Ethical Challenges Faced By Law Enforcement Regularly

by Elizabeth Hall

“Even if a man is answerable only to his conscience, he will answer more responsibly if he is 

English: Instructor Training Partner Nation Counter Narcotics Police Officer. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

compelled to articulate principles on which he acts.”  ~ Lon Fuller The Morality of Law (1975)

Introduction

When considering Fuller’s (1975) principle, it is necessary to apply it to real life situations that law enforcement personnel may encounter in their time of service, and what reactions to these scenarios are the ethical choices when facing moral dilemmas on the job.  We will examine what the moral dilemma is, what laws or policies govern the situation, or if this is left to officer discretion.  Another thing to consider is what principles and considerations should apply to the situation and what consequences could arise from these decisions.  In examining everyday situations that could arise with friends and narcotics, accepting gifts and gratuities, and accepting multiculturalism in the workplace we will determine what reactions are ethical and how this author would react.  

Scenario I Drugs at a Friend’s House

English: Police officer of Brazilian Civil Police Português: Policial civil brasileiro (Papiloscopista) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The situation: I am an off duty police officer and I am invited to a party at an old friend’s house.  It is Friday night, I am off, and I have no plans, so I head to the party.  Upon arrival, there is quite a gathering in the back yard, so I visit with people and am having a good time.  I have had a couple of beers, and I head inside to the restroom when I notice several people in the house around a table with cocaine lines adorning the tabletop. I have never seen these people before, and my friend has been in the back yard the whole time I have been here.  I head to the restroom, and ponder what to do.

In this scenario, the moral dilemma is whether you want to get your friend in trouble, because even if he did not know that they were using cocaine in his house he is still liable for it being there because he owns the house.  We have a choice, we can turn around and pretend that we did not see anything, and leave the party, with or without notifying our friend, or we can abide by what the law says, and by the plain sight rule and seize the evidence and arrest the people at the party.  According to FindLaw (2012), if a law enforcement officer is in a place that he is authorized to be then he does not need any form of warrant to seize evidence such as narcotics that are in plain view.  Since we are 100% aware that these narcotics are illegal, and the dilemma is that I will be betraying an old friend by calling this in, I must consider both sides of the issue.

  I must consider that the consequences of doing my job may end my friendship, and the consequences of not doing my job may cost me that job if anyone found out that I let my friend get away with this.  I also may not be able to forgive myself no matter what choice I make.  After careful consideration, the decision is that I must call this in because I would be letting myself down more by ignoring the situation.   The law is clear on this action, due to the illegality of the narcotics, and I must obey my duty to uphold the law no matter what my friends think, and I believe that my friend should have either not invited me or policed his guests himself, not allowing that type of behavior in his house. 

Scenario II Accepting a Gift

Mounted officer of the Metropolitan Police at Buckingham Palace, London (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The situation:   I am a community police officer, and it is Christmas Eve.  I stop in a local shop to pick up a few items.  This particular shopkeeper is well known in the community, and is active in the communities’ crime prevention programs.  As I am shopping, he calls me to the counter, producing a fruit basket, and a gift card worth $30 for my family as a Christmas present to show his appreciation.

In this instance, there is a moral dilemma however; it may not be clear as a bell.  What the moral choice is for me is whether I will accept gratuities in the course of performing my duties.  In cases such as this, often it is left up to the discretion of the officer whether or not to accept a gratuity, and even a free cup of coffee counts.  I must consider whether I want to enter the slippery slope of police acceptance of gratuities, because according to Delattre (2011), the gift may come with hidden expectations from the person giving it to you. 

This can include expecting you to look the other way when minor offenses like parking violations occur around their businesses, or favor when caught doing something wrong, such as driving under the influence.  In this scenario, I would have to refuse the gift, suggesting that he donate it to the local homeless shelter instead of giving it to me.  When considering this scenario, while it may look innocent enough at first can become a catalyst to you feeling obligated later to compromise the ethics of your position based on a kindness.  It also can allow you to justify compromising your ethics and morals because you already have in a small manner (Delattre, 2011). 

