Is Reporting Police Misconduct Career Suicide?

On December 23, 2008, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Brian Bonnar was acquitted of federal deprivation of civil rights charges that were filed against him on allegations that he had used excessive and unnecessary force when he arrested 41 year old Irene Damon. After reading the verdict, the judge in this case offered a stinging rebuke for Bonnar by suggesting that despite the jury’s decision that there was ample evidence that Bonnar’s conduct was not appropriate.

On March 13, 2009, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Don Griffee was acquitted of fourth degree assault charges that were filed against him on allegations that he had punched 21 year old Johnny Bradford while he was handcuffed in the back seat of a cruiser. Despite the verdict, jurors said they felt that Bradford’s testimony was believable, but that Griffee had offered a case of plausible deniability that prevented them from finding him guilty beyond all doubt.

On February 26, 2009, King County Sheriff’s Deputy Paul Schene plead not guilty to fourth degree assault charges that were filed against him on the basis of a video recording of him kicking, punching, and manhandling 15 year old Malika Calhoun in a holding cell. The video was released to the media a day later and it sparked outrage all over the world which prompted the US Department of Justice to consider pressing federal civil rights violation charges against Schene.

These cases are not uncommon in that there were allegations of abuse leveled against police officers.

These cases are not noteworthy just because they all came from the same precinct and police department.

Nor are they uncommon because of the results in which evidence and testimony that would convict a normal person were insufficient to convict a cop. After all, when 73% of white Americans do not believe police officers ever use excessive force, it’s nearly impossible to find an unbiased jury pool out there.

No, these cases are incredibly unique in the world of police misconduct in that, in each of these cases, it was a police officer who brought these allegations to the attention of their department, that the department listened to the officers who complained and investigated the accusations, that the department recommended charges in response to them, and did not silence the allegations and punish the officers that reported them.

Yes, these cases are incredible in that the officers who reported them didn’t face retribution for doing so… at least not that we can tell yet. But, will that culture within that department last after the sheriff is gone? Or will the union work to shift things back to an environment where officers are afraid to tell the truth in fear of retaliation from fellow officers and supervisors?

Indeed, a good portion of the reason why police officers do not report incidents of misconduct isn’t just because of the cultural pressures not to snitch that their fellow officers put upon them. It’s that the “no snitching” culture is actually enforced by practice within police departments across the US and that it’s expected that officers who report misconduct will be punished by their departments and eventually forced out or fired on allegations that normally wouldn’t result in termination.

That fact was recently reinforced when a reader commented to a story we published in February detailing the surprising number of police department heads who have been embroiled in allegations of misconduct in recent months. That reader posted this in response to that story:

"I can explain why most good officers do not step forward. I was an officer that stepped forward to report about one of the Chiefs on this very list and now I will never be a police officer again.

No agency would take me and it has caused many sleepless nights for me but I have come to terms with the fact that I did what was right. Seeing the justice that was done here makes me feel like I did right but that isn’t good for a person who has only police work to fall back on.

Reporting abuse over another cop, let alone a chief, is career suicide."

At first the reader who posted this wished to remain anonymous and not have the details of what he was referring to made public, and for good reason. But now he’s given us permission to tell the rest of his story of how police officers in America are usually treated when they try to bring misconduct allegation to light.

Here’s what he told us about what happened to him in a follow-up email:

"I was employed in Roberts, Wisconsin for a few years as a patrol officer. All was well until the day that the board decided that the part time police chief job needed to be full time.


The village board decided to hire Ricci Prein and all seemed well at first. At least until one evening when I found Chief Prein drinking while working on a squad car in the municipal garage. I found this to be a compromising position so I reported it to the board.


From that day on I was written up for any crazy thing such as the squad car being on the low end of full gauge or the oil dipstick, or not getting trash to the curb by 3 am when it got picked up at 3 pm that day.


I was also written up on several occasions for my military reserve service and when he was told he was wrong for doing so he still refused to retract anything. The harassment finally got so bad that one day I decided it was enough and I resigned from the department.


After my resignation I was unable to find a job for many years because of the things he would tell prospective employers about me. I tried to take it to court but the fact that I had no money and no lawyer in the area would handle it because of conflict of interests, I gave up. I was still lucky enough, if you call it that, to be called to active duty in the current war 2 times, which helped pay bills."

This, sadly, is what usually happens when officers report incidents of misconduct, whether it’s against another police officer or a supervisor. There are few real protections against retaliation for reporting misconduct and there is little impetus to change that since city governments benefit from this culture of retribution since it prevents officers from testifying in civil rights violation cases that could cause embarrassment to local governments and loses in court.

Most of the time, the story ends there. The police officer never finds work again and the culture of corruption continues on unabated and even more secure after examples have been made of officers who dared to cross the blue wall of silence.

But not in this officer’s case:

"After my deployments I returned home and wondered how to address this. I finally decided to run for the village president position (mayor). I won the election and there by became Prein's boss.


