I do not like to write about corruption, incompetence or malfeasance in law enforcement organizations any more than you like to read about it. However, recent allegations about corruption of officers in New York, Philadelphia and New Orleans; corruption of federal officers; congressional hearings on the administration of the ATF and its operational tactics in conjunction with U.S. Marshals and the FBI at Waco and Ruby Ridge; and finally, certain aspects of the O.J. Simpson trial, are sufficiently compelling -- in terms of the potential for the loss of public trust in law enforcement -- to set aside my personal aversion for the discussion of some law enforcement officer's shortcomings.

I suspect the origin of my aversion is the knowledge that none of us is perfect. Except for the lack of opportunity, or the grace of God, we might all find ourselves in a situation that is morally, ethically, or professionally beyond our ability to handle.

Do not view the comments and suggestions that follow as preaching or evidence of a holier than thou attitude. Rather, my thoughts on corruption are based on compassion for those few who cannot live by their oath of office and whose actions bring great discredit to themselves and our profession. If this article encourages you to think of yourself and your organization in terms of what your responsibility is to yourself and to the public as a member of a law enforcement organization, then I will have achieved a measure of success.

The faith that the American public has in the integrity of a law enforcement officer is extraordinarily high. We teach our children that law enforcement officers are their friends. We install technology such as 911 because we believe law enforcement will respond to our cries in time of need. When the word of an officer is challenged by a single defendant, most people believe the officer. When officers arrive at the scene of a crisis we all breathe a sigh of relief. When the public does not know whom to call about a problem, they usually will call the police. Finally, many recent public opinion polls confirm that confidence in the police is far higher than professions, business firms and departments of government.

The American people are not naive. They realize some officers will occasionally stray from the straight and narrow. The public does have, however, an almost blind faith that the organization will identify these officers and punish them. To maintain the public's trust in law enforcement, each department and our courts give the law enforcement offender punishments that are probably twice as severe as what other citizens receive for similar offenses. This is to be expected and it is the price one pays for holding a position of public trust.

We have earned this trust through our hard and courageous work, the sacrifices of the officers who have been slain and injured in the line of duty and through the conduct of our personal and professional lives. We have a great pride in integrity of our profession and we all suffer when a few of our comrades bring dishonor to our profession with behavior that is dishonest, brutal, unprofessional or intellectually inferior.

Without the trust the public has placed in law enforcement officers and the various local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, our jobs would be extremely difficult, far more dangerous and lacking the satisfaction we enjoy in our work. Thus trust is a critical and precious commodity for effective law enforcement. At the same time it is a very fragile commodity.

Consider the problems of the Central Intelligence Agency, whose actions caused mistrust of Congress. ATF has had similar problems because of its raid on the Branch Davidians at Waco, Texas. The FBI is struggling to maintain its level of public trust following allegations of a cover-up after the incident at Ruby Ridge in Idaho.

Our friends in the mass media are having a field day exploiting the allegations of incompetence and malfeasance. Reality has been set aside in these discussions. The critics' theme is that a violation of the sacred trust between the public and law enforcement has occurred.

Who is right in this argument is not important. What is important is that the American public is extremely sensitive about violations of trust by anyone: be it law enforcement, members of the clergy, school teachers, politicians, lawyers or businessmen. The press views itself as the watchdog of society and thus jumps on allegations of impropriety with both feet. Few people or organizations, whether innocent or guilty, survive the onslaught of media coverage unscathed. It is often a cruel process devoid of justice. It is a process that we cannot individually change, although in some cases an aggressive, proactive, honest response to the initial allegation produces favorable results.

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt..." Notice he said tends to corrupt not that it was automatic. If an individual does not have the defenses of good character, self-discipline and integrity, then the corrosiveness of power will begin to erode the distinction between good and evil in our daily lives.

Police officers are given enormous power by the public so they can perform their job. In many situations a police officer has more power than the President of the United States, members of the judiciary and Congress, mayors and governors. The badge, the hat, the weapon and the uniform are symbols of the officer's power and often people turn to these symbols for guidance, leadership and resolution to problems when other departments of government have gone home for the day.

The problem we all have as police officers when dealing with the power inherent in our jobs is how to use it wisely. All too often we use it without thinking of the consequences. We have a tendency to believe that since we have power we are above the law! At times we think we are doing God's work and that the means we use to reach a desirable end-product are justified. Occasionally we believe that since we have power, people should do exactly what we say! Finally, some of us have a tendency to believe that since we have power people should treat us with respect, defer to our wishes and seek our friendship and association.

The stupid free cup of coffee situation -- one which we have all experienced -- brings the problem of power right down to the bottom line. Ask yourself why do we occasionally get a free cup of coffee? It is not because we are beautiful people is it? No, it is because we have power. I do not know what the motives of the givers are or what may ever be asked of us in return for the gift -- most likely nothing. I do not think a free cup of coffee is going to corrupt our moral fiber or force us to bestow a return favor at some time. The problem the free cup of coffee presents to us is simply, where do we want to draw the line with people who want to curry favor?