Scenario III Homosexual Partner

The situation:   I am a supervisor commanding a shift at a medium sized law enforcement agency.  Officer Ted Jones has been with the agency for the last sixteen years.  Officer Jones is also a homosexual that hangs out at a gay bar on his own time.  The fact is known around the office about this.  My agency runs two man patrol units with assigned partners, and Jones has recently been assigned to partner with Officer James Davis.  Davis has come to me, asking me to assign him another partner because of Officer Jones’ sexual preferences.

In this scenario there is a very large moral dilemma coupled with some civil rights rulings that complicate this matter.  The moral dilemma entails the fact that we have become a multicultural society that legally cannot discriminate based on sex, creed, religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, or sexual preference as of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Shusta, Levine, Wong, Olsen, & Harris, 2008). This must be considered alongside the fact that if I do not reassign Mr. Davis, this could mean life-threatening risks to Mr. Jones or Mr. Davis, if Officer Davis chose to ignore safety and team dynamics during the course of performing his job.  In this case, I believe that the policy of the Civil Rights Act dictates the situation.

  I cannot reassign Officer Davis on these grounds, because this could be perceived as discrimination by both the agency and Mr. Davis, and have our agency in court fighting a lawsuit, which we would lose.  I do have a choice that I could reassign Officer Davis quietly and hope that the reason does not get out, but again this would be a short term solution to this problem because others might feel the same way.  I would also be risking my position because the discrimination claim would also name me, because I allowed it to happen.  The ethical solution to this problem, as the laws dictate is to supply my agency with some diversity training, have a talk with Officer Davis, as well, and leave Officer Jones assigned as he is (Shusta, Levine, Wong, Olsen, & Harris, 2008).

A senior police officer of the Hamburg police on assignment at Hamburg city hall, Germany. Français : Capitaine de la police de Hambourg en faction devant l'hôtel de ville de Hambourg, en Allemagne. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Conclusion

When considering Fuller’s (1975) principle, we must apply it to real life situations that law enforcement personnel may encounter in their time of service.  Some of these situations are dictated by mandate and law, while others are left up to the officer and professional discretion.  In many cases, we must examine what reactions to these scenarios are the ethical choices when facing moral dilemmas on the job.  One must also consider that all breeches of the ethical standards held by the job can lead to further indiscretions; however, individual character plays a huge role in who crosses the slippery slope and who does not. 

References:

Delattre, E. J., (2011).  Ethics in Policing: Character and Cops.  Sixth Edition.  The American Enterprise Institute Press.  Washington, D.C.

FindLaw, (2012).  Illegal Search and Seizure FAQ’s.  Retrieved From: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/illegal-search-and-seizure-faqs.html

Fuller, L.L., (1975).  The Morality of Law.  New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1975, p. 159.

Shusta, R., Levine, D., Wong, H., Olson, A., & Harris, P. (2008).  Multicultural Law Enforcement Strategies for Peacekeeping in a Diverse Society (4^th Ed.).  Pearson         

            Prentice Hall.  Upper Saddle River, NJ

Related articles

• Beyond the Table: Tipping Properly in Every Food Scenario
• Boundaries: Let Him Drop...or Not?
• Too Serious with RPGs: Exercises with moral dilemas
• When Conscience and Duty Conflict: A Health Care Provider's Moral Dilemma
• Love and Economics
• Day 199: Finding Fault becomes a case of Moral Dilemma

Read More

Applying the Principles of Criminal Law

By Elizabeth Hall

Introduction: Scenario

Crime Time (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this essay we will apply the principles of criminal and civil law to a scenario that involves criminal offenses by the victim, and the suspect along with a civil rights violation committed by the officer involved.   We will go through the issues that were raised by all involved, what charges can come stem from these issues, and how the officer was negligent in performing his duties.  The facts of the case are that Officer Jones was working a midnight shift, and came across a victim at approximately 2:00 AM, exclaiming that she has been forcibly robbed by a suspect wearing white pants and a red shirt and a ski mask, approximately 5’8” tall and armed with a gun.  She has a heavy laceration on her head and another on her lip, and is wearing blood soaked clothing. 

