OFF THE WIRE Gary Sinise is among the celebrities who use their fame and wealth to help those in need.
The famous actor and musician is widely recognized for his roles in
Forrest Gump, The Green Mile and Apollo 13, but his philanthropic work
is something he is greatly appreciated as well.
He played Lieutenant Dan in the movie Forrest Gump and now works hard to honor and help US military veterans.
He has established the Gary Sinise Foundation, an organization that
serves the needs of veterans, defenders, first responders, their
families, and communities.
As well as raising money, the foundation also aims to entertain,
educate, inspire, strengthen and build the communities impacted by the
impacts of war. Sinise said:
“While we can never do enough to show gratitude to our nation’s defenders, we can always do a little more.”
One of the foundation’s programs, launched in 2017, is called the
“Snowball Express” and its honor fallen US soldiers by taking their
children on free trips to one of the most magical places on earth–Disney
world!
At the event in honor of their fallen relatives, the kids and their surviving parents received “we remember” pins.
600 flags were lined up to represent all their loved ones lost in combat. Sinise explained:
“The most important thing about [Snowball Express] is
that these children don’t feel alone. There’s a lot of healing and a lot
of bonding and a lot of friendship that goes on that helps them through
the rest of the year.”
In 2003, he gathered his ‘jam band’ from Chicago and formed the Lt.
Dan Band. The band’s motto is “Honor, Gratitude and Rock & Roll”,
and Sinise aims to lift the spirits and boost the morale of the nation’s
veterans, first responders and the families who sacrifice alongside
them. He explained:
“That’s our primary goal, for our Gold Star families to
feel remembered and for them to see that they are not alone. It’s
something I feel is incredibly important for our nation, letting the
children know that we do not forget their sacrifices and we honor them.
And it’s such a great feeling to see them healing, smiling, and having
fun.”
Undoubtedly, although we cannot bring our lost heroes back, we should
all try to fulfill the space of their families as much as possible, so
Gray’s should definitely be appreciated.
2nd
Annual Temecula Toy Run , This year they’re donating to Strong Hearted
Native Women’s Coalition, Inc. If anyone would like to Donate , Please
DM me or if you have a business and would like to participate as a
vendor, Please DM me also! Thank you and hope to see you there!
Four Orange County sheriff’s deputies have been fired after a two-year audit by the Sheriff’s Department found systemic abuses in the handling of evidence,the Southern CaliforniaNews Group has learned.
Fifteen deputies were criminally investigated in connection with the probe, but the District Attorney’s Office declined to file charges. Seven deputies were disciplined and four cases are pending. Sheriff’s officials offered nofurther information on the cases, citing a state police confidentiality law.
The explosive audit found that nearly one-third of the evidence collected from February 2016 to February 2018 was booked beyond the agency’s one-day policy. Some bookings were tardy by more than a month, creating questions about chain of custody. One official from the Public De-fender’s Office said thousands of criminal cases could be affected.
The audit, obtained by the Southern California News Group, found that 30 percent of the evidence was booked late.
Sheriff’s spokesperson Carrie Braun said the department has improved the booking of evidence, which in most cases was kept by the deputies.
“The department (has taken) immediate measures to ensure personnel were educated on the policy and procedure for booking evidence. The department also developed procedures requiring supervisors to check that all property and evidence has been booked prior to approving any related reports,” Braun said.
District Attorney Todd Spitzer said he was not told of the wide-scale audit until Monday, although his office had been reviewing the individual cases.
Spitzer said defense attorneys were notified in the cases that came to his office. He also has asked the Sheriff’s Department for more information so he can determine if further discovery must be sent to other defense attorneys.
Assistant Public Defender Scott Sanders, who for years has alleged that the Sheriff’s Department was withholding evidence from defense attorneys, criticized the agency for not releasing the results of the audit until contacted by the news group.
“Defendants had theright to know that this audit concluded that nearly all of the deputies in the field and jails during those two years kept … evidence in their cars, homes, desks or wherever else they wanted to store rather than booking it,” Sanders said. “God only knows how much evidence has been lost, mixed into other cases, kept, given to informants or concealed because it helped the defendant.”
