socÍal science research is that data may be considered rellabJ.e when it has both face validíLy ånd empirical validiLy; the resuLts must J.ogically appear bo make sense wibhouL. a greaL. deal of exÞIanation or elaboration, and essenbially similar results must be obbained from successive groups. As r+i11 be discussed more fully below, the daba obtained frorn this series of Focus Groups meet boLh bhese criteria, ãrìd can bherefore be considered reliable. Focus Group meÈhodology has in recent years come to be adapted for and extensively. used in Arnerican industry t ds weII as Ín Ehe pubJ-ic sector, partfcularly in service of parbÌeipative managemenL, programs. These groups, r,rhich have arso variousry been referred bo in bhe J.iterature as "gualiby circles, and "ad hoc bask forces, " have been widery utilized in Jäpanese industry, where tlre remarkaþIe gains made'in producing high qual i ty goods is wideJ-y aüllributed 'uo r:hei r use. t.¡ithiñ f:he past decade, participat.ive rnanagement initiabives in a host of Àmerican police agencies have incorporated .focus groups or quaJ.iby circles bo improve service delÍver:y, to ãtreamline adminisl.rative tasks and procedures, bo - gaLher reJ,evant information from and stimulate communicabion ãmong employees, and bo esbabLish cogent pracLicat policies (rÉr eùrråuini Brourn r page 18, AugusL 1993) . rt must be emphasized bhat this series of Focus Groups erere noU desígned or intended Lo produce speÇÍflc facbuaL datä _ Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/13/1-5 Page 2L ol72 (16) concernlng lndivlduals or acbs of corrupt-ion and mlsconduct. Rather, bhelr lnLended qoal rras to probe Lhe prevalenb atLlEude's tovrard corrupLÍon wil-hin Lhe police occupatlonalculture and l.o soltcit vlable solubions to t.he integriLy problems faced by bhis aqencl. The Project soughb to PoJ.ice ðapi tal í ze upon bhe experiences and ex,perbise of Of íicers and Lo deterrnine l:hei r percepbions of ihe Deparbmenb and its policies regardilrç corrupLion, es r.¡elL as bheÍr abbi budes and perceptions of other rnernbers of the servíce. SpecificaIIy, the research manda[e concerned the identification of Lhose organizational policies' procedures, and condiLions, as r"'el1 es aspecbs of Lhe police occupat-ional culbure r'¿llich: facil ibafe corrupbionr' inhibiL disco'.'ery of corrupe activiBy; or creabe opporlunities for corrupLion. Further, l-he project souglrt insighL inbo Lhe prevaiJ-ínç atbitudes, belief systems and behavioral norms which constitube the cont.emporary police culture in New York Cit,y, in order bo provide the Police Commissioner with accurate current da{:a which would inform his policy decisÍons and enhance hÍs capacity Lo manage t.he culture. Various academic researchers have sIudied and expounded upon the critica]. and pervasive feaLures of "the polÍce culburer" bo the extenl- thal the terrn has beken on a generic guality which assumes bhat an identicaL or hiçhty similar occupaLional culture characterizes most or all of Àmerican policing. It must, be acknowledged, however, that t'the po).ice culture" is not a singular or a sLâtic entity. Rather, the occupational culture varies somewhat from agency to agency, and moreover, the occupational culbure r*'ibhin an agency is in a state of consLant evolution as it responds to an interplay of innumerabLe factors and forces within the agency as well as outside ib. SubstantÍve changes in DeparLment policy, in training and promol-ional practices, and in the r+ork environrnent, for example, v¡ill Ímpact bhe individual and shared abtitudes of employees. SimilarJ-y, a g::eat many of bhe abtil-udes hetd and shared by officers are refrective of, and emanat.e from, l-he dominanL lar.ger culture, s val.ue system. In thi s respect, Lhe adrnix l-ure of new of f icers in Lo the agency will impart bo the occupaLional cull-ure a seb of new, and poLenLiaì1y confricting, preexisting abLjL.udes and belief syst.ems. AtLhough l-hese at bil,udes and perceptions of bhe occupational culture t.end