Why cops aren't whistleblowers

[Vympel]

Link

While awarding Barron Bowling $830,000 last September for the beating he suffered at the hands of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent in Kansas City, Kansas, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson went out of her way to acknowledge another victim in the disgraceful affair: Kansas City police detective Max Seifert.

In January 2003, Bowling was on his way to fill a prescription when Timothy McCue, an on-duty DEA agent, tried to pass him illegally on the right side of a wide one-lane street. Bowling accelerated to prevent McCue from passing, and the two cars collided. After the collision, McCue and another agent got out of their car. McCue drew his gun, threw Bowling to the ground, and beat him to the point of inflicting brain damage. McCue later justified the violence by saying Bowling “resisted arrest” when he lifted his head from the pavement. According to witnesses, McCue threatened to kill Bowling, whom he called “white trash” and a “system-dodging inbred hillbilly.”

McCue, the DEA, and officers of the Kansas City Police Department then conspired to cover up the beating. Bowling was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and assaulting McCue with his car during the collision. He was later acquitted on those charges but convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia—a marijuana pipe police found in his car. Witness statements incriminating McCue for both the accident and the beating were lost or destroyed, as were photos of the damage McCue inflicted on Bowling’s face.

Only one of the officers at the accident scene that day had any integrity. That would be Seifert, a cop with an exemplary record. Seifert took the witness statements that implicated McCue. He documented Bowling’s injuries and testified for Bowling in his lawsuit. He actively fought the cover-up.

As Judge Robinson pointed out, Seifert was forced into early retirement because of his actions. He lost part of his pension and his retirement health insurance. He was “shunned, subjected to gossip and defamation by his police colleagues, and treated as a pariah,” Robinson said. “The way Seifert was treated was shameful.”

So what happened to the cops involved in the cover-up? Ronald Miller, then Kansas City’s police chief, is now the police chief in Topeka. Steven Culp, then Kansas City’s deputy police chief, is now, incredibly, executive director of the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training. Officer Robert Lane went on to become a councilman for the town of Edwardsville, where he was later convicted of participating in a ticket-fixing scheme. And McCue is still with the DEA.

It may be true that abusive cops are few and far between, as police organizations typically claim. The problem is that other cops rarely hold them accountable. Perhaps that’s because they know they will be treated the way Max Seifert was. For all the concern about the “Stop Snitchin’ ” message within the hip-hop community, police have engaged in a far more impactful and pernicious Stop Snitchin’ campaign of their own. It’s called the Blue Wall of Silence.

Consider New York City police officer Adrian Schoolcraft. Schoolcraft was concerned about quotas for stops and arrests imposed by his commanding officers. Worse, some officers had been instructed to downgrade offenses, or even talk victims out of pressing charges, to make the city’s crime statistics look better. NYPD officials publicly denied there was any quota system or data fudging, but that didn’t jibe with what Schoolcraft was hearing in the station house. So he surreptitiously recorded commanding officers giving the instructions. According to The Village Voice, he brought his complaints to “a duty captain, a district surgeon, an NYPD psychologist, three Internal Affairs officers, and five department crime statistics auditors.” None of them took action against the officers imposing the quotas.

But the department did take action against Schoolcraft. Last October a SWAT team appeared at Schoolcraft’s Queens apartment, threw him to the floor, handcuffed him, and had him forcibly admitted to the psychiatric ward at Jamaica Hospital. NYPD officials lied to hospital staff about Schoolcraft’s condition, causing him to be held for six days against his will. Officially, the visit to Schoolcraft’s apartment was prompted by an unapproved sick day. But that does not explain the show of force or the removal of documents related to the quotas from Schoolcraft’s home.

In October The Village Voice reported another troubling incident, in which 10 rookie New York cops viciously beat a cabbie outside an Upper East Side bar in 2008. None of the cops were charged, although a few faced administrative discipline. Their captain was promoted. The only cop to suffer any serious repercussions was Sgt. Anthony Acosta—the one who tried to stop the beating. He was stripped of his gun and badge and assigned to desk duty.

There are more stories like these. Last year a former Albuquerque cop named Sam Costales was awarded $662,000 in a lawsuit against his own department. In 2006 Costales testified against fellow officers after an incident that resulted in the arrest of the retired race car driver Al Unser. Costales said Unser did not assault or threaten officers from the Bernalillo Sheriff’s Department, as claimed in police reports, and his testimony helped Unser win an acquittal.