Braun said the audit was initiated in January 2018 after the department learned that some evidence was not booked according to policy, which is at the end of the deputy’s shift. Investigators reviewed more than 27,000 evidence bookings and more than 1,500 deputies.
The audit showed a “lack of consistent and accurate entries,” “no system of accountability” and “insufficient booking software.” The audit also found that nearly 85 percent of the evidence was booked within five days, with 2 percent — or 418 pieces — booked after 20-30 days, and 1.5 percent — or 296 items — booked after 31 days.
The study also showed that 27 percent of the deputies had held on to evidence for 31 days or longer.
Among the worst offenders were deputies assigned to the north part of the county, averaging 4.3 days to book evidence.
The property held by deputies the longest were photos and videos, with 3.3 percent held longer than a month; and currency, with 2.6 percent held longer than a month. Less than 1 percent of the drug evidence — 37 pieces — was booked after a month.
EVIDENCE » PAGE 6
Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes. His department’s recent audit of evidence handling found widespread delays in booking and other violations of rules by deputies.
History is being made in Trinidad, Colorado, as the world’s first marijuana mall is scheduled to open this upcoming April.
Developers Chris Elkins and Sean Sheridan deemed Trinidad as the perfect location to build their dream project given Trinidad’s views on law and tourism.
In an interview with local news station KRDO, Elkins said, “This town has a zero-foot setback, which allows us to put five dispensaries here right next to one another. As far as we know, we are the only town in Colorado that can do this.”
Elkins and Sheridan have received city permits and have already
purchased a building in downtown Trinidad on Commercial Street. Their
next step is waiting for City Council to give their approval.
According to Elkins, four of the five spaces have already been
leased to marijuana-based businesses, and if the City Council gives
their approval, they are hoping to open their doors to the public in
April.
Along with their passion for marijuana, Elkins and Sheridan are also
incorporating their entrepreneurial skills into this project, and they
are excited about the benefits the mini-mall will bring to the town.
Elkins expects the mini-mall to boost the local economy, and it seems as though many local residents agree.
Mechelle Duran, a Trinidad local who lives nearby the mini-mall
location, said, “I’m excited to see it open. We have a lot of pot stores
already and there is a lot of benefits.”
There are other locals who have expressed their concern with the mini-mall attracting homeless people and transients.
Tamara Johnson, a Trinidad local, said, “To be honest, I don’t have
any problems with marijuana or marijuana users but I do know we have had
a lot more problems with theft. I know Walmart is having problems. And
transients, that’s becoming a huge problem.”
Regardless of the differing opinions of Trinidad locals, Elkins and
Sheridan remain optimistic and anxiously await the grand opening of the
world’s first marijuana mini-mall. ADMIN: For more Articles, click here. For Strains, click here. For Businesses, click here. For Advertising, click here.
OFF THE WIRE
Legalizing marijuana nationwide would create more than one million new jobs within the next decade, a new study says.
Analysis from New Frontier Data,
a firm that focuses on the marijuana industry, also found that the
federal government would create at least $131.8 billion in federal tax
revenue over the next eight years if cannabis were legalized in all 50
states.
With federal legalization, there would be 782,000 jobs created
immediately, and the firm forecasts that the number would increase to
1.1 million by 2025, including growers and retailers.
In 2015, a
year after Colorado legalized recreational cannabis sales, the legal
marijuana industry created 18,000 full-time jobs and $2.4 billion in
economic growth in the state, according to the Marijuana Policy Group. New Frontier suggested this trend could be sustainable on a national level.
A customer purchases cannabis products at the Green
Pearl Organics dispensary on the first day of legal recreational
marijuana sales in California on January 1.ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
"If cannabis businesses were legalized tomorrow and taxed as
normal businesses with a standard 35 percent tax rate, cannabis
businesses would infuse the U.S. economy with an additional $12.6
billion this year," New Frontier CEO Giadha Aguirre De Carcer told the Washington Post.
The
economic growth would be pushed by increased demand on various
industries, according to the Marijuana Policy Group. Farmers need
warehouse space, and they purchase specialized equipment like lighting
and irrigation for marijuana growth. Retailers rely on contractors and
book-keeping services to run businesses. In states like Washington and
Colorado, legal recreational marijuana has also led to a boost in some tourism sectors.