Lo be quite durab]-e, they are mediaLed and modÍfied by their contact and conflict, r.rith the existing attitudes and perceptions of l-he occupational cuIEure. The introducbion of new or different valuês rvill create culture Case L:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed O2lL3lt5 Page 2V of 72 (17) confllct., res'ulLlng 1n a ciialecb,ic process of redefinj.bion and the emergerrce of a somewhat dlfferent shared value sysbem' rn summary, t.he pollce occupationa] culLttre ln a given agency is a vibrant and vi[aI culhu::e which responds Lo a myrÍad of subEIe and ove¡t forces and pressures. T'¡o ( 2 ) conc.lus icns elnerge f rom this recogni t ion of. lhe transi[ory nature of an agency's occupahional cuJ.ture. Firsbf managemenb of the dynarnÍcs i+lrich shape bhe occr.lpationa-1. culLure are wiLhin Lhe conLrol of bhe police execubive, holding open Lhe poben[ial for the €rxecubive to shape and dlrecl bhe culLure's develop;lcnb, Recognition musb be given bo bhe facb bhat, virtually evêry alí:erabion in Lhe work environmenb will Ínevibably give rise to a corresponding change in the The es babli shment of bhe s Leady tours occupationa I cr.¡ ture . concept, for example, to some extenb caused of f icers of si¡ril.a*backgrounds and interests bo choose particular bours, concurrenbly limibing their inb.eracbion (and bheir exposure bo differing aþbiLudes and opÍnions) wiUh other officers, Às was evÍdenced by lhe sbat,ed opinions of successive focus groups, as well as by the percepLions of the project staff, Lhe police Departmeni;'s occupational culbure has been somewhat. fractionalized by sLeady bours - officers simp].y do noL have the opporLuniby [o interacL r+ibh members assigne-d Èo oLher bours, and to sone extent each Lour wiLh.in a precincb, has developed i bs or.¡n iden b.Í ty . rn Lime , and undêr cerLain condi Lio¡'ls, t his isora tion may resul t in bhe emergence of separate and guiLe disparate cul-tures rvi.t.hin t.he sysbem. secondry, we may concLude bhat much of bhe research and conventÍonaI wisdom regarding the dÌmensions and features of bhe occupationar curbure rnay no }onger be valid. Much of the academic research concerning police culbure, parbicularly bhab body of work relating cultuie- bo corruption, was conducted in the early 1970/s, t,le musL acknowtedge bhe L,remendous changes which have taken prace since bìraL research was conducbed, ånd may need to reconsider some of the assumphions we make concerning bhe rera[:io¡rship bet.¿een curture end corrupbion. J. Case 1-;1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-3/1-5 Page 23 ol72 ( roJ Ì4trTlloDof,oGY ln bhe Declsions concerning tlie met.hodology uLtLfzed operant several present research were sñaped ln response to hhe most' sallenI logisblc issues, one of eonstraints uñã issues r.ras Lh; pi;blem of selecbing ParLicipanbs t+¡o would iãiiããt u iaÍrfy Ëroad range of persþecl-ives and attitudes,wi ab t'h l-¡e the sãñe t imã' eñ;; *ouia provide- The pro jecE s baf f \"'ere projeci staf f rããningrur unã useiur informaEÍon. a bruly rando¡n sample therefóre less concerned uith achleving obbainÍng perLinenb l-han wi i.h ;i- bhe ent.ire Department informalion, This decision was shaped by the recogniL'ion Ôr L.he limited nu¡nber of caïea'L thal in an empirical sense,generalizing our f inciÍng-s precl"ude poi unLial Focus Groups r+ouIrJ ånd resulbs to i.¡e eñLire popul-atíon of t-he agency. Às i'lorgan large ( I gBB ) noLes, i-he ei,rpíiicaL i ssue of concern in is organizations sample i:ias, not generalizabiliby: 40 or so parbicipant.s a Iarge are never goinõ to be Iepresent.at lve of when one's population. -This is especialty. irnportanb reäearch goal is nob to tesL hypot'heses bul- bo learn abouL others, eiperiences and persPecbives. Using Focus Groups bo learn abouL, the futL range of experience and petspecL.ives in a broad populal-ion can be a fool's errand (pp. 44_45). Rather Ehan att.empbÍng to discern or measure Ehe full range of. al-BiLudes and opinions existing wibhin the