Mid 1990’s – New Orleans
 Dozens of police officers charged with rape,
robbery, drug dealing, theft, murder
 NOPD officer committed on-duty armed
robbery of Vietnamese restaurant, shot and
killed security guard (her partner) and two others
 Late 1980’s – Los Angeles (more later)
 LASD narcotics squad stole millions of dollars from drug dealers
 Money used to buy boats, cars and vacation homes
 Squad supervisor instigated corruption. He later testified against his crew.
 Late 1980’s - Miami
 Miami drug detectives sold large quantities of cocaine they stole during
raids
 Officers spent more time planning robberies than fighting crime




Late 1960’s – New York City
 NYPD drug detectives routinely robbed and
extorted narcotics dealers.
 1972 Knapp Commission hearings -- Frank Serpico
Mid 1980’s – New York City (more later)
 Thirteen officers of NYPD’s 77th. precinct (“Buddy Boys”) arrested for
robbing dealers and selling confiscated drugs. Led to 1994 Mollen
Commission hearings.
Mid 1990’s – New York City
 More than two dozen officers from the 30th. Precinct (“The Dirty
Thirty”) Arrested for robbing drug dealers and selling drugs
 One cop pocketed $100,000 in cash that he found in a home
 Another auctioned off a kilo of stolen cocaine from his patrol car







Large scale corruption infected NYPD at all levels of
the department, including patrol
Patrol did not make as much dirty money as
detectives, but cumulatively had a large impact
Corruption required support systems at every level of the department
Officer “stubbornness, hostility and pride” let corruption spread
“Grass-eaters” passively accepted bribes and gratuities
 They were the heart of the problem because their large numbers
made corruption respectable
“Meat-eaters” were far more aggressive
 They sought payoffs and took property at crime scenes
Atmosphere of deviance made it easy for justifications to slip in and
neutralize officers’ conscience
 In September 1999 LAPD officer Rafael Perez
was charged with stealing three kilograms of
cocaine from an evidence locker. In a plea deal
he accused fellow officers of Rampart “CRASH” (anti-gang unit) of framing
and beating suspects, planting evidence and covering up brutality,
including unnecessary shootings.
 Investigation led to the dismissal of more than 150 felony convictions. $70
million was paid to persons, mostly gang members, who were unjustly
arrested, beaten or shot. Nine officers were convicted of crimes and 23
were fired or suspended.
 Five officers had their convictions overturned because of concerns about
witness credibility and prosecutorial misconduct. Three LAPD officers
whom Perez allegedly falsely accused won large awards in lawsuits against
the City.
 Blog post: “You Can’t Manage Your Way out of Rampart”
LAPD Board of Inquiry Report,
March 1, 2000, pp. 9 & 14
Addresses, in part, the process that led to hiring officers who
were implicated in corruption and misconduct:
 “While it is impossible to substantiate completely, it appears
that the application of our hiring standards was compromised
when these officers were hired during periods of accelerated
hiring in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”
 “…one need only look at the pre-employment histories of these four
people to see that something was seriously wrong when they were approved for
hire.”
 “Clearly, there has been erosion, the blame for which cannot be placed on one
individual or group, but rather on a multifaceted system with competing interests.
We must recognize that it has occurred and commit ourselves to never sacrificing
quality for the expediency of numbers.”
 “…four [of the officers] had questionable issues in their pre-employment
background which strongly indicate they never should have been hired as Los
Angeles Police Officers. Those four officers were hired in 1988, 1989, 1990, and
1994, and three of them have since been fired for felonious conduct.

“The officer hired in 1988 had been arrested as an adult for grand theft. The
incident occurred when he struck a public bus driver during a dispute over a
transfer. When the driver's watch fell to the ground, the officer picked it up and
began walking away, which resulted in his arrest. The Department did not
recommended his disqualification or deselect him under three whole scores.”

“The officer hired in 1989 admitted losing his temper during arguments with his
wife and pushing her on six different occasions. He was psychologically
eliminated due to ‘temperament/impulse control.’ However, he was eventually
cleared for hiring by the Personnel Department psychologist.”