California
became the eighth state to sell legal recreational marijuana on January
1, and 29 states now allow medical marijuana. Federal legalization,
while popular across nearly every demographic group in the U.S., is facing renewed challenges from U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose strong opposition
to statewide marijuana laws has slowed the bipartisan push. Sessions
last week rescinded an Obama-era rule that told federal prosecutors to
leave marijuana alone in states that legalized it, leaving open
questions about the future of the burgeoning industry.
OFF THE WIRE
By Jason Silverstein
Rep. Clay Higgins, R-Louisiana, introduced a resolution Thursday
to make senators and representatives subject to random drug tests once
every term. Higgins joked that he'd seen things in Washington that made
him think drug screenings are a must.
"I have observed some behavior that would cause one to wonder," he told the USA Today Network Thursday.
He also said he thinks the tests would be only fair, since many working Americans in other sectors have to take them.
"Elected officials in Washington, D.C. should be subject to the same
kind of random drug screenings that blue-collar, working-class Americans
have to endure," Higgins said in a statement.
"Congress shouldn't
get to live by a different set of rules," he added. "This effort is
about maintaining accountability and ensuring sober service to We, the
People."
Under Higgins' proposal, Congress members would have to
reimburse taxpayers for all costs related to their drug screenings. Any
lawmaker who tests positive for illegal drugs would be reported to the
House or Senate Committee on Ethics for further review. The ethics
committees would also publicize the names of any Congress members who
refuse the tests.
The bill has no cosponsors, and Louisiana Democratic Party Executive Director Stephen Handwerk dismissed it as "gimmicks and bravado" from a first-term congressman. But Higgins said the bill "isn't a stunt."
Higgins, who also serves as a reserve deputy for the Lafayette city marshal, first proposed the idea in a Facebook video
he posted in June. He filmed himself in his car after saying he had
just finished a random drug screening for the marshal's office.
"Based
upon some of the behavior I've seen, I'd be very interested to know
what kind of illegal drugs are flowing through the veins of our elected
officials in Washington, D.C.," he said.
Higgins has not
specified whether he has seen any colleagues abusing drugs. His office
did not immediately return messages from CBS News.
A 1997 Supreme Court decision
struck down requiring drug tests for state office candidates, though
there has not been a similar ruling for federal lawmakers.
Before
being elected in 2016, Higgins rose to fame online for a series of
tough-talking crime-stopping videos, which earned him the nickname "Cajun John Wayne." Higgins directly called out local crime suspects, sometimes by name, leading to several arrests and surrenders.
In
Congress, he has called for harsh punishments such as the immediate
executions of Islamic terrorists. "Every conceivable measure should be
engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill
them all," he wrote in a Facebook post in June last year. In July 2017, he apologized for and retracted a video
he recorded at an Auschwitz gas chamber, in which he suggested Nazi
concentration camps are a reminder that the U.S. needs an elite
military.
Higgins is running for a second term in November and has been endorsed by President Trump.
A couple of months ago, Czech President Milos Zeman made an unusual
request: He urged citizens to arm themselves against a possible
"super-Holocaust" carried out by Muslim terrorists.
Never mind that there are fewer than 4,000 Muslims in this
country of 10 million people — gun purchases spiked. One shop owner in
East Bohemia, a region in the northern center of the Czech Republic,
told a local paper that people were scared of a "wave of Islamists."
Now the country's interior ministry is pushing a constitutional
change that would let citizens use guns against terrorists. Proponents
say this could save lives if an attack occurs and police are delayed or
unable to make their way to the scene. To become law, Parliament must
approve the proposal; they'll vote in the coming months.
The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun
policies in Europe. It's home to about 800,000 registered firearms and
300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy:
Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal
record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property
or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.
This puts the country at odds with much of Europe, which has long
supported much more stringent gun-control measures. In the wake of the
2015 terror attacks in Paris, France pushed the European Union to enact
even tougher policies. The European Commission's initial proposal
called for a complete ban on the sale of weapons like Kalashnikovs or AR-15s that are intended
primarily for military use. Ammunition magazines would be limited to 20
rounds or less.