entire ageñcy¡ including each of iLs operational, administ,rahive and iñvesli.gabive functions, pro jecL. sEaf f _ narrowed the selecbion criberiä Lo choose subgroups which would be likely Eo Provide attitudes t.he information mosL perEinent to our research integril-y and corrupt-ion r+i thin bhe patroJ- force. concerning Decisions concerning bhe optimal size of [he groups were again made in lighb of several logisbical and pracbical considerations. Àccording Lo l'íorgan (1988), smaller groups generally provide greaLer depLh of ínfor¡nation and insight, but overall bhey tend bo be less producl-ive and more cosbly. Larger groups po.se problerns of discussion manage.menb and group control for the facilitalor, and important information can also be losb, r+lren par-ticipanLs become distracted by the comments of and subs[anbive others. Combining bol-h practicalconsideraL.ionsr Morgan (1988, PP. 43-44) recommends thab groups noL generally exceed tweLve (121 members, bub that bhe moderat.ors over*recruiI by about 20t to accounL for no-shows, . Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-311-5 P,age 24 of 72 (19) A bifurcabed methodology, ln which Lr+o (2) rounds of Focus conducLedf e,as devlsed in order Lo refine boLh the dynamlcs of Lhe process and bhe cc¡llecllon of daba. ProJecb sbaf f ì.rere äwåre bhab the advent of sbeady tours and the esEabLishrnenb of precinct Communily Po).icing UniLs 1n bhe past several years ìtave resulted in the fo¡.'mation of four (4) ôeparal-e work groups and bo some exbenb, perhaps four (4) separâte occupAblonal- cultures * in each paLroJ. command. Prior bo Lhe esbablíshment of these concepts, of iicers assigned '"o GrouÞS would be robating tours presuruably inl-eracbed m.ore frequently, if less intenselyr wiEh a Iarger number of offÌcers, and inevibably the differential effects of bhese inb.eracl-ions musE have ån impact uporÌ Lhe a[f:ibudes and behaviora] norms of Lhe work grCIup In order Eo d i.scern {:he poben t i aL di f f erences in subcul bure . al-titudes arnong Lhese four (4) subcul-bures, four (4) separate Focus Groups were conducted during the firsb round - one (1 ) for each of blre Ehree (3) platoons, and o¡re (1) for Conr,runrt.y In the firsb round of Focus Groups, Poli.cing Unit officers. tr+o (2) parLicipanl-s were chosen, in Lhe manner described below, from each of the seven (7) Patrol Boroughs, ¿is well as Lr+o ( 2) parLicipants f rom Lhe Detech.ive Eureau. Thus four ( 4 ) Focus Groups of sixteen (16) parLicipants were scheduled ín the first round. parbicipanbs for bhe second round oi Focus croups 'dere chosen from wiLhin bhe same Pabrol Borough, in order to ensure bhat each precinct had represenbation. A botal of ten (10) Focus Groups llere held in the second round, one (i) for each of Ehe seven (7) Pa[rot Boroughs, one (1) consist-ing of Pabrolmen r s Benevolenl- Association delegat.es, and bwo Ql consisting of PatroI Sergeanbs. (Nobe: Patrol_ Sergeants Here select,ed in the sanie manner as bhe f irsL. round of Focus Groups r+iLh two (2) sergeants selech,ed from each of the seven (7) Pabrol Boroughs). AÊ noted , the pro j ecl, staf f was l-ess concerned wi t h aghieving a varid st-atisbicar sample of l-he entire Department bhan with obLainirrg usef uI i¡rforrnabion. To that end, - severa.I decisiorrs r{ere made concerning serection criberia for parbicipat ion. Pr-ojecL sbaf f r+ere concerned thab parEicipants had suf f icienb experienee and f amil iari by r.