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)

Case 1:10-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 021L3/15 Page 34 o172

(29)

t,hat. many smaII c).tques (ofl-en revolving around common age or
ebhnf c fdentlty) have emerged, and Ehe facb thab fewer officer's
atb.errd preclñcL, : parbfes, or ob.her funcBlons. Several
part,ictpaãUs suggesbäd bhat t.hls fracb.ionalizabion has lmpacted
ðfflcer- safety, since an off--duby officer may nob be recognlzed
by of f lcers wi bhln his or her o'.{n conrnand, Several
parL.icipants also suggesLed that: bhe steady Lour concepb. mâT

iacilitat.e cor.rr-iption, since work groups are smaller and
and therefore less amenable bo supervisory
"tighter",
intervention and bhe deEecLio¡r of misconduct. The emergence of
close-knib cliques may also facilitate corruption and inhibib
it,s discovery by foslering secrecy and creaLing an implicif- or
explicii expecLabion of probecLion by ob.her clique members. ln
geñeraI, the parLicipanLs reporl-ed a deep divisiveness wiLhin
bhe culLure, and widespread dissabisfacliion wibh the impact.
the steady tour concepL has had upon the cultural environment.
nlbhough Èhe parbicipanbs voiced dissirtisfacl-ion wit,h the
impact of the sbeady t.our concepb, E,hey also agreed thab bheir
privabe lives were impact,ed in a positive tvay. They
recommended t.Lrat some aLbernative to Lhe sbeady tour concept be
implemenl-ed. fn partÍcular, they recommended bhat a "scootex
chàrt" be available but. ernphasizecì thab it should be "orì a
volunt.ary basis",

The Capbai.ns yrere asked to describe .the most signif icanh
charrge occurring vribhin Lhe Deparbment during t,he course oE
their c'areers. They responded wibh a variety of trends and
issues, including l-lre fact. bhab younger of f icers today have
Iess loyalty to the Departmenl- and i-hat t-hey do not feel that
they should have to "pay b,heir dues" before abtaining a choice
assignment. The Capbains saw a general decline in the level
and quali by of f irsb.-1i,ne supervísion, a f acL Lhey abtribubed
Iargely to younger and less experienced Sergeant.s who lack Lhe
capaciLy or interest to enforce discipline. rhe Capbains, Iike
other groups before them, believed EhaL many Sergeants have
become overly friendly r+ibh l-he off icers lhey supervÍser bo bhe
deLriment of t,he Deparl-ntent and i l-s overall leveJ of
discipj-ine. Furl-her, I-hey felt bhat Lhe first-Iine supervisors
are relieved of a greab deal of responsibili ty and
decision-making by procedures which ::equire the Duty Captain Lo
respond bo situabions which should be handled by Lhe supervisor
ab bhe scene. The on-scene supervisor should make bhe
decisions in mosb. of bhese j.nstances, and he/she should be held
The trerrd to increase the
accountable for them.
responsibitibies of Duty Capbains has reÌieved Sergeants of a
greaL. deal of åccounbabÍIiLy, placing iL instead upon Capl-ains.

Case 1-:l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/L3/15 Page 35 of 72

(30)

one cap[afn sLabed thah. offlcers lack the sense of
Irumor requlred to be an ef fecbf ve cop, and that t,hey do not
enJoy thefr uork. Pollce work, he sald, ls supposed to be fun.
Several Capbalns belleved bhat bhe implemenLabÍon of CommunÍb.y
PoLiclng occurred too rapidly, and withoub proper planning. Ab
p5esenb, CPU of f icers reap aII bhe reward.ç, while of f icers
ãssigned t.o seclors are being neglected and overworked'
that. officers applying for Narcobics
posibions should firsb be assigned Lo
Divislon undercover
precincb, SNEU unibs for ninel-y (90) days, âfid evaluabed there.
SNEU Sergeanbp should also receive OCCB l-raining.
One Cap[aln suggested