The Czech Republic came out hard against the directive. Officials warned
— somewhat ominously — that the measure would limit the country's
ability to build "an internal security system" and make it nearly
impossible to train army reservists. And a total ban on military-style
rifles that can fire large numbers of rounds would make illegal
thousands of weapons already owned by Czech citizens, potentially
creating a black market for terrorists to exploit. Finland and Germany
offered their own reservations; Europe's pro-gun groups also mobilised
against the bill with the support of politicians on the extreme right.After months of contentious negotiations, the EU passed a compromise
last month; the Council of Ministers will confirm the measure this
spring. All member states will have 15 months to comply with the new gun
restrictions. The final measure bans the sale of most military-style
rifles and requires all potential buyers to go through a psychological
check before they can buy a weapon. If someone fails a check in one E.U.
state, that information will be shared in an international database so
that the person can't procure a gun somewhere else. Online sales are
also severely curtailed. The Czech Republic was the only country to
oppose the directive for being too strict. Luxembourg also voted against
the measure, but on the grounds that it was too weak.
That means that regardless of how the Czech parliament votes on
the terrorist-hunting measure, gun laws in the Czech Republic are going
to get stricter. All gun purchasers will be required to pass the
psychological checks, though it's not yet clear if gun owners will have
to turn in newly illegal weapons. That ambiguity has led one Czech
newspaper to suggest that the Interior Ministry's latest move is much
more about political safety than safety from terrorism. Copyright: The Washington Post
OFF THE WIRE Police work by its very nature involves the slippery slope (the potential for
gradual deterioration of social-moral inhibitions and perceived sense of
permissibility for deviant conduct). In fact, the whole unspoken "dark" side of
criminal justice work involves putting up with conditions that are at less than
usual comfort levels; i.e., "slumming it".
Police are routinely
involved in undercover work which involves taking on false identities and
inducing crime. Police are allowed to make false promises to hostage takers and
kidnappers. Police feed disinformation to the media. Police are trained to be
deceptive at interviewing and interrogation. Police make all kinds of excuses to
get out of nuisance calls. Police trade or sell their days off and desirable
work assignments. Police angle themselves into cases requiring court appearances
and manipulate the overtime system to earn an average of $5000 more a year.
Police strain the truth to protect loved ones and crime victims. Police
routinely invade privacy via surveillance and other technological means. Police
fighting the drug problem may encounter more loose cash than the gross national
product of some small countries. And as with sting operations, there's something
that's just plain sick about a system that condones the police making a product,
selling the product, and then arresting people for buying the
product.
Police deviance is a much broader term than
corruption. It includes all activities which are inconsistent with norms,
values, or ethics (from a societal standpoint or even from the police
standpoint). A theorem in criminology is that it's always fruitful to study when
people not only break society's norms, but the norms of their own social group
too. The following definitions may be
helpful:
Deviance -- behavior inconsistent with norms,
values, or ethics
Corruption -- forbidden acts involving misuse of
office for gain
Misconduct -- wrongdoing violations of
departmental procedures
Favoritism -- unfair "breaks" to friends or
relatives (nepotism)
Although this lecture is about deviance, it
might be useful to take a brief look at a couple of these other terms.
Corruption is criminal conduct that can involve under using one's authority,
overusing one's authority, or profiteering via one's authority. The key element
is misuse of official authority; the gain can be personal or for the common
good. Corruption is bad because it undermines integrity, the state of policing
being whole or undivided. Corruption has been the target of numerous efforts at
creating topologies. Here are three of the most popular topologies of
corruption:
Police misconduct is impropriety of office,
not misuse of authority. It's wrongdoing, the appearance of wrongdoing, or
puzzling behavior that violates standards usually set down in departmental
policies and procedures, for good reasons, that the employee may or may not be
cognizant of. Misconduct is bad because it leaves the public free to speculate
and draw sweeping generalizations about the profession of policing as a whole.