Officer Jones calls for medical attention and backup, however spots a potential suspect roughly a block away from them wearing a dark shirt and white pants.  Leaving the victim he tries to stop the suspect by saying “Stop Police” loud and clear, from 20 feet away, which is ignored on the first try.  The second time Officer Jones yelled “Stop Police” the suspect turned around, and Officer Jones noted a huge bulge in his right front pocket.  He was then 7 feet away from the suspect.  The suspect reached into his pocket with the bulge after Officer Jones had advised him to keep his hands where he could see them, and began taking out something from the pocket.

 At this point, Officer Jones fired his weapon landing a shot in the suspect’s left shoulder. He then called for more medical vehicles as the suspect fell down.  When approaching the subject he found a baggie containing smaller bags of cocaine and a cell phone.  Later during the actual investigation it is learned that the suspect was not involved in the robbery.  In fact, the victim had made the entire crime up having been involved in a domestic dispute with her husband, whom she did not want arrested.     

Crimes Involved

In this scenario, there are several crimes that have been committed by the victim, the suspect, and the husband of the victim.  The victim committed the crime of falsely reporting a crime to a peace officer, which also resulted in the officer causing bodily injury to the alleged suspect. According to the Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931, section 750.411a (n.d.) is guilty of a felony punishable by ten years, fines in excess of $25,000 or both however the judge sees fit to apply sentencing. This is because the false report caused Officer Jones to believe that the suspect was armed and the suspect was shot in the shoulder causing serious bodily impairment to him.

 The suspect is guilty of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance reports Price (2011) which is covered under the Texas Controlled Substance Act section 481.112 and states that if a person knowingly manufactures, distributes, or has on their person a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. This is indicated by the drugs being packed in individual bags inside a larger bag and the presence of the cell phone which is common with drug dealers. The other crime he is guilty of is fleeing and evading police in the second degree as held by Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 520.100 (1975).   This qualifies as second degree because the suspect was on foot and did not stop for the officer and is classified as a Class A misdemeanor. 

The last crime in this scenario was committed by the husband of the victim, as domestic violence is a crime whether reported or not. This is both a crime against the individual and the community as reported by the Kentucky Justice Cabinet for Health and Family Services (n.d.).  This crime falls under Assault in the Fourth Degree under KRS 431.005(2) (a).  This statute provides that if there is probable cause available for the officer to see then an arrest is warranted. 

Civil Rights Violation

Officer Jones committed a civil rights violation under the Fourth Amendment when he shot the suspect in the arm because he violated Section 1983 use of force statues as noted by the Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Academy of Santa Fe New Mexico (DPS, n.d.).  According to them an officer is liable for excessive use of force if they continue to use force after resistance has stopped, and use force which causes unnecessary injury which Officer Jones did both when he shot the suspect in the shoulder.  The scenario clearly shows this, and case law follows this in the case of Bouggess v. Mattingly No. 06-5619 heard before, Chief Judge; and DAUGHTREY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges on March 5-April 16, 2007 in Louisville Kentucky U.S 6^th Circuit Court.  This is also related to Tennessee v. Garner which sets the standards for cases such as these in defining excessive use of force (FindLaw, 2013).

Conclusion

While criminals commit crimes as in the case of our suspect, victim, and husband of the victim they still have civil rights that must be protected.  Our officers are protected by using the correct amount of force needed to diffuse whichever situation they have to address.  However when they use more force than is necessary they can find themselves in civil court. The fourth amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of our country protect us from overzealous or corrupt officers.