Case 1:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

(3t

Filed 02/1-31L5 ?age 3Ç of 72

¡

rsSun # 2 DePartme-nt Value,s

euestions r./ere designed bo elicit ¡:e.sponses concerning bhe
pãrbici¡>ant's YerP asked about bhelr
neparãment. VaLues ,
in
k;;;iedge of Deparbment Values, applicabiliby of bhe valueswas
it
and whebher 'values.
ïh; OaíIy pertormance of their duby,
reasonabLe tò expect PoIice oificers Lo adhere to these

tr,âs quite dÍsconcerbing Eo flnd out that many
It
parbicipants *ðre ignorant of the Department Values - There
**ru other participanÉs..who indicabed a vague recollection that
à vrl.u*s ståtement was posbed Ín various Deparl-nre¡tt facilities,
col'¡hents of bhe
ánA only a fetr '..¡ere àctr.rally av¡are of the are preparing for
Even officers stating bhab Ehey
sbabemenÈ.
fne Sergeants eXam generally were una'¡lare of t'he Departmenb
resbale
Values. In every sessíon j.l vras rìecessary tothe VaLuesEhe
in
post a sample of
Values and in latel sessions to
topic' It should be
order to stimulate discussion on this
noLed ilrab. groups ín Round Three (3) (poLtce offÍcers assigned
r'rere knowledgeable of
to FTU ¡ s ánd the PoI ice Academy ) (2) groups.from Lhe Police
óãpartmenU Va1ues. In facb, the Lwo
ÁcãOu*y reJate that Depart-ment Values are recited each day at
the beginning of the gYm Period.
once the Department values ,,{ere statedr each grolP
concluded thaL it was reasonable bo expecb every member of the
service to adhere to them. Many participants felb bhese
Va].ues Here imparted to them early in their developmental
sEages by parenbsl beachers, reì.igious leaders and others. The
groúps afsð believed that the vasb majorÍby of Police _OffÍcers
ãnteied the profession rvith these values inbact, while a few
members entered the Departmenb with a complebe lack of values.
The groups unanimously felL [hat Po]-ice Àcademy training cannoL
instÍIl values that are not presenb in bhe individual prior to
hire. Police Academy training was seen as perfunctory. in
regards to ethics relal!ed t-opj.cs; Yet, l-he parbicipants
inãicaLed Lheir belief bhai training cannot develop vaLues
where none previously existedThere were Some members who quesLio¡red the purpose Of
sbabing and posting Departmenb Values. Many parbicipanbs
believed that Lhe DepartmenL Values sbatement. is an exLension
of a public relations canrpaign designed to acìdress community
concerñs. These same officers concl-uded Lhat. the Departmenb
meaning in l-heir decision making process.
Val-ues have li|tle

Case

1

:

l-0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/1-3/15 Page 37 ol72

(32)

Conbroversy and crlbicism concerning Departnent Values

arose when some parbfcfpanbs expressed what they believed b.a¡ be
conEradlctlons beLween polfcy and pråcbice' slhile Departmenb
values stabe'Lhat we wÍ1I "...aggressiveIy pursue vfolators of
the Iawr" in pracLtce, selective enforce¡nent curtails what are

generally considered aggressive Iaw enforcement efforbs.
References to overbime constrainLs were used to illusLrabe a
perceived nobion tha! an aggressÍve law enforcement policy is
secbndary Lo nronet,ary conside::at,ions.

Tbe maJorit,y opinion vras bhab the public is unaware of h,he
comple.xities of poì.icing in Ner+ York City and expressed bhe
need for public educabion on b,his issue. Generally, bhe
participanLs were supportive of the Deparl-rnent's "NEt+ YORK crTY
coPS CARE¡' adverbising campaign and expect it r+ill have l-ong
term posi bíve ef fecb.s ,

L

Case 1-:10-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/l-3l1-5 Paqe 38 pÍ 72
f'

(33)