The different types of misconduct are often classified as
follows:
Malfeasance -- intentional commission of a
prohibited act or intentional unjust performance of some act of which the party
had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury, use of police resources for personal use)
Misfeasance -- performance of a duty or act
that one is obligated or permitted to do in a manner which is improper, sloppy,
or negligent (e.g., report writing, unsafe operation of motor vehicle,
aggressively "reprimanding" a citizen, improper searching of suspect)
Nonfeasance -- failure to perform an act which
one is obligated to do either by law or directive due to omission or failure to
recognize the obligation (e.g., failure to file report, improper stop &
frisk, security
breach)
THE MYTH OF THE ROTTEN
APPLE
According to the Knapp Commission, which blew the
whistle on the standard police explanation for corruption (he/she's a rotten
apple in an otherwise clean barrel), "rotten apples" are either weak individuals
who have slipped through the screening process or succumbed to the temptations
inherent in police work or deviant individuals who continue their deviance in an
environment that gives them ample opportunity. Police departments tend to use
the rotten apple theory or some variation of the "rogue cop" story to minimize
the public backlash against policing after every exposed act of corruption.
A functional explanation may be closer to the
truth, and is indeed supported by almost every scholarly observer on the
subject. A functional explanation is that corruption is inherent in society's
attempt to enforce unenforceable laws. Another approach is the "occupational
socialization" explanation, the polar opposite of rotten apple theory that is
sometimes called "rotten barrel" theory. According to this view, the very
structure of policing (exposure to unsavory characters, forgetting what you
learned in the academy, clannishness, and overzealous, misguided approaches to
crime control) provides plenty of opportunities to learn the entrenched patterns
of deviant police conduct that have been passed down thru
generations.
TYPES
OF POLICE
DEVIANCE
POLICE
GRATUITY
A gratuity is the receipt of
free meals, services, or discounts. Non federal police usually do not regard
these as forms of corruption ("not another lecture on the free cup of coffee or
police discount"). These are considered fringe benefits of the job.
Nevertheless, they violate the Code of Ethics because they involve financial
reward or gain, and they are corruption because the officer has been placed in a
compromising position where favors (a "fix") can be reasonably expected in the
future. When there is an implied favor (a "wink and nod"), it's called
"mooching". When the officer is quite blatant about demanding free services,
it's called
"chiseling".
Gratuities often lead to things like kickbacks
(bribery) for referring business to towing companies, ambulances, or garages.
Further up the scale comes pilfering, or stealing (any) company's supplies for
personal use. At the extreme, opportunistic theft takes place, with police
officers skimming items of value that won't be missed from crime scenes,
property rooms, warehouses, or any place they have access to. Theft of items
from stores while on patrol is sometimes called
"shopping".
POLICE
SHAKEDOWNS
A shakedown is when the police extort a business owner for protection
money. The typical scenario involves gay bars, which are considered the most
vulnerable. In some cities (like Boston for example), police are still charged
with the power to inspect bars for compliance with liquor regulations. Officers
are then in a position to threaten bar owners with violations if they do not
make payoffs, and promise to intercept ("fix") any other violation reports
processed through department channels. In other cities (like San Francisco, for
example), officers would promise extra protection against gay-bashing in return
for extra payments. In still other cities (like New Orleans, for example),
moonlighting officers would make extra money from "details" in liquor
establishments, and be paid extra for overlooking open sex or drug violations.
In some cities, police officers have complete control over liquor licenses and
even own nearby parking meters. To deal with the gay bar issue, many police
departments have tried hiring openly gay
recruits.
Shakedowns are also common with strip bars,
prostitution rings, drug dealing, illegal gambling, and even construction
projects. In each case, the approach and modus operandi are somewhat variable,
because each officer subjects the business operator and/or patrons to the
shakedown differently.
POLICE
PERJURY
This is usually a means to effect an act of
corruption, leaving out certain pertinent pieces of information in order to
"fix" a criminal prosecution. "Dropsy" evidence is typical, where the officer
testifies untruthfully that he/she saw the offender drop some narcotics or
contraband. Lies that Miranda warnings have been given, when they haven't, are
also typical. Lying in court is called "testifying", and police can do it
coolly; they're trained
witnesses.