Now, I didn’t do anything to him personally, all I did was bring current concerns to the village board as should have been done in the first place when I reported the issues I had seen. I even abstained from any votes pertaining to those allegations. All this being said and done, the board finally made the decision that he was wrong all the time in the past and that he needed to be fired."

Ricci Prein was eventually fired in July of 2008 on five counts of misconduct in office, seven months after the village board laid out their case against him, and years after this officer first made his concerns known to the village board. However, he proved he wasn’t done getting back at that officer yet.

The officer’s name is Eric Fisher and he had recently run for re-election as village president. He might have won if it weren’t for constant public attacks made by ex-chief Prein made via letters to the editor in the local paper that not only attacked Fisher, but also his wife. That election ended yesterday with Fisher losing to his rival by 44 votes.

So, yes, Fisher is right in that, in most cases, reporting police misconduct can be a matter of career suicide. When we ask ourselves why officers won't report the misconduct they see and we say that it's because they are bad officers, we should remind ourselves of what happens to the good ones and how little support they receive from their community. For us to have better expectations from them, we must expect to support and reward them ourselves.

But, fortunately in this case, Fisher found another calling and this story still has a positive ending where most might not. Fisher now works at a high school with special education children. While it doesn’t pay what a police officer gets, it’s something that Fisher can put his determination towards good use once again.

He ended his story by saying this:

“I can never be a cop again, but hey, I love what I am doing now and hopefully when we recover completely from all this I will finish my degree in teaching and become a full time teacher."

While police unions would use cases like this as an argument that they need even more layers of appeals and protections to fight allegations of misconduct made against officers, this isn’t true. The answer to the problem of retaliation against officers who report misconduct isn’t to make it harder to discipline officers found to have committed acts of misconduct.

The answer is simple actually. As Karl Mansoor, an ex-police officer and law enforcement ethics instructor who fought his own battle against retribution for reporting misconduct, tells his readers… the answer is to make the complaint, investigation, and disciplinary processes transparent to the public in order to remove the incentives that keep misconduct and the retribution suffered for reporting it a secret.

The best solution to the problem of police misconduct and the culture of silence prevalent in police departments across the nation is to shine a little light on them.

Vindictive Vancouver - Punishing Good Cops For Telling The Truth

In 2006, the city of Vancouver Washington fired an officer that they described as the dirtiest cop in Clark County’s history for allegedly falsifying reports and they sent out Brady notifications which effectively ended his career in law enforcement.

Following that dismissal the city then fired another officer in 2008 for allegedly falsifying a search warrant, branding that officer as a dirty cop as well which effectively ended his career as well.

At first glance, this might Sound like a city taking steps to clean up it’s police department, it might sound like something that should be applauded...

But you might be surprised to learn that it might be the exact opposite; that it may well be an attempt by city officials to rid it’s department of officers who have refused to be silent about the corruption they’ve seen occur within their police department at the direction of the city government.

The Story of Officer Navin Sharma

This story starts with Officer Navin Sharma, a decorated and respected police officer who was described as distinguished and dedicated and who was credited for saving countless lives by incorporating a medical unit into the SWAT division…

at least until he testified against other officers in an 1998 internal investigation about misconduct that occurred during a domestic violence prevention presentation that ultimately led to two sergeants being disciplined.

In reward for his honest testimony Sharma was rewarded with 8 long years of retribution that included racial epithets, offensive messages broadcast over the 911 dispatch radio system, and even failures to provide Sharma with backup when he was responding to reports of shots fired.

In 2000 Sharma filed suit against the city for discrimination and in 2001 he won a settlement of $750,000 that he negotiated down to $287,000 in order to gain a provision that let him remain on the force. But that didn’t end the abuse which included a 2003 incident where a city supervisor referred to Sharma as “the sand nigger that won a lawsuit against the city” and culminated in his firing in April of 2006.

Officer Sharma was fired for what DUI experts with the Washington State Patrol described as training issues, he made some errors while filling out DUI reports that are quite typical and were described by those experts as incidences that normally wouldn’t result in discipline beyond requiring the officer to attend additional training.

Instead of additional training, Sharma was fired, the city sent out Brady letters describing Sharma as an officer who’s testimony cannot be used in court, and city attorney Ted Gathe attempted to file criminal charges against Sharma over the alleged offense.

Sharma then filed another lawsuit against the city and won a record setting $1.6 million dollar lawsuit against the city for civil rights violation, a win that many accredit to the testimony of fellow police officers like Chris Kershaw.

The Story of Officer Chris Kershaw

Chris Kershaw is described as a dedicated officer with no prior record of misconduct. He was a distinguished Gulf War veteran with 10 years of experience in law enforcement that included his being awarded the medal of valor and life-saving medal for his actions that saved a SWAT officer’s life after he was shot in the back during a hostage situation… at least this was how he was described until he testified on Navin Sharma’s behalf in his civil rights suit against the city of Vancouver.