“The officer hired in 1990 had been arrested three times before he became an
officer at the age of 24. As a juvenile, he was arrested for stealing hubcaps. As an
adult, he was arrested and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). One
year before his hire, he was cited for having an open container of an alcoholic
beverage in his car and was arrested for driving on a suspended license
(suspended from the earlier DUI) for which he was sentenced to ten days in jail.
In the military, he was disciplined for disobeying a lawful order. His background
investigation disclosed that he "loses his cool very easily“ over minor incidents,
and acted like a ‘big macho man.’ The psychological examiner advised the
Personnel Department that there was not enough negative information to
warrant his disqualification.”
 “The officer hired in 1994 sold marijuana to two other students on one
occasion while he was in high school. At age 15, the police detained him
for investigation of tampering with vehicles on a car sales lot. He was
taken to the station and released to his parents. Those law enforcement
contacts were self-admitted and nothing on his criminal history printout
indicates that he was ever formally arrested. However, there is a
notation in the package that ‘All records have been sealed’ indicating
that he may have had a juvenile record that could not be accessed for
the background investigation. In any event, the Police Department
recommended his disqualification, but it was overturned by the
Personnel Department.”
 “It is important to note that the July 9, 1991, Report of the Independent
(Christopher) Commission...all but predicted that a weak application of
hiring standards was allowing risky candidates to become Los Angeles
Police Officers.”
 Rafael Ovando, the man on whom LAPD officers Rafael Perez
and Nino Durden planted an assault rifle after mistakenly
shooting him, won his legal malpractice lawsuit against the
Public Defender’s office. Jurors agreed that Ovando’s defense
attorney failed to properly investigate her client’s claim of
innocence, leading to his conviction for assaulting the officers
and a 2½ year period if imprisonment. Ovando and a score of
other convicted gang members were released after Perez
admitted that he and other Rampart officers beat and shot
suspects, lied on police reports and planted evidence.
 Aside from dropping over 100 criminal cases, the City paid out
more than $70 million. A dozen officers left the department. Perez served
Federal time for violating Ovando’s civil rights and State time for stealing
cocaine. He was released in 2001. Durden, who pled guilty in 2002, was
released in April 2005.
From the Los Angeles Times, 5/26/05









Rafael Perez: Pled guilty to State drug charges for cocaine theft and to Federal
civil rights violations for covering up a shooting. Served five years.
Nino Durden : Same as Perez
Edward Ortiz: Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned). Sued for malicious
prosecution, shared a $15-million jury award.
Brian Liddy: Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned.) Shared in $15-million
award. Later fired for misconduct related to a narcotics arrest.
Paul Harper: Acquitted of obstructing justice, shared the $15-million award.
Michael Buchanan: Convicted of obstructing justice (overturned).
Manuel Chavez: Pled no contest to assault under color of authority for the 1996
beating of a gang member. Sentenced to 60-days in jail and three years
probation.
Shawn Gomez: Pled no contest to filing a false report in the 1996 beating of a
gang member. Sentenced to three years probation and 400 hours of community
service.
Ethan Cohan: Pled guilty to obstructing justice and filing a false report in the
1996 beating of gang member. Sentenced to one year in jail.





On February 28, 2005 19 persons, including
five former cops, were charged with
committing twenty robberies during 1999-2001.
Led by LAPD officer Ruben Palomares, they
wore LAPD uniforms & used LAPD cars to stage phony raids, stealing drugs,
guns and money from drug dealers and others.
Those charged include former LAPD officers William Ferguson and Jesse
Moya, former LBPD officer Joseph Ferguson, and former LASD deputy
Rodrigo Duran.
William Ferguson was appointed an LAPD officer even though his
background check turned up five prior arrests for theft and burglary.
Many of those charged pled guilty. Palomares, serving 15 years for trying
to buy ten kilos of cocaine from DEA agents in 2001, cooperated. He was
originally fingered as corrupt by Rampart figure Rafael Perez, who
encouraged investigators to check out all of Palomares’ arrests.


Applicant characteristics
 Working class and lower-middle class
 Conservative political views
 Looking for steady work with good benefits
 Idealistic, want to help others
 Prefer outside work – not be “cooped up”
 Taste for risk and excitement
 Lifetime interest (friends and relatives in law enforcement)
 Assertiveness and physicality
“Big Five” personality characteristics related to policing
 Extroversion
 Neuroticism
 Agreeableness
 Conscientiousness
 Openness
Barker and Carter
 Physical abuse
▪ Excessive force, physical
harrassment
 Psychological abuse
▪ Pretextual stops, intimidation, harassment, ridicule, disrespect
 Legal abuse
▪ Unlawful search & seizure, manufacture evidence
 Fyfe and Kane
 Police crime
▪ Officers violate criminal law (commit burglaries, steal drugs and money,
etc.)
 Police corruption
▪ Using one’s position for profit (bribes and gratuities)
 Abuse of power
▪ Excessive force, lying in court or in reports, etc.