Other actors in the system, supervisors and
even judges, are often aware of the perjury. They pretend to believe police
officers who they know are lying. Everybody's happy with the system. The cop
gets credit for a good bust; the supervisor's arrest statistics look good; the
prosecutor racks up another win; the judge gets to give his little lecture
without endangering his reelection prospects, the defense lawyer gets his fee in
dirty money, and the public is thrilled that another criminal is off the street
(Dershowitz 1996).
Most perjury is committed by
decent cops who honestly believe a guilty defendant will go free unless they lie
about something.
POLICE
BRUTALITY
Police brutality has been defined as excessive force, name calling, sarcasm,
ridicule, and disrespect (President's Commission 1967). Other commissions have
simply used a vague definition as "any violation of due process". Kania and
Mackey's (1977) widely-regarded definition is "excessive violence, to an extreme
degree, which does not support a legitimate police function." When a citizen
charges police brutality, they may be referring to a number of things,
including:
profane or abusive language
commands to move or go home
field stops and searches
threats of implied violence
prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a
pistol
the actual use of physical force
Only the last one of these (unreasonable
and unnecessary actual use of physical force) can be considered police
brutality. This is commonly expressed as "more than excessive force". Police
perjury and police brutality go hand in hand, as officers who commit brutality
will most likely lie on the stand to prevent the possibility of a lawsuit or
departmental charges. The reasons why an officer might engage in this kind of
conduct are many:
a small percentage may have been attracted to
police work for the opportunity to enjoy physically abusing and hurting somebody
an officer may come to believe "it's a jungle
out there"
an
officer may be provoked and pushed beyond their endurance
The most common reason is occupational
socialization and peer support. One common belief is that it's necessary to come
down hard on those who resist arrest because they may kill the next police
officer who tries to arrest them (so you have to teach 'em a lesson). Another
practice is the "screen test", police jargon for applying the brakes on a police
vehicle to that the handcuffed prisoner in back will be thrown against the metal
protective screen.
Criminal justice experts are divided over
whether racial differences exist with respect to police use of force (Weisburd
et. al. 2000). On the one hand, the Christopher Commission (1991) stated that
white officers were somewhat more likely to use excessive force against
African-Americans, and watchdog groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, and
Human Rights Watch have stated a pattern exists, but on the other hand,
respected researchers like Adams (1996) and Tonry (1995) as well as the U.S.
government itself have never unveiled a
pattern.
POLICE
PROFANITY
There are many reasons why a police officer would
use obscene and profane language. Effective use of verbal communication is one
of the skills expected in police work. Concepts such as "command voice" and
"command presence" are routinely taught at police training academies. The FCC
specifically condemns certain words on radio and television that are "patently
offensive", but there's no such mechanism for determining what's offensive with
interpersonal communication. The following topology
exists:
words having religious connotations (e.g.,
hell, goddamn)
words indicating excretory functions (e.g.,
shit, piss)
words connected with sexual functions (e.g.,
fuck, prick)
Generally, words with religious connotations
are considered the least offensive and words connected with sexual functions are
considered the most offensive. It's commonly the case, however, that use of such
language by police officers is purposive and not a loss of control or
catharsis.
to gain the attention of citizens who may be
less than cooperative
to discredit somebody or something, like an
alibi defense
to establish a dominant-submissive relationship
to identify with an in-group, the offender or
police subculture
to label
or degrade an out-group
Of these, the last is of the most concern,
since it may reflect the transition of prejudice to discrimination, especially
if racial slurs or epithets are involved. On the other hand, profanity for
innocuous purposes may very well be something that it is unrealistic to expect
will go away in policing or many other
contexts.