# 3 DegartmprrL-Drug TesLinq-PoltcI
In discussing bhe Department, s drug tesblng pollcy,
quesbions t+ere pi'epared bhab would assist ln det,erminlng
unclertylng feeliñgs concernfng bhe admlnistrabion of bhe DoIe
,iãst,. ' pãrticipants were asked aboub b'heir knowledge of
Departmenb proðedures, the reasonabLeness of the current
pa¡iicy, their satisfacl:ion with safeguards and b.heÍr opinÍons
tonceining enbry bests, tests for cause, and random b'est's.
fn bhe early stages of each FoCus Group discussion it lras
evident that Èhere were many misconcepllons aþout t'he
Department, s drug test.ing policy. - ...Pårticipants did not,
unåerstand termõ Such ai "rándom" and "for cause, "
l4isinformation aboub Iaboratory procedures and handling of
evidence clouded tlre discussion. A brÍef synopsis of bhe
Department,s poliey vlas Pl'esenbed to clarify issues and move
ISSUE

bhe discussion along

Each of the Focus Groups displayed an inLol-erance of drug
use by members of t,he service. Their position Has strongly
stated Lhat the Department, should do all it can to seek oub
members who use drugs and remove bhem fron PolÍce service.
Their positions Here firm on terminating any ¡nember, regardJ-ess
of reaion and seniolity, who uses drugs. Sone members believe
that the Department, príor to terminaEion, should offer
rehabilibabion to any mernber using drugs. Upon completion of a
program, however, bhe member's services ShOuld be Eerminat.ed.
À small minority of parL.icipants suggesLed thab pension righÈs
should be preserved for members so qualifÍed.
À, Entrv Level- Tests- - Drug screeninq bests for police
applicants lras overwhelmingly accepted by each Focus Group.
paiticipanbs felt thab applicanbs should be subjecbed lo
multiple random test,s prior to being hired. The current
procedure r+here an appJ.icanb is notified weeks in advance that
he/sl:e is scheduled for a medical- examinalion which íncludeb a
Many participanLs felb
drug screening tesb, was crÍtÍcized.
that prior recreabional drug use should aul-omat-icatly preclude
an applicant from being hired.
Drug screening Lesbs used as a prelude Lo promotion or
enb.ry inLo a specialized unit ç¡as also widely accepbed as
members continued Lo Voice opposition wibh working wibh anyone
who uses i)-tegal drugs. This opposition to drug use by other
members derived bobh from individual safety concerns¡ âs well
as from Lhe frequentLy sbated position that PoLice Officers

Case l-:l-é-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02l13/l-5 Page 39 ot 72

( 34 )

should be a "cut above" Lhe general
lmmersed ín Lhe drug culb,ure'

public,

t+ho

are vlewed as

For Cause Tests - Drug screeni.ng bests for cause met tuith
unanimous approval by each of t.he Focus Groups. t'Jhile some
group memìrers st.ab.ed L.hab a Level of proof less than reasonable
suspicion should be used Lo order a test, other mernbers were
concerned about Lhe violation of individual righLs. Albhough

B,

t,he protection of Police officers'righbs Has an issue

ih,

seemed that t,he group's hard stance of "zeto tolerance"
oubweighed bheir concern aboub a violabion of an individual's

There r.rere a fer+ instances, however, where
righLs.
paibicipants felE thaL an unchecked syslem of "for cause"
LestÍng would lead to other violations of indÍvidual rights by
the DeÞartmenb,
Random Tests, - Their nisinLerpretation of t,he random
C.
besting procedures not withsbanding, each grCIup supported
randorn drug screenÍng tesLs. Group concerns Here centered on
bhe possibilÍty of human error and false posiLives in the
{:esting process. Those members who have been subjecLed to
random tesl-ing al-1 sEab.ed they Ì4ere sabisfied wibh the
Department's ef forts to maint.ain proper cusLody and lrandling of
sarnples. Iraboratory procedures however, r.Iere gues tioned and
confidence in lab technicians were at Lhe hearb of their
concern. An on-sÍbe lab tesL wiLh rapid resulLs was suggested
by a few group members. Tire individual would be informed of
t.he resulbs and if bhere were an ypr oblems (a claÍm of a false
positive) addibional LesL.s coul dbe performed [o resolve the
issue. Each group suggesbed ani ncrease in bhe number of
random tes[s.
The suggesEe di ncrease ranged from 25t
(currenbly the DeparEment L,esbs 20+) to 100*.
Suggesbions were made bo conduct random Lesting in t.he
fÍeld rabher Lhan at Health Services. The suggestion was for
HeaIt,h Services bo randomly select a command and a plaboon
wÍthin that cornmand for testing. Personnel would be tested
during roll- cal.I v¡ibh a minimum disruphion of pabrol
capabilities.
Albhough Lhese suggestions musb be evaLuat.ed againsb many
,
different standards, Lhe sb::ong stance againsb drug use and thè
suggesLions to increase bhe number of random tesLs is more
signif icanb l-lran bhe m'ebhods suggested. rL is recommended Lhab
informaLion concerning bhe randomness of þesbing, the chain of
cusLody and besl-ing procedures, and b.he resuLts of drug Lest.s
be more r+ide1y dÍsseminated [hroughout the Departmenb. To