I would argue that the prudent and wise young patrolman, the senior sergeant and detective, and the upper level management of any law enforcement organization, should draw the line extremely close. Accept nothing that recognizes the power of the position or the organization. Not because of the gift itself, but because the gift makes the recipient aware of the potential of power. Once the potential of power is realized it can be perverted in our mind. Few of us realize that our powers are very limited!

Many of us think our powers give us special entitlements. Some of us think we are above the law, above criticism and above reproach. When we abuse our power we find this was not the case at all! We have no special privileges. God is not answering our calls for help for things we did in his name. Our peers look upon us as if we have leprosy and turn their self-righteous backs.

Corrupt law enforcement officers do not become corrupt overnight. It often takes years of abusing their power before they find themselves in situations that may result in illegal acts. The length of service of officers found in violation of the law, or in serious violation of department regulations, is usually between eight and 10 years.

Upon review one finds these are people who could never draw any line between right and wrong. Almost without exception individuals become corrupted gradually, beginning with minor transgressions and evolving into more serious offenses. Often these are people who rationalize their behavior by saying, "everybody does it," or "I deserve it because I am not paid enough." Or perhaps the say, "this is my due for doing a job that is lousy!" That rationale, my friends, is pure and simple bullshit!

Accepting gifts, favors, or money based upon the power of your position is only one form of corruption with which law enforcement must deal. We also deal, on a daily basis, with individuals who abuse power in their relationship with people of another color, sex, or nationality. Racism is particularly egregious if only one of the parties has power. This is usually the case if a law enforcement officer is involved. If we allow our hatred of another race to influence our thinking or actions in our dealings with people we hold in contempt, then we are certainly abusing our authority.

The basic nature of our job is to be fair-minded, to judge each situation on its own merit. Each time we allow our prejudices to enter our decision-making process, our judgment becomes flawed or suspect. Racism can only exist in a narrow mind -- a mind that makes decisions based solely on a single visible factor, skin color. Law enforcement officers should be more intellectually superior than that. I think most of us are!

However, if only a small percentage of officers is racist, bent on inflicting punishment on people they hate, then the entire criminal justice system has a serious problem. For example, I do not know if Mark Furhman is a racist. He was portrayed as a racist by the press based on his comments to a screen writer. His words tainted the reputation of an entire police department and an entire profession.

So if you are a racist you should give pause and think. Is it going to do you any good to have such an attitude? Is it going to affect your judgment and your actions? Will this attitude eventually cause you to abuse your power? Is this attitude hindering your development as a person of good character?

Ask yourself this question, "Is it worthy of me to treat people as members of a group, identified by the color of their skin?" If the answer troubles you, then it is time to change your attitude. A racist attitude in combination with the power and authority of a law enforcement officer can produce consequences that will affect you the rest of your life. Finally, how would you like to be considered by everyone just on the basis of being a member of a group? Being judged dumb merely because you are a cop is particularly galling.

Until 1972 law enforcement was generally a domain populated by males. Being macho was expected and considered an informal job requirement. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1972, however, women have entered our profession in great numbers. Today more than 10% of law enforcement officers in the United States are women. In addition, a majority of a department's support staff is made up of women. Adjusting to women in the workplace has been a difficult task for many male officers.

After a review of court cases involving sexual harassment, many departments have adopted a policy of zero tolerance for any form of sexual harassment. Those departments that have not adopted such a policy should do so forthwith or otherwise subject themselves to a serious level of liability for their employees' actions. It has been difficult to change long held attitudes between men and women. It will, probably, take several more generations before fully adequate changes are achieved. Therefore in the present work environment the best course of action is to treat everyone you meet, and work with, as if they were gender-neutral.

It is the wise officer who understands that the work environment is very contentious. It is an environment over which individuals have very little control. The slightest affront to a member of the opposite sex can bring forth allegations of sexism or sexual harassment. Needless to say, even an allegation of sexual harassment is enough to have serious implications on your career and family. For the time being, the best defense against the dangers of this environment is to place yourself above it in both word and deed.

Brutality under color of law is never acceptable. Reasonable force to effect an arrest or to protect your life, or the life of another, is acceptable. Brutality occurs most often after a subject has been subdued and effectively incapacitated. After this point has been achieved in the arrest, and regardless of the verbal or physical actions of the subject towards the officer, both state and federal statutes explicitly forbid any further form of punishment. While a shot of pepper spray or tightening the handcuffs may seem justified and appropriate in some cases, rest assured they are not and will be viewed dimly by any review process.