Gifts: Items of value received because of one’s
personal relationship to the giver, with no strings
attached
Gratuities: Items of value received because of one’s
role or position
 Implicit expectation of reciprocity
Some officers and scholars argue that small “freebies”
(e.g., a free cup of coffee) fosters relationships with the public and creates
bonds of “social reciprocity”
Major arguments against gratuities include:
 “Slippery slope” - can lead to more serious deviance
 Unjust enrichment - the only legitimate remuneration is a paycheck
Other concerns
 Givers might expect preferential treatment
 Receivers might find it awkward to take enforcement action against givers
 Creates a public perception that police are corrupt







Impoverished high-crime drug sales area
Officer misconduct
 Illegal drugs and alcohol abuse
 New officers “tested” to see if they “measured up”
“Tough on crime” - extralegal means to punish offenders
 Falsification of arrest reports, perjury
Burning money - “psychological” abuse of suspects
Traditional corruption – payoffs, thefts of evidence, robberies of drug
dealers, resale of drugs, housebreaks disguised as “searches”
Dumping ground for problem officers
“Grass eating” to “meat eating”
 Began with burning and flushing confiscated dope
 Progressed to selling dope to other dealers





During the late 1980’s members of an elite
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s narcotics squad
stole millions of dollars from drug dealers and
used the money to buy boats, cars and vacation homes.
Rumors of their new-found wealth found their way back to agency
executives, who enlisted the help of the FBI.
In due course, an elaborate undercover sting caught the officers stealing
cash from what they thought was a drug dealer’s hotel room.
In 1992 testimony by the squad’s supervisor, Sgt. Robert Sobel, who
instigated the corruption, led to the conviction of his entire crew. He said
that the squad stole $60 million in 1988 and 1989 alone.
The corruption reportedly began with deputies using money found during
search warrants to buy investigative equipment and meals.
Individual personality characteristics
 “Rotten apples” self-select into policing
 Environment of policing
 Chronic exposure to the unpleasant aspects of human nature
 Badge + gun ≠ compliance; anyone can be dangerous; justice not always possible
 Reality clashes with altruistic, “helping” orientation
 Police subculture
 Recruits learn caution; stories of officers hurt and killed
 Cynicism, solidarity, code of silence, “never back down”
 Shortcuts to decision-making: profiling, “symbolic assailants”

Agency and organizational factors
 Hiring practices, resources, management styles
 Poor oversight and supervision
 Bureaucratic barriers, evaluation practices, pressures to produce
 “Continuum of compromise” (Gilmartin and Harris)
 Organizations fail to train officers to understand and respond to ethical dilemmas
 Officers see themselves as victims - no one cares about their safety
 Cops develop distance from citizens and their own agency
 Alienated officers are more susceptible to corruption
 “Corruption continuum” (Trautman)
 Administrative indifference to integrity
 No ethics training
 Poor selection practices
 Internal politics determine advancement
 Ignoring ethical problems and engaging in cover-ups
 Hypocrisy
 Fear-dominated culture; survival of the fittest (or least ethical)

Sociopolitical variables
 Community characteristics and preferences
 Preferences and priorities of city leaders
 Ferguson, Missouri
 On March 4, 2015 the Justice Department announced
it would not charge former Ferguson, Mo. officer
Darren Wilson with civil rights violations. Report
 However, a separate report accused Ferguson police
of a “pattern and practice” of discriminating against blacks.
 Police engaged in abusive ticketing and arrests,
targeting blacks with traffic violations, crimes and code violations, often
made-up, not for public safety but to generate revenue for the cashstrapped city.
 Officers were under pressure to make quotas and faced discipline if they
failed.
 Tickets written against whites were frequently dismissed.
 Police and city employees exchanged e-mails that disparaged blacks.




Using police and code enforcement officers to
generate revenue on the backs of poor and working
class persons is a widespread practice. NY Times
 In 2010 California’s Attorney General accused the L.A.-area working-class
communities of Maywood and Bell of targeting blacks and Hispanics with traffic
citations and code violations to keep the cities afloat. Click here and here for more.
Ferguson, Missouri has 21,000 residents and a budget of about $13 million
 In fiscal year 2013 Ferguson’s municipal courts collected “more than $2.5 million” in
traffic and other fines, about 20% of the city’s budget (click here)
Los Angeles has 3.8 million residents and a budget of about $3.5 billion (click here)
 This fiscal year it projects collecting about $165 million in parking fines and about $7
million in traffic fines (click here). That’s about five percent of the city budget.
 Its largest source of income is “licenses, permits, fees and fines” (not including
traffic), about $830 million, 24% of the city’s budget. Library “fees and fines” total
$2.8 million.
 Its budgetary “shortfall” in the 2013-2014 fiscal year was $216 million (click here). The
new mayor, Eric Garcetti, proposed hiring 50 part-time traffic officers, “in part” to
bring in more money (click here).


Identify the personal characteristics that are
desirable for police applicants.
 List them in order of importance
Justify your responses with reference to:
 The environment of policing. What do cops
routinely face on the street? In the station?
 Society’s expectations. How would we
prefer that cops behave?