Case 1-:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

(35

Filed 02l13ll-5

fug"

$A of 72

)

altay bhe PoIiee Offfcerst sttspiclons about the accuracy of
laboiatory testLng and bhe poLenLlaI for nrlsidentlfylng
samples t a brief video presen[at.ion slrould be vÍewed by all
The presentation can be made ab
Pollce OffÍcers,
braining and can be repeab.ed ab Healbh
Borough Based
Services prior bo Lhe adminisLr:aLÍon oE a drug sereening besb.
The video should contain up-Lo-date informabion about drug
screenlng test-s and can be used in conj.uncblon w!bh other
braining currently beÍng consÍdered by Lhe Drug Prevenhion lask
Force

-

To a greaÞer exLenb [han had been found in Focus Groups
comprised oË Iess-tenured of f i cers, the parbicipal;ing
LieuLenants were oÊ bhe strollg opinion thab pension righbs
should be preserved for bhose lnembers r^lit.h l-wenby (20) years of
service who Lesb posÍtive in the'random drug besting Prograh.
t4oreover, several parCicipanbs were of the opinion bhab. a drug
rehabÍlitation program, similar bo t-he programs currently
available to members who abuse al-cohol, should be available to
Regardless of whether these members are
drug users.
subseguenbly dismissed or retained, several f,Íeutenants
believed Lhat drug rehabiLitation should be made avaÍIable.
Their opinion regarding the preservaLion of pension righLs
seems to be reflective of a general trend among more-tenured
officers regardless of rank: perhaps because they have a
greater investment in bheir pension and 'theÍr career, bo[h
financially and in terms of Lheir years of service, older
officers Lend to be more concerned wibh bhe possibiLity of
)-osing Lheir vesLed pension rights. As a corollary, bhe older
officers concurrenbly arbiculate less faibh in the pobenbiaJdeberrent effecb of harsh sanctions for drug abuse than do
younger officers.
WiUh regard to the Þepartmentfs drug Lesting policies, all
the parbicipanbs of bhe Captains Focus Group agreed Lhat the
process was basically sound, bub mosE índÍcated thab, the number
or percentage of officers l-ested under the random procedure
should be increased. SeveraÌ parbicipants also favored the
developmen{- of a drug rehabilitabion po}icy prior bo disnissa},
and a few indicated bhab members shoul-d be given one chance l-o
enber a rehabiliLation program and remain in the enrploy of Lhe
DeparL,ment. No second chance should be afforded to drug
users. Consistenb wit,h bheir tenure and the trend observed
among other tenured officers, several members of bhis group
also bended to favor a guarantee of pension rights, albhough
others Jn the group \4ere in adarnanL oppqsition to pension
retenlion. They appeared l-o be about equally divided on this

Case 1-:i0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/1-3115 Page 4L ot 72

(36)

