In this section we will discuss some of the areas in which corruption and misconduct can plague police agencies. We will also look at ways officers are held accountable for their actions and what some specific agencies are doing to be more transparent to the communities they serve.

6.4.1 Corruption Types

Police officers have a considerable amount of power and discretion. With one fell swoop, an officer can take a person’s freedom away. An officer is also given the authority to carry a gun and for the protection of either the officer or a person, take the life of a community member as well. These decisions are dangerous, and unfortunately, at times there are some officers who not only overstep their boundaries but jump directly into the pit of corruption.

When media coverage of a police shooting begins, the investigation is still underway, therefore, the only answer the police department will have for the media is “no comment.” Sometimes this can feel like a deflective response to the public; however, when the investigation is completed weeks to months later, media interest and coverage of the event may have dwindled. To become a police officer, cadets must undergo two years of training. Because of the specialized training the police undergo, it is sometimes difficult for the public to understand why an officer acted and responded the way they did.

However, no matter the profession, whether it is an actor, a cashier, a president of a non-profit organization, or a police officer, corruption can occur. Corruption should not be condoned and if it does occur, the reaction must be swift and stern. Those in law enforcement hold a badge that grants the carrier the authority to take away a person’s rights therefore, the authority that comes with the badge is subject to increased scrutiny.

6.4.1.1 Grass Eaters and the Meat Eaters

In 1970, the Knapp Commission coined the terms ‘grass eaters and ‘meat eaters’ after an exhaustive investigation into New York Police Department corruption. Police officers who were grass eaters accepted benefits. Whether it was a free coffee at the local coffee shop, fifty percent off lunch, or free bottled water from the local convenience store, these cops would take the freebie and not attempt to do the right thing by explaining why they cannot accept the benefit and then pay for the benefit. By accepting benefits, the officer was, in turn, agreeing that whoever gave the benefit, i.e. coffee, lunch, etc., was to receive something in return. What if the coffee shop wanted the officer to patrol their shop every morning between the busy hours of six and seven a.m.? Would that be fair to other coffee shop owners who did not give free coffee to the officer? (Caldero, M. et al, 2018).

The meat eaters were officers who expected some tangible item personally from those served, in order to do their job. Whether it was money “shakedown” to ensure a convenience store was not robbed, or the officer felt there was nothing wrong with stealing from a drug dealer during a drug raid; “no one would notice a pound of cocaine missing, right?” These officers felt entitled and were aggressive in making sure they got what they thought was theirs. (Caldero, M. et al, 2018).

6.4.1.2 Noble Cause Corruption

Noble-cause corruption is a lot more commonplace than many think. Many officers work twenty-five years and may never see another cop steal something, but they will see noble-cause corruption. Most officers join the force to make the world a better place in one way or another. While officers understand they cannot solve everything alone, they do think they can make a difference. The noble cause is the goal that most officers have to make the world a better and safer place to live (Baker, M., 1985). Officers sign on and get hired wanting and striving to do the right thing. However, it is a slippery slope that the officer continually slides on from the academy, through field training, and on into the deeper parts of a police career.

“I am the Law.” This is the belief that emerges over time, in which officers view what they do as the right thing to do. This is the practical outcome of the old adage “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A police officer does not have absolute power, but they have the backing of the legal system in almost all circumstances. (Withrow, B., et al, 2018)

Therefore, every officer can start out wanting to save the world somehow, but when the real-world job of an officer starts to take hold, it is a problematic grasp to release.

6.4.2 Quotas

Quotas, whether for issuing a certain number of tickets (citations) in a shift or making contact with a certain number of community members, can be damaging to both a community and an agency. Most police agencies in the United States would tell you they don’t have quotas. Yet, if you talk to the officers and teams working the streets, you hear a different story of informal agency incentives for the shift or team who made the most stops or issued the most tickets.

Although it may motivate some officers to stay busy during their shift, the danger is that officers will feel compelled by something other than the real reason for police involvement. For example, the supervisor tells the traffic team at a briefing that the first officer to get ten tickets written during the morning shift earns coffee, on the supervisor. Although the supervisor’s gesture may be genuine in wanting to motivate the team and offer a simple compensation of a coffee, what is the impact? Will a few officers on the team be motivated and thus work harder to make the stops and issue the tickets? Does it mean the officers may look for less meaningful violations, maybe issuing community members tickets when a warning would have sufficed in order to meet the day’s goal? Could the officer’s implicit bias end up targeting a certain group within the community due to being more focused on the number of tickets and less on the role of policing as a whole?