None of the Bernalillo deputies were disciplined. But by now you probably can guess who was: Sam Costales. His own chief opened an internal affairs investigation of Costales for wearing his police uniform when he testified in Unser’s case. Albuquerque cops apparently are permitted to wear the uniform when they’re testifying for the prosecution, but not when they’re testifying for the defense.

As is often the case when an officer is investigated, the police union got involved—but not to protect Costales. James Badway, secretary of the Albuquerque Police Officers Association, sent an email message to the Bernalillo sheriff stating that the union was “embarrassed” and “ashamed” that Costales would testify against fellow officers.

In his 2005 book Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper explains the implicit threats that make the Blue Wall so successful: “You have to rely on your fellow officers to back you. A cop with a reputation as a snitch is one vulnerable police officer, likely to find his peers slow to respond to requests for backup—if they show up at all. A snitch is subject to social snubbing. Or malicious mischief, or sabotage.…The peer pressure is childish and churlish, but it’s real. Few cops can stand up to it.”

That makes it all the more important that police administrators and political leaders support and protect the cops who do. The most disturbing aspect of these stories is not that there are bad cops in Kansas City, New York, and Albuquerque. It’s not even that other cops covered for them, or that unions have institutionalized the protection of bad apples. It’s that the cover-up and retaliation extend all the way to the top of the chain of command—and that there has been no action, or even condemnation, from the elected officials who are supposed to hold police leaders accountable.

This was posted on SB.com - one member noted a good idea might be to remove the responsibility for investigating matters like this from the police (what could go wrong when an organization polices itself, right?) to an independent body.

[Losonti Tokash]

Omaha, NE tried something like that; a public safety auditor. The position lasted as long as it took for the office to release a study showing that the Omaha police were wildly discriminatory toward non-whites, at which point the auditor was fired and the position closed permanently, ostensibly for "not asking permission from the chief of police" before releasing the report.

[White Haven]

Clearly at least the author of the article can spell Conflict of Interest, unlike the geniuses that think internal policing is a good idea. Because that worked so well for Wall Street over the past few years, right? I wish I could say this sort of shit surprised me in general, although some of the specifics do come as a surprise simply in how blatant they are. That speaks to something else though, something worse than just cops getting away with shit like this.

They wouldn't be this blatant about things if they didn't expect to be able to get away with it based on past institutional experience.

KS incoming in three...two...

[montypython]

Clearly at least the author of the article can spell Conflict of Interest, unlike the geniuses that think internal policing is a good idea. Because that worked so well for Wall Street over the past few years, right? I wish I could say this sort of shit surprised me in general, although some of the specifics do come as a surprise simply in how blatant they are. That speaks to something else though, something worse than just cops getting away with shit like this.

They wouldn't be this blatant about things if they didn't expect to be able to get away with it based on past institutional experience.

KS incoming in three...two...

Seems that there needs to be a separate law enforcement branch (like a security inspectorate) to keep an eye on the police then...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

At least in Washington State when there's an officer involved shooting with one of the local departments the Washington State Patrol takes over the investigation, though I'm not sure what happens when a State Trooper is the one involved in the shooting... It really is a very complex issue, and I guess the only serious solution might be to create a federal police bureau with appropriate federal law empowerments to do nothing but investigate crimes committed by other law enforcement agencies. I suspect the constitutionality of such a force would be challenged, however.

[Zaune]

[Disclaimer: I am not a cop, though I seriously considered it as a career before health issues intervened, so all I know about this subject is what I've read in the blogosphere and the media.]

I don't think the Blue Wall of Silence itself is the problem here; in fact, it might be the only thing keeping many police forces as functional as they are. The problem is the conditions that create it.

The US, and indeed most of the English-speaking world, has a very lawsuit-happy culture. It's increasingly rare for someone to be satisfied with a handsome apology from the boss and an assurance that the subject of the complaint will be reprimanded, and the days when all but the most minor complaints can be dealt with internally are long gone. This isn't necessarily a bad thing by any means, you only have to look at the London Met's much-vaunted Flying Squad in the 1970s to see that, but it does mean there's increasing scrutiny and pressure on frontline officers to maintain ever-higher standards of conduct.
And, whilst I'm loathe to use the word "balance" in any context related to criminal justice, a very delicate one has to be struck between protecting the public from dirty cops and protecting the majority (I hope!) of honest cops from spurious or malicious complaints. If there's a force that's actually found said balance I'd love to know where so I can apply for a job with them. Downwards loyalty was an early casualty -police forces have the same problem with institutional politics as any organisation too large for everyone to know everyone else at least by sight- and the only people looking out for the PBI are one another. So they start to cover for each other's mistakes.