The parblclpanLs also lndtcabed that, lncreased
lssue.
unannounced rañdom screenlng of candldabes should bake place
durf ng,b.he appllcant invesllgatlon plocess; they observed Ehat.
the current þractice of schedullng medleaL exarns up to one (1)

monEh {n advance mlght permfb some candidabes enough
forewarning þo t'clean bñemselves up'r prlor to t'he test. The
Capl:ains also proposed Lhab large groups of of f icers be
randornly tesbed en masse, perhaps testing enLÍre plaboons
within a. precinct, or v¿hile officers abbend the Outdoor Range.
They evinced no concern, cynicism or difficult.y with the
procedural aspecbs of the current policy'
The Focus Group consisbing of members of the Guardians was
also gueried as to lbheir opinions regardíng the reasonableness
of bhe Depart.menb/ s drug tesLilrg procedures. The parbicipants
generalLy agreed that office:cs who are detected using drugs
should 'be l-erminated, regardless of the seniority or prior
disciplÍnary record. Àboub one quarh,er - (,1 / 4) of Lhe
parhÍcipants in t,his group sbated thab not,wit'hsbanding the
termlnatÍon policy, bhe pension rights of mernbers who had
achÍeved twenty (20) years tenure in bhe agency should be
preserved. The participanEs voiced numerous concerns thab Lhe
DeparLmenL does not. follow its own procedures in many drug
test,ing cases¡ specifically in regard 't,o the chaÍn of custody
for urine samples. Part.icipants recounted Íncldents in which
bhey alleged that urine samples had been Lefb unabtended for
several hours on a vrindow silÌ, and fernal'e officers who were
permibEed Lo provide bheir sample while unobs'erved. Other
participants stated thaE t.he Organized Crime ConLrol Bureau did
nob always adhere to it.s own detoxification and sick leave
policies regarding undercover officers who were forced Lo
ingesb a controlled subsbance. These. offícers were allegedly
tol.d to eonb inue in hheÍr undercover act,ivi ties $o bhat
on-going cases reould nob be compromised, and it was alleged
t.haI ab ]easb one (1) such undercover off icer vras subsequent,Iy
fired for drug use afber having been inÍbÍalIy refused
detoxification treabment by the Department. Ib musb. be
emphasized that with l-he excepL,ion of general concerns aboub
chain of ctrstody, previous þ-ocus Groups raised none of bhese
issues. T)re participants aLso conbended L,)rab the random drug
tesbing procedures are not truly random, and asserted bhat
minoriLy individuals have been singled out for besbing wibhoub
cause, under'bhe guise of random selection. ParLicipants also
evinced a bel,ief bhat whibe superior officers have been
notified in advance of an impending random l-est, and have been
perrnitt,ed to guietly retire prior to testing. fn general., bhe
particÍpants appeared to believe thab both the random and

Case 1-:1-0-cv-Ô6005-RWS Document

400-3

(37

Filed 02ll-3/L5 Page 42 ol72

)

"fgr cause" drug Eestlng policfes are regularìy used Lo barget
tles, and that a L.acit double sbandard exisbs '
Me¡nbers of i:he pol lcewonen's Endotr'ment Àssoclatlon Focus
Group concurred with members oi Þrevlous Focus Groups in
asserting bhat the use of iIIici b drugs ìry rnembers of the
seuvice cannob be condoned or bolerated, and [haþ Lhe
Depart,llcnL ¡ s currenb di:ug f e-cting pclic'¡ requires litl'-le or no
modif ication.
Severa] members of l-he group indícabed a belief
bhat the current pollcy does not adeguaLely address Lhe prob)-em
of anabol-ic steroid use, and tlrey believed bhaL alcohoÌ abuse
is a far greaber and more peÍvasive proÞlem than drug abuse.
Às ã group, Èhey ;n,3irrb¿ined lhet the number or percenbage of
menbers tesbad urìder Lile F.anCorn Dole TestÍng prccedure should
be lncreased , and [hal the DepartmenL shou]d [est for steroid
use ås t"lel L a,s f çr tbe rnÕre cúrnrron nar-cot ic drugs. In
part Ìcular, t!ris gror-ì p felt hhat younger officers should be
LesLed more frequently du ring their probationary çeriod,
To a
greaLer extenb than tJas evidenE in other groups, these
partfcipanLs bended bo supporL the concept of providtng drug
rehabilibatÍon for ntenbers prÍor bo te¡minaL j.on for drug abuse.
?his group did nob, raise t,he issue of forced ingesbion of
narcob,ícs among meml¡ers assigned bo OCCB as the Guardians,
5'ocus Group had, but upon the project staff's inquiry they
stat,ed that in such sibuations some women may be reluctant to
report forced ingestion for fear that they would lose their
nrinorf

hard*xon

OCCB

assiç'nment.