We must train ourselves to instantly shift our emotional gears after the subject has been subdued. The subject must be treated with great care and caution. This is both for the protection of the subject and ourselves. Many subjects today are under the heavy influence of either drugs or alcohol. Once constrained, the chances of these individuals dying a natural death while in our custody is significantly increased, particularly if we are not aware of the dangers of various constraints upon the physiology of people under the influence of drugs.

Never, under any circumstances, tolerate a fellow officer, or a senior officer brutalizing a subject. It may be the most difficult decision of your life, but you must do what you can to stop the brutalizing actions of a fellow officer. By your actions, you may save both the officer's career and your own. You may be vilified in the short term by your fellow officers, but in the long term you will gain respect. In the area of criminal misconduct on the part of a fellow officer you must draw a line between what is right and what is wrong. If you do not take a firm stand on the issue of right and wrong conduct, then it will only be a short period of time before you are drawn into activities that are also considered wrong.

It should be obvious to those in charge of law enforcement organizations that the job of a police officer in terms of maintaining personal integrity is extremely difficult given the nature of the job and the temptations that go with the territory. Unfortunately, in many organizations this concept does not appear to be so obvious! Far too often we give young officers a badge, a gun, and send them into corrosive environment without a clue as to how to protect themselves morally, ethically, or spiritually. This is not right!

I would strenuously argue that if officers were given rules, regulations, policies and procedures for what to do when encountering difficult situations on the job there would be far less misconduct. This is not to say you can have rules for every contingency. The situations encountered by officers on the street are far too varied and complex to have rules of encounter for each situation. Officers must be given a reasonable amount of discretion in order perform their jobs effectively and efficiently.

To learn the proper use of discretion officers need the guidance of other experienced officers, and sergeants, on a daily basis. This can be done in a informal atmosphere by pairing less experienced officers with more experienced officers on a rotational basis, or it can be done as part of roll call training. It can also be done by sergeants when they get out of the office and on the streets with the troops.

To further make this point, if officers were given special training in how to psychologically and spiritually handle the corrosive influences of what they observe in our society we would have fewer of them trying to solve their personal problems with alcohol, drugs, or greed. Yet few of these type programs are in place! I am not arguing that individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their own actions and I am not arguing that the organization is to blame for each and every individual act of misconduct. What I am saying is that the organization and its leaders have a responsibility to the rank and file to help them resist temptations, make good decisions, and reward them for professional behavior. Following are some suggestions as to how this can be done.

In recent years, there has been an abundance of highly qualified applicants for positions in law enforcement. The problem some departments have experienced is how to obtain, and sustain, a workforce that is in proportion to the racial, ethnic, and sexual composition of society. This is the most difficult task in the selection process. Some departments have lowered employment standards in order to achieve this balance. While this solves a short term problem it has produced long term headaches for persons who should have never been hired in the first place. The solution to this problem is two fold. First, do not lower employment standards, and second, place more emphasis and dollars on recruiting qualified candidates for the position. There are plenty of examples in law enforcement of departments that have accomplished success in the selection and recruiting of quality minority candidates. Using EEO regulations, ADA requirements, or the threat of lawsuits as an excuse for hiring unqualified persons is no longer acceptable reasoning.

The selection standards must be demonstrably job related. But over and above standards is the consideration of the applicants previous behavior. As my mother used to say, "A leopard never changes its spots"! In terms of selection the best predictor of future performance is past performance. There are some selection systems which probe this concept on the market. However, if a formal program is beyond the financial capability of the department then best method for determining an applicants' past performance is the employment interview and the background investigation. If these two aspects of selection are be emphasized the resultant quality of employees will be greatly enhanced.

We all know the value of training in law enforcement. What has always been a puzzlement, however, is why training is the first thing cut during times of reduced budgets. Most of the training dollars in law enforcement organizations are spent on entry level training. The higher one goes in the rank structure of an organization the less training is offered. This has been a problem in law enforcement organizations for years and is not about to change in the near term future. However, in terms of recruit training we must bear in mind that the applicant does not come to us in a virginal state. The new recruit is not without long held opinions and attitudes, some good, some perhaps not so good! They have character traits which are substantially formed. Some of these traits go well with a law enforcement career, but other character traits held by the recruit may be a serious hindrance to success in our line of work. The question then becomes, "How does a law enforcement organization ensure that it's values are held by the recruit?" First, a law enforcement organization needs to have an operating set of values. Not all departments have a written, formal set of values. This needs to be done. Once the statement of values is finished they should not be just posted on the wall, rather they should be inculcated into department policies, procedures, and operational tactics. One such policy would be to include a substantial block of time in the recruit training curriculum learning the values of the department and being exposed to the culture of the organization. The policy should also include the requirement that value education be part of all in-service training programs. First line supervisors should be afforded a special in-service training program on how these supervisors insure that departmental values are followed in every aspect of the organizations work.