There is quite a bit of controversy from the community who feels that quotas and incentives for police efforts are motivating and reducing crime efforts in the wrong direction. To learn more about the impacts of quotas on communities, check out Outlawing Police Quotas | Brennan Center for Justice.

6.4.3 Internal Affairs, Discipline, and Accountability

Internal affairs (IA) exist to hold officers accountable for their actions. Whenever an issue is brought forth by another officer, a supervisor, or a member of the general public, the IA division of the police agency is responsible for conducting a thorough investigation into the incident. Members of the IA division work directly under the Chief or Sheriff.

In the 1960s, the overwhelming number of riots revealed the problem of corruption and misconduct in policing- one of the most significant issues centered around citizen complaints against officers and the lack of proper investigation into the complaint. Most officers back then were found exonerated (not guilty) when a complaint ensued, which did not bode with the public (Goldstein, H., 1977).

6.4.3.1 Discipline

Police departments are paramilitary organizations or a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, tactics, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, but which is formally not part of a government’s armed forces. Therefore, the handling of discipline is serious business. Suppose an officer is accused of a minor infraction, such as the use of profanity. In that case, the officer’s immediate supervisor will generally handle the policy infraction and note what occurred in the officer’s file and counsel the officer of the following:

• Inform the police officer why the conduct was wrong.
• Inform the police officer how to stop engaging in the conduct.
• Inform the police officer when the conduct must stop.
• Inform the police officer the time elapsed after the conduct and a scheduled meeting to review and ensure the conduct is still not occurring.
• Depending on the conduct, the supervisor may require the officer to attend training to assist the officer.

Another answer was to create external civilian review boards to hold police accountable for their actions by reviewing all complaints from community members and use of force incidents in which officers have compelled compliance or overcome resistance to take a person into custody (Police Data, Initiative, 2017). With the onset of the 21st century and new technology, came new tools in policing. One such tool was a new program called IA Pro. This program followed individual officers throughout their entire careers. IA Pro ensured any and all infractions by an officer were recorded and followed through upon by the applicable supervisor. If an officer used profanity, the program would require the officer to attend training. If the officer used profanity a second time within the prescribed time limits, the officer would be placed on a timed employee development program and could face discipline up to termination. IA Pro was not a panacea, but it would significantly lower the number of officers allowed to continue to operate as grass or meat eaters.

If an officer is accused of a more serious infraction, such as excessive use of force or lying, the officer would immediately be placed on administrative leave and the Internal Affairs Division of the department would investigate the incident. The Internal Affairs Division would offer a finding of:

• Sustained Complaint
• Not-Sustained Complaint
• Exonerated Complaint
• Unfounded Complaint

Once one of the above complaint dispositions was assigned, it was then forwarded to the Command Staff (Chief or Sheriff and Assistant Chief/Sheriff, Deputy Chief/Sheriff, and Captains) for review and discipline. Discipline can include time off up to termination.

6.4.3.2 Accountability

After events in 2020, like the death of George Floyd as a result of an officer’s excessive use of force, the public demanded more accountability of the police, wanting to see police take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable to them. Riots and protests broke out across the nation, and politicians and public entities demanded more transparency and accountability from police agencies. In response, lawmakers also proposed and passed various house bills to address accountability. One such house bill was HB 2929 in Oregon. It requires officers to intervene and report any behavior they know, or reasonably should know, to be misconduct to a superior or to the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST) within 72 hours (Levison, 2021).

The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, which trains and certifies all Oregon police officers was asked to respond to the accountability to the officers they certify and went through numerous public hearings, community and lawmaker presentations. In response, they made changes to how they publicized the misconduct of officers. This can be seen in more detail by visiting their Professional Standards : Criminal Justice : State of Oregon website which now holds a searchable database, available to the public, of professional standards cases and agency police officer discipline. Although not a fix-all, these changes have required a profession that is given so much authority and responsibility, a way of being more transparent and accountable to the people they serve.