Case 1-i1-0-cv-'06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02ll-3/15 Fage 43 ol72

(38)

# 4 neftnlng eolruÀtlon
fn
Focus Group partlcipanLs had some difflculby
pr-ecise def Ínilion of poJ.lce corrupblon. fhis
arbiculaLing a
dif f iculty árose- primarily frorr the facl that "corruption" {s a
fairly ambiguous herm r,rhich can be used in several con{-exts,
has mùf f iple ccnnobations, and i s of ben misLakenly egua{-ed wif:h
misconducb, as well as from Lhe facL thab ib deals wit'h ebhÍcal
articut aEed. Af ter
issues r+hich are of ben not, easily
carefutly guiding and sbrucL.uring l-he guesblons posed to the
group, thã faciiibators r{ere able Lo obl-ain a fairly debailed
understanding of the types of Þehavior police Officers consj.der
í:o Þe corru,ot, To achieve thi.s r¡nderstanding, Ehe parbicipants
r{ere asked 1-o provide exanpì.es of behavÍor thab r+ould and wou}d
noi, eonsLi bu'ce polÍce corrupf ion.
VirtuaIIy aII of the parh.icipants agreed t-hab' a PolÍce
Officer,s oommission of a criminal acE, as defined in bhe PenaL
Lavr, constltutes corruption. Further, they stated fhat any
behavior in which a PoIice officer acbively seeks a specific
personal gain or- benefit by virl,ue of the facb bhat he/she is a
PoIice Officer. cìearly constilutes corl:upbion. Officers bended
to agree bhab, the impS-icit or explici t expecbat.ion of
the quid pro quo - is a critical facLor in
reciprocity
debermÍning whebher an act is corrupt. Participanbs were quick
to address bhe issue of corrupbion by unanÍmously poinbÍng oub
that they do noL. believe bhe acceptance of a free or discounted
neal- is corrupLion. In the case of a free cup of "cof fee,
officers strongly agreed thaL a cup of coffee "freely given and
freely taken" is not corrupt.ion. \ihen, however, the of f icer
believes bhab lhe benefit is accompanied by some overt or
unstated expecbabion of reciprocity bhaE he/she rsilI or will
no[ do their job in return for the benefit - it becomes
The parbÍcÍpants cited bhe scenario of an
corrupt.
officer enLering an establÍshrnenI wÍt"lt no intention of paying
as an exampJ-e of corrupl-ion, but were less aCamant about
receiving a discounL Lhey had not expected or demanded, It is
well r-;orl-h rroting thaL the parLicipants evinced a.strong bel-ief
Lhat they were capable of comprehending r+hen an Ímplicit'
expecbation occu¡:red, and sLaLed {:hab they r.¡ould not. accept any
benefit under such circumsbances.
Parbicipanbs had great difficuì.Ly separaLinq an offer of
f ree cof f ee (or other repast ) in a social setb.ing and a
non-social se{:ting. Of ficers }rere unabLe b,o clearly see the
dífference between the two setbings.
to
References
ISsUE

CaSe l-:10-cv-G6005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/i-311-5

|ug" 4!

ot 72

(3e)