All of the above should be formulated from the statement of values subscribed too by the department. We cannot have rules which are in conflict with our values. There must be a consistency. Nor can we have these statements of conduct just for patrolmen! The rules must equally apply to every employee of the department regardless of rank! For example, if a department has a stated value which says that the integrity of the department will never be compromised, then policy and regulations will be written which will forbid any employee from taking a gift. This would include that stupid cup of coffee mentioned previously as well as a free game of golf for the Chief. Values are a way of life for every member of a department. Simply put, departmental policies, procedures, rules and various regulations should be written to protect the officers, not as a vehicle to catch them doing something wrong! This is why the wise police administrator will involve representatives from every rank in a department to participate in the writing of the departmental statement of values and the subsequent development of appropriate policies, rules, and regulations.

To draw an appropriate analogy, think of the game of basketball. Whether the game is formal, or informal, the game requires the adherence to a commonly held set of values if it is to be played. There are rules and regulations which everyone must follow. A deviation from the rules is penalized. Everyone on the floor knows that sportsmanship is valued and rules must be followed. A violation of the values, or the rules, is appropriately punished. The referee is the sergeant! Unless the values of the game are respected and the rules followed by all involved, the game will quickly degenerate into a free for all. Values and rules make the game of basketball enjoyable, so also can the values, rules, and regulations of a police department make the job enjoyable and rewarding.

The job of the average police officer is very demanding. The emotional state of an officer on the job can range from acute boredom to abject terror, and it can change from one to the other in a second. By any standard it is a very stressful job. Some people can handle stress well, others do not! Too much stress can cause behavioral problems and, of course, these problems cause other problems both on the job and at home! It may well be the officer doesn't realize the changes which are occurring in his personality or behavior. Other officers may realize the impact of stress on their lives but are not capable of doing anything about it. In either case, the officer needs some help. I think the organization has the responsibility to provide that help! By providing whatever assistance is required, the organization not only helps the officer, but also, protects its own integrity.

One means to spot officers in trouble is the establishment of an early warning system designed to spot some behavioral inconsistencies. This is accomplished by tracking personnel complaints, involvement in use of force incidents, and information received from supervisors. Metro-Dade Police Department in Miami is one department which has established such a system and for those departments without such a system this would be an excellent example to study. The program includes appropriate psychological services and a stress abatement program for officers in need of assistance. Naturally, the program also provides a means by which the department can identify those officers whose behavior is so unacceptable that termination is the best solution for both parties.

In the Bureau, we used to say that members of our Inspection Division were people who came onto the battlefield after the battle and stabbed the wounded! We lamented that they didn't seem to be very supportive of Agents under investigation for whatever. They all seemed to have transferred their loyalty from their fellow agents to some unknown and unforgiving entity. They were feared!

Unfortunately, all organizations, large and small, need a group of individuals who investigate wrongdoing by other members of the organization. Whether it be called internal affairs or the inspection division, the mission of the Unit, or individual, is to protect the interests and integrity of the organization. Their loyalty can be only to the public, or its elected representatives. In addition to the investigation of wrongdoing, this Unit also forces compliance with policy, rules, regulations, and procedures through periodic review of each department within the organization. The primary mission of an internal affairs unit is to insure that the trust of the public in the organization is neither diminished or lost. In my opinion, it would be best if only the most competent, experienced, and wise officers were assigned to internal affairs. This offers some protection to officers facing false allegations and it also brings to the investigation individuals who know how to conduct a thorough, impartial investigation.

It may be that none of us will ever love members of the internal affairs unit, but we can and must have respect for their integrity and the importance of their place within a law enforcement organization.

It is my opinion that all officers should be rotated after a period of two or three years, depending, of course, on the ability to make such rotations. I would argue this is particularly true for officers involved in drug, or vice, investigations. It is absolutely true for any officer involved in undercover operations! A sound rotation policy not only offers some relief to those involved in investigations in the most corrosive and stressful sectors of our society, but it also provides an opportunity for the officer to experience personal and professional growth. Doing the same job year after year can lead to complacency and a lack of interest. Neither of which is healthy for anyone, psychologically or physically.

Given the nature and volume of work in law enforcement, I suspect we are always in the process of maintaining or evaluating public trust. The only way to maintain the level of trust we presently have with the public is constant vigilance and vigorously policing ourselves. But in the end, it always comes down to the individual. Organizations can help an individual along with strict values, policies, rules, and regulations, but if the individual is bent on following a less than honorable life then all the rules and regulations in the world won't help. Living an honorable life isn't easy. We all make mistakes, correct them if we can, and grow as a result. This is our nature. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are honorable persons and their reward is peace of mind, self respect, and satisfaction that their work made this country a better place to live. That is not a bad legacy to leave your sons and daughters! 

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401