¿i bh Depar:lmenL policies and procedures¿ âs we]-l as knowredge of the police culture and bhe informal values, att-itudes añd practices that culture enbails. Research, iniL.iatly and most nobably conducLed by Niederhoffer (1967) and by õbhers r*ho have more tecentry replicated or expanded upon his work, indicates {:hat the abt.iL.udes of porice 0fficers form in a process of Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 0211-311-5 Fage 25 ot 72 (20) lasting abouI f tve ( 5 ] YeaIs, and. bltab t'hese ÀuUt budes remain f airly consisbenb unbtl aboub bhe br,¿elf Lh to iffteenth year of serilce:. Moreover, the proJecb sLaff for officers ieãógnizeA bhab bhe sociaJ-ieabion process difÊerent Lhan i*"rõited in the eauly 1980,s was signlficanbly the 1970rs, and crisís of ?;;- bhose hired prioi Lo bhe fiscalf icers currenblY assigned to of ll.tiU Lhe vast rnajoriby of PoIice oaliol f alt inÉo bhã post-1981 hlring cohorb. In order i'o ;Ibeib üo a Ìinited exbenE, Lhe abbitudes extant ;;;;;;., 'the debecbive subcuJ.bure, bhe project sLaff expanded *iÈni" the seLecEion cril-eria bo include similarly 'qualitied Detecbive inueÀbiça tors assigne,C to Þreci nct Detecbive Squads. Each ot Lhe officers selected Lo particípate therefore meL each of bhe f ollowírrg cri beria they were either Folice Of f icers or Dei:ecbive 1. InvesbigaL'ors; Z. they weie assigned Lo patroÌ precincLs or Precinct '3, DeLecbiveaSquads; of five (5) and a maximum of they had minimum tr+elve (12) years of service ín the agency. *(Due toa notif icat.ion ef,ror rnade 'by the precinct's roll call clerk, one offÍcer with only bv¿o and one-half years of service, less bhan Llre required mínimum, 'r;as sent in pJ-ace of her parbner, who had soclal l¿ation : receÍved an unexpecbed courb appearance not'if ícab.ion). À l-asL grouÞ consisLing of Sergeants assigned bo Patrol ServíCes BuIeau ,,,,'êfê randomly .seIeCted from alJ- PatrOI BorOUghs wibh no criLeria to bime in service or rank being consÍdered. To eliminate sample biasr a pool of approximately one hundred ( 1 00 ) members who confor,"ned Lo bhese cri beria Þ¡ere drawn frorn the DeparbmenE's personnel database using a version of the computer program used to selecb officers for t.he Randorn DoIe Tesbing program, adapbed ho consider the selecbion crit.eria f ÍeIds. îhis randomJ-y generabed Iist incl.uded rnembers of each of the seven (7) Pabrol- Boroughs. Telephone calls Here placed to each PoIice officer's command to ascertain assignmenL (radÍo moLo¡ pabrol or Cornmuniby PoI icÍng Unit, and/or st.eady plaboon), and to each Detecbive's sguad Lo ascerbain his or her scheduldd appearance days. Prom hhis master Iist, four (4) separabe lisEs were compiled - one (1 ) for each of bhe Ehree (3) platoons and one (1 ) for the Conmunity PolÍcinq Unit officers. Each lisb was consul-Led and two (2) members, êither two (2t Police officers or a PoLÍce officer and a DetecLive Invesl-Ìgabor, from each of the seven ('l) Patrol Boroughs v¡ere arbitrarily designat,ed bo appear ab Lhe scherdul-ed Focus Group Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (21 Filed 02/1-3/15 Page 26 oî 72 ) rneet,tng. A total of f lf by f lve (55) parbiclpanbs vtere present at. the followlng Focus Group meeblngs: ROUÌ.ID Group # late z 3 fl parbicipants 08/1a/93 o8/12/93 o8/1'1 /93 1 ¡"rale/Female Plal-oon Boro 14 CPU 2nd 3rd sL 10/4 15 13 o8/20/e3 4 1 s/6 13 5s 9/4 12/1 40/1s 1 aII all aIÌ all A toLal of ten (10) addiLional Focu sG roup meetings took place during bhe second round. SeI ect ion cri l-eria äild selecLion rnehhod (i.e.r usê of Lhe adapbe dR andom DoLe compuLer prograrni remained consistent, however, t hes e groups Here each cornprised of members from the same Pabrol Borough. À$ noted, ihÍs process ensured bhat each of bhe sevent.y five (?5) patrol precincts ?¡ere represenLed . In addi t.ion, a Focus Group comprised of seven (7| PBA Delegates Has held, Ìts members selecbed by the PaLrolmen's Benevolent Association. A botal of one hundred t,.renty-six (126) participants nere .presenb at. Lhe follorving Focus Group meebings: ROUND 2 Group 5 6 7 B I 0 1 2 )t 3 )k 4 /l Dat.e # parbicipanbs Male/remale platoon Boro s/ 22/93 13 B/s 2nd PBBX s/ 24 /e3 1i t/q 2nd PBSI el 29193 16 13/3 CPU PBBS 10 f t /gt 10 B/2 sb PBI',S pBMN 10 /6/e3 13 e/4 3rd 'l i0 /7 /e3 7/0 PBA delegabes ÀLL 't6 10 l8 /gt pBQ 13/3 1 st 10 /tz/gz 13 7 /o 3rd PBBN 10 /22/e3 13 11 /z 2nd ALL 12 l3/93 12/ 1Z zND ÀtL .14 1 126 * esl4l (a s menbioned previously, a group of randomly selected Sergean LS . assigned Lo the paLror services Bureau $¿ere assigned t.o bwo (2 ) addiLÍonal Focus Groups. They were from all pa[rol Borough c and assigned to bhe second platoon ) . Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 (22 Filed 02l3-3/l-5 Rage 27 ol72 I Àb t,he directfon of the Police Commfssfoner, and fn order Eo gafn a more comprehenslve and inclusive perspecf-fve on bhe dyrramlcs of the police culture, a bhird round of Focus Groups was conducted. These groups consisLed of l:t'ro (2) panels of fourbeen (14) members assigned Lo Fiel-d Trainlng Unils (fTU's) and two (2) groups of btvelve (12) members âssigned to bhe PoIice Àcadeäry Recruib, Training Secbion (PAIITS)/ (Group ¡fl 1'7 consisted of eleven ( i'l ) members), and the f Índings derived from these groups are incorporated throughoul: bhe body of Lhis report À 'colal of .four ( 4 ) Focus Group neebings wibh f if by-one ¡ parblciparrts Here conduched during the bhird round, use of bhe Selection criteria and seLecLion mefhod (i.e., adapted Random Dole compuLer prograns) remained consisbent for group.s #15 and #16. Each of these two (2) groups had bwo (2) representatives from each of the seven (7) PabroL Boroughs. Groups #11 and #1 8 were randomly sel.ecbed (using a tabLe of randorn numbers) by bhe PoIice Rcademy Àdminj.strative Unib. (St ROUND 3 Group Dabe # parLicipanbs Þía1e/Fernale Platoon Borö # 15 16 17 18 11/3/93 11/s/93 11/16/e3 11 /22/s3 14 14 12/ 1o/ 2 FTU AI-,L q FTU ÀLL N/A N/À 11 11/o 12 5'l 11/1 aa/t P. A. P. À. fn order bo gain insighL concerning the perceptions and attitudes of middle managers v¡ibhin the Deparbment, a series of Focus Groups consisbing of Lieut.enants and Capbains þrêre incorporated inbo a fourÈh round. À bobal of bhree (3) Focus Group meetÍngs with forly-eighb (48) parbicipants r.rere conducbed during bhis round. A group comprised of l-hirteen ( 13 ) Integrit-y Control Officers (IcO's), twel-ve (i 2) Lieutenants and one (1 ) Sergeant represenbing bhe seven (7 ) Pabror Boroughs v¡as randomly selecL.ed using a list of rcO, s mainL,ained ab bhe Internar Affairs Bureau. This group Has presented with Lhe same issues as previous groups and also queried about. Lhe problems and condibions indigenous bo the posibion of rnbegiity còntror OffÍ cer r Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/l-3/1-5 Page 28 ol72 (23) A Focus Group conslstlng of bwerve (127 captains assigned pabrol cot*ands ç^¡as also COnducLed. Tl-.e members of these Lo grOUpS i,Iere, predicLably, somet,llrat. older and more tenured hlran TheÍr Éi'e average þarLiclpanLs in previous groups ' bhose of perceptionÉ añO ãbbibudes Lended bo generalJ-y mirror breufðus groups, wibh several exceptions. I'hese excepbions are ioted thiougllot¡L lhis reporb,, under bhe appropríabe issue selec l. ions A bobal of t,hirbeen.(13) Lieutenants, representing each of bhe seven (?) Patrol Boroughs, pârbicipatecl Ín a Focus Gröup session ab which bhey discussed each of bhe issues and i berns mlr a presented bo earlier groups of various ranks äo*puter-generaLed randon sel.ection rneEhod used bo choose parLicipañbs in previous groups was also used Lo select, Lhese - Lieu Eenants ¿ ¡ ae . ROUND 4 Grou¡r 19 20 21 ll Date fl participanLs 13 11 /29/93 13 12/7 /93 " 12/15/93 13 48 l{a1e/Femal-e PlaLoon Boro 12/1 121 1 1111 rCO's LL',s ALt ALL Capb',s ALL 35/3 A special Focus Group consisbing of members of bhe Guardians AssoclaLion vlas conducbed in order to ascerbain r,lhebþer African-AmerÍcan offÍcers' atbibudes and percepbions of inbegriEy issues differed significantly from bhose of bhe predominanbly whibe focus gfoups prevÍously held. It, should be ñoLed that in contrasb bo the random sampl-ing selecb.lon mebhod used Lo generate parLicipant lists for l:he previous Focus Groups, Lhese participanbs r{ere identified and selected by bhe Guardiar:s Associabion's presidenb. As a rr¡suIb, the project staf f canrrot concl-ude wibh a hi.gh degree of cerbainby bhaL bhe aLt-il-udes and percepbions discerrred in t-his sample are generally representat.ive of the ent-ire po¡ru.Lal-ion of ÀfricanAmeriean