And that's where it gets tricky. The examples in the article Vympel posted are extremely black-and-white, but for every one of those there are a hundred greyer ones. If you can justify inventing a cover story for how your partner managed to put a damn great dent in the squad car's front wing, you can justify covering for him if he got carried away bringing down some particularly unpleasant felon, and if you can justify that... Well, the phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind.

[whackadoodle]

Seems that there needs to be a separate law enforcement branch (like a security inspectorate) to keep an eye on the police then...

No. A Separate Judiciary branch.
Most middling-to-larger police forces have an internal investigation force. They often can be thwarted by the Blue Wall. Union Loyalty and all that shit. Internal Affairs are constrained by the same standards of evidence as the rest of their brethren; as well as by the union - of which they are members to.
Such a Judiciary could be immune to the social and bureaucratic pressures that a watcher of the same social strata is subject to.

[Big Phil]

The US, and indeed most of the English-speaking world, has a very lawsuit-happy culture. It's increasingly rare for someone to be satisfied with a handsome apology from the boss and an assurance that the subject of the complaint will be reprimanded, and the days when all but the most minor complaints can be dealt with internally are long gone.

Your entire premise is just wrong. If lawsuits were the reason for the blue wall of silence, one would expect to look back in time and see that 20/30/50/100 years ago the police were much fairer and abused their authority much less. But in reality, the police were far more abusive years ago than they are today. And I suspect that there is less of a blue wall of silence today than there was 50 years ago. 50 years ago, if a cop beat up a suspect, no one raised a peep and the cops certainly didn't say a word. Today, someone will be wondering why this guy is all bruised, the media is all over it, and there's a reasonable chance one or more cops are raising an issue as well.

[aerius]

Seems that there needs to be a separate law enforcement branch (like a security inspectorate) to keep an eye on the police then...

Here in Ontario we have the SIU which one of my police buddies refers to as the "police police" or "po-po" for short. They keep an eye on the cops and try to make things fair. It's not perfect but there have been some high profile cases where cops were charged & convicted of various abuses by the SIU, and also cases where officers were cleared.

[Zaune]

Your entire premise is just wrong. If lawsuits were the reason for the blue wall of silence, one would expect to look back in time and see that 20/30/50/100 years ago the police were much fairer and abused their authority much less. But in reality, the police were far more abusive years ago than they are today. And I suspect that there is less of a blue wall of silence today than there was 50 years ago. 50 years ago, if a cop beat up a suspect, no one raised a peep and the cops certainly didn't say a word. Today, someone will be wondering why this guy is all bruised, the media is all over it, and there's a reasonable chance one or more cops are raising an issue as well.

I wouldn't say they're the whole reason, but they are a much greater incentive to throw a subordinate under the bus. The media can certainly kick up a fuss and badmouth the department, but they're just as likely to do that whatever the police do, and in any case bad publicity doesn't cost actual money. Paying compensation to someone who got their teeth confiscated as evidence does, and that's never good for one's promotion prospects.

Of course, the best solution to this is to rein in your subordinates before they go that far off the rails in the first place, but wasn't it Douglas Adams who first pointed out that anyone who actually wants a position of greater power is almost inevitably going to be the last person who should be entrusted with it?

[bobalot]

Did any of these American states ever commission something like the Wood Royal Commission to clean up their police forces?

In New South Wales, until that commission there was the blue wall of silence and the small bullshit excuses you here from cops: "It's a minority!" , "It's been portrayed wrongly by the press!", etc. Even the Police Commissioner was feeding the public bullshit until the findings came out and he had to resign.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Did any of these American states ever commission something like the Wood Royal Commission to clean up their police forces?

It wasn't a state but you may want to look back at Losonti's post.

[weemadando]

Did any of these American states ever commission something like the Wood Royal Commission to clean up their police forces?

It wasn't a state but you may want to look back at Losonti's post.

That's a political failure / lack of political will.

I think that every Australian state has had a similar commission at some point and the vast majority have resulted in wholesale bloodletting and reforms to police policies, structures and oversight.

Hell, since some of the debacles of the nineties putting the boots into the police over matters of corruption or misconduct have become electoral gold in Australia.

[Teebs]

In the UK we have the IPCC which is meant to provide independent oversight of the police. I'm not sure I've ever heard of them upholding a complaint though.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Clearly at least the author of the article can spell Conflict of Interest, unlike the geniuses that think internal policing is a good idea. Because that worked so well for Wall Street over the past few years, right? I wish I could say this sort of shit surprised me in general, although some of the specifics do come as a surprise simply in how blatant they are. That speaks to something else though, something worse than just cops getting away with shit like this.