References:

Department of Public Safety Law Enforcement Academy of Santa Fe New Mexico (DPS) (n.d.).  Civil Liability and Civil Rights Online. Retrieved From: nmlea.dps.state.nm.us/wp-content/.../Civil_Liability_and_Civil_Rights.pdf

Kentucky Justice Cabinet for Health and Family Services (n.d.). Model Domestic Violence Law Enforcement Policy.  Retrieved From: http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/54B7AF71-5428-4EC6-AE69-158BBFBF8031/0/ModelDomesticViolenceLawEnforcementPolicy.htm

Kentucky Revised Statutes (1975) 520.100 Fleeing or evading police in the second degree. (1) A ... Retrieved From: www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/520-00/100.PDF

Michigan Penal Code (n.d.).  750.411a False report of crime or report of medical or other emergency; violation; penalty; payment of costs by juvenile; jurisdiction; definitions. Retrieved From: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yw5svgbhuxprn455y2f34c45))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-411a

Price, M.J., (2011).  Possession with Intent to Distribute.  Retrieved From:  http://www.georgetownlaw.net/CriminalDefense/DrugCrimes/PossessionwithIntenttoDistribute.aspx

Read More

Case Summary of Cases Involving Photographic Evidence: Relevant, Material, and More Probative than Inflammatory Photographic Evidence Cases

Death penalty map (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Elizabeth Hall

Introduction

Ever since the photograph has been used as evidence rules have had to be set to ensure the validity and relevance of evidence such as this (Robinson, 2010).  Often individual defendants challenge the use of evidence particularly when the photographs are gruesome and may change juroropinion due to shock value.  In the following cases, Hoskins v. State   Johnny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee, No.  SC05-28, and People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal, 4th 313, 60 Cal. Rptr.3^rd 209; 160 P.3d 84 this was the case (FindLaw 2012, & FindLaw 2, 2012).  These cases deal with relevance, material, and, whether or not the photographic evidence is more probative than inflammatory.  We will discuss the rulings, and how current legal standards apply to them.

Hoskins v. State   Johnny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.  No.  SC05-28.  April 19, 2007. 

 According to FindLaw (2012), this case involves a defendant’s death sentence appeal, and among other issues raised the question on whether or not the trial court should have let his attorney show autopsy photos during Voir Dire. The claim was that because this was a death penalty case, the photographs should have been shown to potential jurors to ascertain whether they would cause them to vote yes for the death penalty.  The trial judge did not allow the photos shown, instead orally described them.  On appeal, since every death penalty case automatically goes to appellate court, Hoskins’ attorney argued that the penalty portion of the case was affected as reported by FindLaw (2012).

People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal, 4th 313, 60 Cal. Rptr.3^rd 209; 160 P.3d 84.

FindLaw 2 (2012) reports that this case involves eight photographs and their admittance during the voir dire phase of a first degree murder trial.  Bonilla’s defense council argued that the photos were not relevant extremely inflammatory, too gruesome, and cumulative, which would affect the juror’s opinion negatively denying his right to a fair trial implying that they would incur him the death penalty.  The photos were of the victim’s remains, which were mummified by that time and were shot at the gravesite where the body was found notes FindLaw 2 (2012). 

Current Legal Standards

Robinson (2010) holds that in order for a photograph to be admissible as evidence certain criteria must apply to the image. Because photographic images that are used for court purposes are expected to be accurate representations of the crime scene and evidence found there can sway the outcome of the trial, the photographer must take care to make sure they all fall in the scope of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Any photographic evidence submitted in a court of law must follow these guidelines including standards for relevancy, representation, focus, material, recreations, and prejudicial value.  Relevancy and material go hand in hand. 

A photo is relevant if it “proves or disproves any disputed fact in the case”; Robinson (2010) goes on to say that, the Federal Rules of Evidence also state that the evidence must some probative value to the issue at hand.  Material evidence must also prove or disprove a material fact or issue in the case. It must also have more than a “remote” relation to the issues of the case.   The prosecution also cannot introduce photographs into evidence simply to inflame the jury by the sight, but must have a valid reason that it relative to the court case.