officers. A secorrd special Focus Group consÌsbing of members of the Policewomen r s Errdoç¡ment Àssociation ( PEA ) was conducted in order bo ascertain whe[her female officr:rs' abtibudes and peicept.ions of inLegrily issues differed significanLly from Ehose of the predominantly male Focus Groups previously held. It ShOuId be nobed Lhat. parbicipant.s $rere selecbed by the PBA, i Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/i.3/1-5 Page 29 oÍ 72 (2.1) and as v¡tbh Lhe Guardlans AssccíaLlon, proJecb slaff cannot, conclude bhat Lhe ah,blludes and percepblons dfscerned 1n thts sample are generaì-Iy represenLative of {:he enblre populablon of female officers, A botal of Lwo (2) Focus Group meet.ings tvibh bwen by,-fhree (23 ) parbicipants were conducl-ed dur ing bhe f Íf th round, RQUND 5 Group 22, 23 // DaL,e # parbicipants 12,1 20 / g3 12/22/st '14 9 23 Ma 1e /['ema 6/8 0/g 6 le Group Guard i ans PÊA Boro ÀII ;{Il- /1'.l À grand total of Lhree hundred and ì-hirLeen (313) members of hhe service parbicÍpaLed during five (5) rounds of Focus Groups. The acbuaL Focus Group meetinqrs follovred a standardized forrnab desÍgned Lo elicib comments on a successive series of issues. A copy of the meet.Íng outline is included as an /rppendix to bhÍs report, and the standardized addressed, seriatim, the following issues: formab TSSUE A1 1îl #z ll3 fl4 How has the job of Police Ofiicer changed in Lhe years ? Àre the Departmenb Va1ues reasonable or unreasonable? pasE What is reasonable and unreasonable about bhe Departnent,s Drug testing policy and procedure? How do Police Officers define corrupbion? llhat role do integrity bests play in the UeparLment's anbi-corrupbion ef forLs? u Hot+ do we encourage l-he reporting of corrupbion? fi 6 fl 7 WhaL are bhe Lraining needs for police supervisors? (0uestion posed to Supervisory Groups) llow effective is corrupbion training? B fl 9 Anci I).ary issues At each session, the group facilitator infroduced himsel-f and gave a brief overvievr of the projecb, s goals and objecL,ives, sbressing the confidenLial-il:y of part.icipants, responses and emphasízing Lhe fact that onì-y one member of the project sbaff would be taking noLes during the session. These notes were made available to the participants after Lhe H5 11 Case 1:10-cv-0'b005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02113/15 Page 30 ot 72 (25) meeblng¡ ând b.hey were encouraged to scrutinize Lhem for accuracy and for Lhe facb bhat no ldenLlties were mentloned, Concrrrrent).y, bhe partf clpanL.s were assured that. their commeni;s would be passed along to lhe police Commissioner as accurat,ely as Dossible. E;ch partic!panb was asked bo briefly introduce himself/herself to the group by first name and crJri-rriirâñd, ano to provide a brief sunmary of lheir l:enure and experience in bhe Department. As an "icebreaker" exercise, each participant was asked t.o address Lhe quesLion, "Hor+ has Bhe job changed since you began your career?r' Thls relativeLy ami:iguous and open-ended icebreaker questÍon had a dual purpose: iL set a tone oi non-bhreaEening self-disclosure, and it permitted project sLaff l-o gal:her and begin bo assess general background Ínfor-mation concerning the overall aLLit.udes and percepbions of individuals and of Lire group as a v¡hole. Following this inÍtial discussion, and having set. a positive and relat.ively trusting tone, the remaining more subsbantive issues were rai.sed and addressed in the order indicaEed in t.he appended ouEline, Case 1-:1Ô-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02ll-311-5 Page 3t ot 72 (26) ISSUE # 1 flh¡nnac r¿l l-hin tsha rlonrr{-mr¡nl- As an iniLial "icebreal(er" guestion, the participants t'Iere a$ked to discuss l-heir percepi-j.ons of ltow the job of Police Of f icer had changed during Lheir tenure þ,f th the Depart.ment, rìs il-',tencled, the open-e-nrled and somewbal- anbiguous nature of t.his quesLion elicit.ed a broarl range of respo¡ìsÈs relabinç to various types arrd aspacts of change the