They wouldn't be this blatant about things if they didn't expect to be able to get away with it based on past institutional experience.

KS incoming in three...two...

Almost! Now if you would have started counting down from roughly 41100 seconds you would have been closer...

Anyway, I actually support the idea of having an independent organization act as the review for police officer conduct. Many cities have a citizen review board. I think it was the first Oscar Grant thread where I agreed that conflict on interest is a valid concern for the public. I only ask that those that serve on the board be educated in the risks associated with being a cop.

[Highlord Laan]

Omaha, NE tried something like that; a public safety auditor. The position lasted as long as it took for the office to release a study showing that the Omaha police were wildly discriminatory toward non-whites, at which point the auditor was fired and the position closed permanently, ostensibly for "not asking permission from the chief of police" before releasing the report.

I remember that. The media covering it was so bought and paid for it was sickening. Whether it was in the newspaper or on the news, you could practically hear the mournful bugle in the background as the Omaha PD railed against the dirty commie liberal pinko traitor nazis that dared say the eternally just and righteous men of the BLUE SHIELD OF THE PEOPLE could ever do wrong.

[Losonti Tokash]

And then once it comes time to slash pensions for police and firefighters, those same heroes are now money-grubbing scam artists in the eyes of the public.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

No. A Separate Judiciary branch.
Most middling-to-larger police forces have an internal investigation force. They often can be thwarted by the Blue Wall. Union Loyalty and all that shit. Internal Affairs are constrained by the same standards of evidence as the rest of their brethren; as well as by the union - of which they are members to.
Such a Judiciary could be immune to the social and bureaucratic pressures that a watcher of the same social strata is subject to.

Such a separate branch was pretty much exactly what I suggested on SB, using the IPCC as an example.

In the UK we have the IPCC which is meant to provide independent oversight of the police. I'm not sure I've ever heard of them upholding a complaint though.

Thet do uphold complaints fairly regularly, as I understand it, but it's also usually small stuff that is never publicised outside of local newspapers, if at all. It's very rare that they uphold 'big' stuff, like that guy who was knocked over by an officer while walking home and later died or de Menezes getting shot in the head (although, I should note, I agree with that last bit, because the guys doing the shooting had the bloke on the radio - who is supposed to have access to all the information - essentially screaming 'he's going to blow up the train! Stop him stop him stop him' in their ears. The guy doing the screaming and the people who tried to cover up the mistake, on the other hand...).

Despite that, though, the IPCC and their predecessor, the PCA, have been successful at changing police behaviour to at least some degree. In combination with other reforms, it's hard to argue that they haven't been successful at changing British police from being massively corrupt thugs to something that actually deserves to be called a law enforcement agency. Except for the Met and Kent Police, who are still thugs.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Most middling-to-larger police forces have an internal investigation force. They often can be thwarted by the Blue Wall. Union Loyalty and all that shit. Internal Affairs are constrained by the same standards of evidence as the rest of their brethren; as well as by the union - of which they are members to.
Such a Judiciary could be immune to the social and bureaucratic pressures that a watcher of the same social strata is subject to.

What standard of evidence would you use? I ask because it seems like you're suggesting that the standard of evidence or how you find an officer guilty should be less of a burden when investigating police?

[Teebs]

In the UK we have the IPCC which is meant to provide independent oversight of the police. I'm not sure I've ever heard of them upholding a complaint though.

Thet do uphold complaints fairly regularly, as I understand it, but it's also usually small stuff that is never publicised outside of local newspapers, if at all. It's very rare that they uphold 'big' stuff, like that guy who was knocked over by an officer while walking home and later died or de Menezes getting shot in the head (although, I should note, I agree with that last bit, because the guys doing the shooting had the bloke on the radio - who is supposed to have access to all the information - essentially screaming 'he's going to blow up the train! Stop him stop him stop him' in their ears. The guy doing the screaming and the people who tried to cover up the mistake, on the other hand...).

Despite that, though, the IPCC and their predecessor, the PCA, have been successful at changing police behaviour to at least some degree. In combination with other reforms, it's hard to argue that they haven't been successful at changing British police from being massively corrupt thugs to something that actually deserves to be called a law enforcement agency. Except for the Met and Kent Police, who are still thugs.

Fair enough, it makes sense that I wouldn't have heard about smaller cases and I suppose those are what really matter for changing attitudes.. If I remember correctly though the officers involved in the De Menezes shooting were quite in on the cover-up too.