"frlendstrips" esbablfshed over a period of bime ldLrl:e used f:o
lIlusErate hhe bellef bhab free or dlscounhed meals Here
offered and accepted unencumbered.
It ls also r+ort,h nottng bhat mosb of the participanls were
unaware of Lhe Board of Ethics rullng regardinç a fr:ee cup oi
cof fee "and liqht repast" in a .social sebEing, çhey agreed
thaü this and any subsequenL rulings should be vigorously
disseminaEcd to mernbers of the se¡:vice. T'he ParbicipanIs also
stated'that bhe Inbernal Àffairs BurÊau should noE, be concerned
wibh these a¡rci obher "rùillor'r infracLions, t¡hich' crearry farr
oubside theÍr definition of corruPtion. Àtbhough Lhey Here
skeptical of the abilit.ies and t,he moEivabions of Int'ernal
.r-ffãÍrs Bureau inve.sbigators, the participanbs seemed to favor
t,he notion of z sf-ronq and ef f ective Tnt,ernal- Af falrs function
ç¡hiCh would corrcenl-rabe on "re.rl" corruptíon, rather than the
pe{:Ly ittfracbions yhich bhey beLie.red I','ere bhe nraln focus of
concern, In f-heir vievl, InLer:naI Affairs Bureau ínvesi;igators
have poor invesbigative skiLls and IiEbIe experience or regard
for officers on the street.
fn t,errns of providÍng an operational definition of
corruptÍon, {:he participanÈs in bhe ICO Focus Group generally
agreed vribh members of previous groups in asserbinq Uhab PoIice
Offieers can be considered corrupL rqhen bhey cornrniE criminal
acbs or use Lheir posibions and potters as Police OffÍcers to
obbain some subst.ant,ive personal benefiE. They did not consider
such minor acbs of deviance as accep[ing a free cup of coffee
bo const.i-but,e a corrul)b ac[, ålthough bhey agreed that such
behavior Has â violabion and migl:t, in some circumstances,
consliL.ube corrupbion. As uas evidenL in previous grouPs, the
ICO's believe thal the indivÍdua1 officer's inbent in accepbing
free coffee is a critical factor in their definition oi
corrupbion: they consider officers who acbivel.y pursue or
solicit free coffee or free or discounbed meals Lo be ebhically
compromised and' perhaps, in a t.echntcal sense, corrupt.
Nevert.heless, they do not apÞ\ear Lo feeÌ that such ethical or
lega] violabions are parl-icularly egfegÍous offenses.
The CaptaÌns broadly derfined corruption in terms of an
officer t.aking someLhing bo l+hich l-hey are nob enLitIed, and
I-hey favored a fai.rly subjective sLandard in evaluat.ing
rçhether an acl such as free coffee is corrupb. Each incident
should be judged, they saidr or its individual merits and the
f acLuaI cÍrcurnsf:ances surroundinq lhe sj LuaLion, and bhe
specific inb.ent of the officer should be 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 hj.gh 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. l-he.se notations
remain on {:heir CentraÌ Persol¡rel- Index fi}e and rnay be used L,o
unf airl.f derry them debail assigrrrnen{-s or promotions. Some
characEerized "UnSubstanl-iated" ca.se closutes as evidenCe of
ineffecbive fnLernaL AffaÍrs Bureau investigators and of
attempts to bolster performance i¡rdicabors, even tçhen a more
complete investigabion mighL resuLt in exonerat-ion. ÀÌbhough

Case 1:'1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 02/l-3/15 Page

5t ol72

(q6)