partfcipanbs had observed in both the subcultural and lask environments. Questions were relayed so they addressed both bhe changes in bhe everyday basks l'-he partici pants perf orm and in bhe individuals'¿ith t¡ho¡n t.hey work, Ib should also be noLed that despite the range of responses generatedr several pabberns of percepLions and aLbitudes t'rere discerned. fn virtually every group, the parbicipants identified a si¡nilar saL of ÊercepLions and issues. The pervasive and- recurring naLure of Lhese palterns across each of the Focus Groups, âs well as t.he vehemence wib.h which t,hey were expressed, lends credence to bhe argument that these percepLions surpass mere opinion: bhey have, in the parb,icipants' h:elief sysl-em, the fuII weight, of objecLive reali by . Regardless of l-he perceptions' objecl-ive the police occupabional culture and facLual Þasis, unquestioningly holds bhem bo be true and valid. One such patb,ern of percepl,ions concei-ned supervisors, and in particular Sergeants, who r.lere frequently seen as lackÍng i'n inieracbive communication skiIls as well as job knowLedge. Supervisors vrere aLso criLici'zed for their lack of impartialit.y in dealing with subordinates and their poor decisÍon makÍng The parbicipanbs related the pauciby of supervisory skiIIs. skills bo several facbors, including the poor braining bhey receive at the Police Academyr s Basic I'fanagemenb OrÍentation Course and the facb [hab rnany SergeanLs are promoted to lheir rank with IiLtte street experience. Many SergeanLs Ì,rere seen as lacking in the bype of mal-uriLy r'rhich police experience. and generäI life experience br:ings, ând many officers voiced resenl-nrent aE Sergeants' failure bo treaþ them as adults, Ab the sâme time, many of the younger Sergeants were seen as overly f riendly tot+ard "rooÌ<ie" of f icers, and as catering bo [he rookies' I'childish and petty" requests. Parbicipanl-s nobed that rookies frequently complain about. being assigned to a foob post. or assÍgned to a DOA, and l-hat a supervisor wiLl of ten accede to l-hese complainLs by changing their assignment. These changes are often nade r+ithout regard bo seniority or experience. fhe particÍpants noted thab Lhe poticy of l-ransferring Sergeanbs afLer bheir iniEial six months is an Case 1:10-cv-O6005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02/i.3/i.5 Page 32 of 72 l' (27) inadeguate perlod for Sergeants to become cornfortable wlth and know).edgeable aboub bhe command and its offlcers. Because many of bhe Sergeants are younger and less experlenced bhan some of lhe officers lhey supervj.se, they neibher appreciabe nor honor various informal Department Lradl!lons, leading lo reserìtment The examples Lhey cited among bhe more tenured officers. ranged from hhe facb that Sergeanbs ofb.en ignore seniority when assigning officers bo secbors or to "fly" to del-ails, Lo the facb bhat they permit Pol-ice 0fficers bo lndiscrÍminat.ely come behind the desk. Several Detecl-ives noLed that Sergeanbs often unnecessarlly exerb their authorit-y ilr a manner which interf eres wi t.h DeL,ective responsibilibÍes at crime scenes. Overal.l-, the parbicipants fell Lhab Sergearrts are overly solicitous to rookies, who have nob earned bhe right, fo special favors, and that bhis has a negative impacb on senior officers, morale, Ib. should be ¡roLed ihaù bhese percepbions were particularly apparetìt, among parbicipanl,s assigned bo t.he busier hlqh crirne precincts, where supervisory skiLLs are perhaps mosb critical . It Ís also not,evrorL.hy t.hab the Focus Group of Sergeants reiterabed bhese same beliefs and percept.ions. (Discussed further in f ssue # '1) Proposed solutions to bhe problems wibh Sergeants included revision of Lhe Basic ManagemenL Orientation Course (which is viewed as a Patrol Guide refre.sher course) and the Lieu[enanh,s OrienbaLion Course¿ especially '¡ith regard t:o developing communicabion skiì.Is, Ieadership t.rainíng, and proper procedure at police incidents. ParticipanLs also recommended