POLICE SEX ON DUTY OR
DUTY-RELATED
Contacts with promiscuous females
and minimal supervision are part of the job. Sooner or later, every police
officer will be propositioned. There are a number of women who are attracted to
the uniform or the aura of the occupation. Every police officer will be able to
tell you stories about police "groupies". These are women who make the rounds by
waving at officers, getting them to stop or pull over, and then set up meetings
to have sex with them, or sometimes right then and there. A woman such as this
typically has sex with whole departments and hundreds of police officers. Other
situations involve:
traffic stops -- to get a closer look at the
female or information about her
fox hunting -- stopping college girls to get
the I'll do anything routine
voyeurism -- window peeping or interrupting
lovers lane couples
victim re-contacts -- consoling victims who
have psychological needs
opposite sex strip searches -- touching and/or
sex with jail inmates
sexual shakedowns -- letting prostitutes go if
they perform sex acts
On occasion, one hears about "rogue" officers
who coerce women into having sex on duty, "second rapes" of crime victims, and
school liaison officers involved with juvenile females, but such instances are
rare because of the penalties involved. When police sex cases come to the public
attention, the department reaction is usually to reemphasize the code of ethics.
Such was the case in the 1985 Rathskellar incident in San Francisco, where at a
police academy graduation party, one bashful recruit was handcuffed to a chair,
and a prostitute was brought in to perform oral sex on him.
POLICE SLEEPING ON
DUTY
On the night shift, the police car is sometimes
referred to as the "traveling bedroom". In police argot, a "hole" or "coop" is
where sleeping takes place, typically the back room of someplace the officer has
a key to and can engage in safe "cooping". Police officers who attend college
during the day or moonlight at other jobs in order to make a decent living are
often involved in this kind of conduct. Numerous court appearances during the
day can also be a factor, along with the toll of shift
work.
Sleeping on duty, of course, is just an extreme
example of goldbricking, the avoidance of work or performing only the amount
minimally necessary to satisfy superiors. Goldbricking can take many forms: from
ignoring or passing on calls for service to someone else; overlooking suspicious
behavior; or engaging in personal business while on
duty.
POLICE DRINKING & ABUSING DRUGS ON OR OFF
DUTY
There are endless opportunities
to drink or take drugs while on duty (e.g., victim interviews, shakedowns,
contraband disposal), and the reasons for it are many: to get high, addiction,
stress, burnout, or alienation from the job. However, even in cases of
recreational usage (which doesn't exist, since officers are never off-duty or
have any of their "own time"), the potential is there for corruption. The
officer must obtain the drugs from some intermediary, involve others in
transactions, and open the door to blackmail, shakedowns, ripoffs, and coverups.
It sets a bad example for public relations. It will affect judgment, and lead to
the greater likelihood of deadly force or traffic accidents. Alcohol and drug
use tends to become a systemic problem; others become involved, either
supporting or condemning the user. Alcohol and drugs tend to be mixed by police
officers because there's more sub cultural support for alcoholism; thus the
abuser covers up the drug use with
alcoholism.
More intriguing is when the police become
sellers or dealers of drugs. One occasionally hears stories of officers selling
drugs at rock concerts. The motivation here appears to be monetary gain and
greed, although there have been some attempts to claim stress or undercover
assignment as a defense. In cases were such officers have been disciplined, plea
bargained, or arbitrated, the courts have not upheld a job stress/drug
connection, although there is some precedent in rulings that job assignment may
be a factor in alcoholism.
With the exception of a few places (like
Hawaii), police officer associations (POAs) have opposed random drug testing.
They especially oppose drug testing after a shooting incident because it taints
the officer. They are not generally opposed to drug testing of applicants or
probationary employees. They do, of course, support strict discipline of any
employee who is involved in dealing
drugs.
POLICE MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
This normally involves
jeopardizing an ongoing investigations by "leaking" information to friends,
relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal
suspects or members of their gang. The officer may be unaware that they are even
engaging in this kind of conduct which may involve "pillow talk" in some
instances. Failed raids, for example, are often due to a leak in the department.
In other cases, department resources, such as
computer systems, may be used to produce criminal history reports for "friends"
of the department such as private detectives, consulting firms, or area
employers. Passwords can also slip out, granting access to computer network
information. In rare cases, police resources are put to use in blackmailing
political figures. In general, however, cracking down on secrecy violations has
produced more problems than it has solved. Part of the reason for the current
fragmented condition of American law enforcement rests upon a false sense of
security derived from overdone needs for
secrecy.
O'Connor,
T.R. (Nov. 11, 2005). In Part of web cited,MegaLinks in
Criminal Justice.