explalned thal: admlnlsIrative violaLion
pro)ecE staff
comþtalnts are no longer lssued by the Inl-ernaI ¡f falrs Bureau,
many parbicipants remalned skepti cal. They will belleve ib,
Þhey said, ''when Lhey see i b . "
rt Has evident bhaB Lrust p.Iays a pivoL'al role in an
ofíÍcerS, tlecÍsion to report corrr.rpl-ion. 0Êficj-aI arrd
anonymous feporbÍng apPears to be direcEly correlated bo tire
tevel of trust an individual has in Lhe Inl-ern¿l å.f fairs Br¡reau
and the confidenbiality of the reporbing system.
:':ci',,.¡i'chsbanding l-his essenbial caveaE, two ( 2 ) f requent
and endurÍng features of the poLice occupåEionaì culture which
have frequently been noled in connecbíon r,ribh corruption are
loyalty and secr-ecy. Tþe e'ciotogy of these f eatures are
exbremely complex, and Eheir dimension and boundaries can ¡g¿i¡1
be expecl-ed to vary over binte and in regard l.o specific
circumstances. Moreover, fhe }arger culture oubside lhe pOlice
agency provides supporb for loyaLby norms arnong peers Ín any
group/ and Lhe larger culture's anbÍpabhy toward informers and
"rabs" has also been imporLed into bhe occupabional culbure,
where bhe reallt,ies of policÇ work creaLe a crucible in r+hich
loyalty and secrecy noríns arefamplified and expanded. Loyalby
and secrecy norms in bhe polÍce occupational culture derive
frorn several sources, includl-ng the close physical proximit.y in
r^¡hich PoIice Of f icers frequently work for exbended periods, the
real and perceived dangers oÊ police work, and Lhe inevibable
social ísolation and alie¡'¡abion engendered by assurning the
police role in socieby.
These and ol-her for.ces conspire Lo create a st,rong sense
of mutuat interdependence and af f init.y arilong of ficers, and to
facilitate bhe creation of a poreerful loyalby eEhjc. In
Ítself, Lhe loyatby ethic is a highly funclional- and beneficial
abL.rÍbube r+hich usually conbributes significantly to the
org.anizab,ion, s pur5uib of legitimaie goals and objectives.
Taken bo the exLreme, hovrever, lhis Ioyalty Lo fellor'¡ of f icer.s
can conflicL wiLh a¡rd jn sorne cases ove:rr,¿hel.¡n the officer's
sense of loyalLy bo bhe organizabion and bo bhe rule of law.
rn the extreme, this misplaced }oyalby may induce some officers
to protecE other deviant officers from official discovery,
When confliet occurs between loyalby to bhe organization and
loyalty to fellorv officers, bhe inforrnal subcul[.ura] ebhic may
prevai I,
and sorne of f icers rnay cLose rarìks behind the
proverbial "blue wall. of silence".

Case 1:1-0-cv-06005-RWS Document

400-3

Filed 0211-3/1-5 ?ug" 52 o'n72

\zrl

IU should be emphasized LhaL. the prevalence and scope o!
L.he 'rblue'waII" of sècrecy are f requenbly overstabed by casual
oÉu"rrr"t" of police culture, 'parblcularly by f;hose whose
critlcaL orlenË.ation or agenda overpôwers their obiectívlEyTìrese crilics are usualty either lgnora-nt of Or unconcerned
vribh t.he positive and fu¡rctional aspecLs of loyalby _and it's
cont.¡:ihr¡tioñ [o the aì:t.ailr:nent oi IegibÍmaEe çoals. Too
unrestraineci or draconia¡r ef forts tc
f requenIly perhaps r
-tfreoccásional elnergence of . exceSsÍve seclecy has
desbroy
unforeieen deleberious impact upon the toyalty ethic, and
ultimaLely both bhe organizal-ion and t-lre public suffers the
A more cogenb straLegy is tor l-he police ,e;(ecubive
ef fects.
t; car:efuIIy monitõr and rnanage Lhe conditioos u¡lder vriricì't
secrecy can f Lourish, concÔrrÍ bantly nurl-urÍng Lhe Poslt'ive
elernenLs of group and or:ganiz,aLional loyaIty.
The IntegrÍ ty Conbrol O¡:f icers wilo par ticipaled in bhe
Focus Group vrere very suprised bhab officers in previous Foeu5
Groups v¡eie relucbanL bo offÍcially report corrupLion, even
when Èhe offenses invoLved were of Lhe order of Lhose commÍtted
by naíchaeL Dowd, They sLat,ed bhab they would not hesiLabe [o
oificially reporL such behavior if Lhey became aware of it, and
they seemed to genuinely believe that most offiCers in their
comrnands woutd aJ.so report sucil colrupblon r+i thoub hesi babion.
The proJecb sbaff surmises thal- the fCO's avowed willingness bo
lake aòLion Ín such cases is a funcbÍcn of their rank and
position, and iIs atb.endant role <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 parLicipab.ing in this Focus Group st.at-ed
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 abt.it,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 suirofdinaL.es 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
ðËr.tr"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 J.ong*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[:b.ing, 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,r.tt 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 strong.group 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 al.so 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,i.ve 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[: Focr.ls 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