raÌsÍng bhe years of seuvice requiremenb for promobion so that Sergeant.s can gain some pracbícal street experience. Another source of criticism concerned the acbivibies of precincl Field Training unit.s. The generar consensus was bhat t.he now-defunct Neighborhood sLabilization uniL,s {NSU, s) were more effective in training rookies, since training was conduci.ed by veteran Detecti'.'e/pield Training Of f icers. Unlike t-lie FTU ser'gea¡rts, whose supervisory role demands bhat they l-rain rookies sorely "by the bookr', bhe Detectives Here guided by experience and expedience, beaching rookìe officers Lo use common sense and to handì.e jobs "the right r+ay". other cri ticisrns concerned the fact- bhat currently bhe trãini ng RMp is not part of bhe 91'l run-dor¿nr so Ehe sergeanLs pick and choose the jobs ilrey want to handre. rn the NSU conceþL, each RMP was assigned as a precinct- sector, permi tLing of f icers bc> experience a ful-l range of calls,for service, The FTU system is seen as sbifring l-he maturiby of rookies and preventing them from having "hands-on" experience. participañts recommended . Case 1:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document 400-3 Filed 02ll-3/1-5 Page 33,of 72 (28) .l elfmfnattng the Present FTU sysLem ln favor of a t'rafnlng schene modeled afber bhe NSU's. The vasL majoriL.y of parþicipanbs were of bhe opinlon bhat Lhe s t,eady bc'ui coñcepb has had å severely nega bive and divisive inrpacb upon their relationships v¡ibh oLher officers, to bhe exL.enb b,hãt four ( 4 ) separate precincbs (each of the b.hree ( 3 ) platoons and the cPU ) have Lreen creabed in every cgmmand. Oepending upon precinct policy, CPU Officers may or may not be used Lo back f i Il vacancies in pa t'rol secl-ors , exäcerbabing bhe exisLing lensions bebween paLrol officers and CPU memL.ers, Pabrol of f icers are resent.ful of that, facb t'hat they are of hen in a backlog '¿hile CPU Of f icers "he.ve cof fee r+itñ neighborhood residenbs, " and thab CPU 0fficers ofben do nOt baCk them up on SuCh dangerous assignments as "gun rung. rl Many patrol officers believed thab CPU Officers constiLute a privileged class their requesbs for days off or Ìosb time are more frequently approved, for example, and bhey are exempbed from "flyÍng" to debails. ThÍs sense of privilege is repubedly being cuttivabed at the PoIice Àcadenry, where recruibs are told (repórLedIy by instruclors who are themselves "inexperienced rookies") -botñ to ignore bhe advice of veteran officers ("bhe veterans only want Ló get you into l-roubler') and bhab paBrol ís no[ as valuable as the Communiby folicÍng Unit. The anbagonism is especially apparent toward rookies in the CPU, whose requeshs for days off - parLicularly hotidays are granBed Pal-rol of f icers f eel Lhat t hey wi Ehou t regard f or seniori ty . are doing the vast majorit.y oí t.he r.¡ork, and bhe mosL, dangerous kind of r.rork Participants also felt bhab. bhe st-eady tour concept "is desbroying the Job." They no longer see or work wit.h offÍcers assigned to other Lours, and a pot.ent form of social conLrolpeer pressure - has been losb, The old adage, "leave it for the four-to-twelve" has become a modus vivendi .- because bhey no }onger see or know the officers on bhe folLowing tour, many cops have no regard for bhe officers on the oLher tours 'and will no longer go out, of Lheir way for bhem, Prior Lo st.eady t-ours, for example, the prospecl- of working wibh an of f icer from another squad ab some fut-ure date deterred many minor transgressions, such as failing to clean out bhe back seat of the radio car. The posit.ive aspects of peer Pressure have been l-osL due to e much smal-Ier work group and the dist-incb improbabili ty of having contact. with of f icers from oL.her squads during bhe rvork day. Other feabures of Lhis fracbionalizaEion wi thin l-he commands include bhe fact Lhat of f icers rniss bhe informal. locker-room banber and camaraderie bhey once shared,

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?