An inflammatory photo may falsely prejudice the jury against the defendant and may be excluded from the initial trial, but could still be admitted during the penalty phase of the trial (Robinson, 2010).  An example of this would be an accident shot, with a ruler for scaling, which serves as a fair and accurate representation of the scene that clearly shows victim injuries while the medical specialist discusses the injuries. The picture could also be submitted in black and white to devalue the shock while maintaining evidentiary value.  Robinson (2010) states that recreations and black and white imaging are allowed, and that for recreations the fact that this is not an original must not be hidden from the courts.  This concerns more probative than prejudicial rules of evidence as well, and the accident shot, now considered more probative than prejudiced because the photographer had included scaling evidence, shows proof of size and type of injury as the pathologist explains the effects.  Another rule is that the shot must represent a fair and accurate representation of the scene which mens that it must not be altered, taken away from, added to, or retouched in any fashion (Robinson, 2010).

Conclusion- The Rulings

Robinson (2010) holds that the ruling on the People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal, 4th 313, 60 Cal. Rptr.3^rd 209; 160 P.3d 84., in which the objection was during the penalty phase, and the photos that were cumulative had been excluded from the trial phase already, as twelve were entered and eight were selected.  The court ruled that the photos were admissible overruling the objections citing relevant case law to back the decision.  People v. Roldan (2005) 35 Cal.4^th 646,713., and People v. Garule (2002) 28 Cal.4^th557,624.  uphold that the trial judge had great discretion in the case (FindLaw 2, 2012).  At the penalty phase, the prosecution has already proved that the defendant committed the crime so evidence would not be excluded simply because they were gruesome.  This is also along with the decision as to the exclusion for unnecessary prejudice, as stated by Evidence Code section 352, that trial judges’ rulings must be upheld unless more prejudice than probative applies clearly, according to FindLaw 2 (2012). 

The photos were ruled relevant as they showed factual evidence of what happened to the victim during the commission of the crime.  This also reinforces the testimony given by the other criminal present during the crime.  People v. Moon, supra, 37 Cal.4^th at p.35. upholds that murder is gruesome, and the medical professional while explaining his statements used the photos.  This applies that they were more probative than prejudiced and cumulative factors were decided at trial. 

In the Hoskins v. State   Johnny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.  No.  SC05-28.  April 19, 2007., the court’s ruling on the matter of showing potential jurors in a homicide case during voir dire pictures of mummified remains at a gravesite and inquiring whether they would sway their opinion on the death penalty citing that the defense cited no previous case law, that no discretionary rules were crossed (FindLaw, 2012).  The trial court had allowed testimony about the photos at voir dire but not allowed the photos and under State v. Thibodeaux, 728 So.2d 416, 422.  that is acceptable.  The use of the photographs during the voir dire portion of the trial would have made a “fair and impartial jury” nearly impossible.  By allowing the defense to ask about the jurors’ reactions to gory, gruesome photographs, the court did not impede the jury selection. 

References:

FindLaw (2012).  Hoskins v. State   Johnny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.  No.  SC05-28.  Retrieved From: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1148880.html

FindLaw 2 (2012).  People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal, 4th 313, 60 Cal. Rptr.3^rd 209; 160 P.3d 84.  Retrieved From: http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/cal4th/41/313.html

Robinson, E.M., (2010).  Crime Scene Photography: Second Edition.  Boston, Elsevier, Academic Press. 

Related articles

• FOCUS | The Coming Drone Attack on America
• Avoiding A Confrontation: Why Don't Courts Find Nontestimonial Co-Defendant Statements Inadmissible Under Rule 403?
• Roger Clemens' Motion To Strike: 50-50 Doesn't Cut It
• Speech as Evidence, and Rap Videos
• Put Your Hands Up by Joel Robinson
• Weinberger Gave Judge Wrong Information Resulting in Pollard's Life Sentence
• Bloodhounds Get No Respect In Indiana
• Taking Note: 'Clear Errors' About the Death Penalty
• Going To Jail: The Bagley Prosecution's Bad Motion
• Ethan Stacy's accused killer appears in court

Read More