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.

Police Discretion

Officer discretion plays a significant role in shaping the outcomes of law enforcement encounters and the administration of justice. Defined as the authority of officers to make decisions based on their judgment and interpretation of laws and policies, discretion allows for flexibility in responding to diverse situations encountered on the job. Officers exercise discretion in various aspects of their duties, including determining whether to make an arrest, issue a citation, or provide a warning, as well as deciding how to respond to conflicts and emergencies.

While discretion can enable officers to tailor their responses to individual circumstances and prioritize public safety, it also introduces the potential for bias and inconsistency in decision-making. Factors such as personal biases, attitudes, and perceptions, as well as situational variables and organizational pressures, may influence the exercise of discretion. Moreover, the exercise of discretion can intersect with broader societal issues, such as race, socioeconomic status, and community-police relations, shaping the experiences and outcomes of individuals within the criminal justice system. Understanding the complexities of officer discretion is essential for students studying criminal justice, as it underscores the nuanced dynamics of law enforcement and the ongoing efforts to promote fairness, accountability, and equity within policing practices.

Furthermore, the influence of officer discretion extends beyond individual encounters to impact larger patterns of law enforcement practices and policies. The exercise of discretion at the individual level contributes to the cumulative effects of police decision-making on community perceptions of justice and legitimacy. For instance, discretionary practices in policing may shape the allocation of resources, deployment of personnel, and prioritization of enforcement efforts within communities. Additionally, the exercise of discretion by law enforcement leaders and policymakers influences the development and implementation of organizational policies and procedures, as well as the allocation of agency resources and priorities.

While discretion affords officers and agencies the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and address community needs, it also raises questions about accountability, transparency, and the potential for disparate treatment across different communities and demographic groups. Therefore, critical examination of the influence of officer discretion at both the individual and organizational levels is essential for students seeking to understand the complexities of law enforcement practices and their impact on society.

Furthermore, research suggests that the educational background of police officers can significantly influence their decision-making and use of discretion. Studies have shown that officers with higher levels of education, particularly those with college degrees, are more likely to exhibit critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and empathy in their interactions with the public (Owens et al., 2014). Additionally, college-educated officers tend to use less force and display greater professionalism and communication skills compared to their counterparts without higher education (Hickman et al., 2017). Therefore, promoting higher education among law enforcement personnel can be instrumental in enhancing the quality of police decision-making and the overall effectiveness of policing strategies.

Corruption Types

Police officers have a considerable amount of power and discretion. 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 difficult, and unfortunately, at times there are some officers who only overstep their boundaries.

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.

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 could not 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 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 a money “shakedown” to ensure a convenience store was not robbed or the officer feeling 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 et al., 2018).

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 [Website].

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 complaints. Most officers back then were found exonerated (not guilty) when a complaint ensued, which did not bode well with the public (Goldstein, 1977).

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. If an officer is accused of a 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.

Accountability

After events in 2020, like the death of George Floyd as a result of an officer’s force response, the public demanded more accountability of the police, wanting to see police take responsibility for their actions and be held accountable for 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). If you would like to learn more, check out HB 2929 [Website].

The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, which trains and certifies all Oregon police officers, was asked to respond to the accountability of the officers they certify and went through numerous public hearings and community and lawmaker presentations. In response, they made changes to how they publicized the misconduct of officers. If you would like to learn more details, visit 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 perfect, 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.

Licenses and Attributions for Police Corruption, Misconduct, and Accountability

Open Content, Shared Previously

“Police Corruption, Misconduct, and Accountability” is adapted from “6.11. Current Issues: Accountability” and “6.12. Current Issues: Internal Affairs and Discipline” by Tiffany Morey in SOU-CCJ230 Introduction to the American Criminal Justice System by Alison S. Burke, David Carter, Brian Fedorek, Tiffany Morey, Lore Rutz-Burri, and Shanell Sanchez, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Modifications by Megan Gonzalez, revisions by Roxie Supplee, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, include edits for clarity, brevity, and recency.