In late 2006, shortly after Officer Sharma’s firing, Officer Kershaw offered his testimony on Sharma’s behalf and as duty required he reported that intent to his supervisors in the VPD. Kershaw’s testimony proved pivotal to Sharma’s win against the city and, as filing papers indicate, retribution was swift once city attorney Ted Gathe found out about Kershaw’s plans to testify.

It was a testimony that ended prophetically with Kershaw stating the following:

“I must spend time to prepare myself… and prepare my family for the hardships we will most likely endure as a result of the discipline I believe will soon be imposed upon me.”

Just as in Sharma’s case, an investigation that was overseen by a VPD Commander named Kistler and Ted Gathe was started and Officer Kershaw was eventually disciplined and fired for allegedly misdating a search warrant which was, incidentally, the first search warrant that he had ever filled out and had done so without any prior training… a search warrant that the issuing judge had reviewed and described the dating error as “inadvertent and something that could be addressed with additional training”.

The city of Vancouver, just as in Sharma’s case, didn’t stop there. Just like Sharma, Ted Gathe then sent out Brady letters describing Kershaw as a liar and effectively ended Kershaw’s distinguished career, all allegedly for inadvertently misdating a form that he had never filled out before and had no training to show him how to fill it out properly.

However, it’s far closer to the mark to say that Kershaw’s career has been ended and his reputation ruined for testifying on behalf of a good cop who was persecuted for his own honest testimony against officers who did something wrong.

In response to his own termination from the Vancouver Police Department, Officer Kershaw has also filed a suit against the city that alleges he was fired in retaliation for his testimony on Officer Sharma’s behalf and has garnered the support from fellow officers, including retired Command Lieutenant Bruce Hall, a 20 year veteran of the VPD who supplied the following testimony for Offficer Sharma’s case in regards to what he was repeatedly told during a meeting he attended with VPD commanders and city officials:

“There are three kinds of employees. The first are those that are absolutely loyal, to a fault. They back each other no matter what… The next are those who need to be moved laterally or given some kind of “pay off” to get them out. The third kind needs to be actively and aggressively pursued in order to get them out, and you do it anyway you can… ride them until they quit or write them up until you can fire them.”

All of this in a department where other officers have been found to have lied in the presence of internal affairs officers during investigations into sexual abuse, intentional falsifications of records, and other more serious abuses of power that resulted in far less disciplinary actions, if any actions at all.

These two officers, who both had distinguished careers and were described by other officers, officials, and citizens alike as dedicated, trustworthy, and passionate about saving lives in their roles as law enforcement officers and medics, were fired for what everyone involved describes as inadvertent training-related errors by a city attorney who has refused to discipline one of his own city attorneys who had recently been arrested for his third DUI… an attorney who also works in the prosecutor’s office.

It doesn’t even stop with the persecution of Navin and Kershaw, in fact the the Clark County 911 operator, Holly Starr, who reported the incidents of racially-charged broadcasts targeting Navin Sharma won a whistle-blower lawsuit settlement for $260,000.

Ultimately, what is happening in Vancouver is the complete opposite of a city holding officers accountable, it’s a city that is refusing to hold itself accountable… and ultimately the citizens are the ones who will suffer for the loss of good officers like Navin Sharma and Chris Kershaw, all while ignoring and defending the real misconduct that occurs around them.

As I said before, sometimes officers can be the victims of misconduct too, and by all the evidence piled against the city of Vancouver, this certainly appears to be a textbook example of injustice done to some of the best officers that city has ever had.

References:
Good Cop, Mad Cop - Willamette Week Online
Ex-Officer Files Claim Against City - The Columbian
Filing Papers -Chris Kershaw's Notice Of Tort Claim Against City of Vancouver
Navin Sharma - Injustice In Seattle

When A Thin Blue Line Hits The Blue Wall of Silence

Numerous sites, including this one, ran the story about how a Denver police officer’s union printed up thousands of shirts meant to commemorate the role of police officers during the Democratic National Convention which depicted a thuggish-looking police officer slapping a truncheon in the palm of his hand while standing menacingly over the city with the caption “We get up early to beat the crowd”.

At one of those sites, The Agitator, a set of comments from one reader who said the shirt upset him when he admitted that he was trying join law enforcement “for the right reasons” started me thinking… is it really possible to be a police officer “for the right reasons”? Is it possible to be a good cop in this day and age?

The Duty of a Good Cop
Before we get to that question, we must first establish what a good officer might be and I think that could easily be described as a person who joins law enforcement solely because of a desire to serve their community with the intention to follow the spirit of the law while enforcing the letter of the law.

Of course, this description covers a lot more than might be apparent at first, as can best be seen by examining an argument made by the writer of Simple Justice when he explains "If we assume that police aren't all criminals, and that most are dedicated to their job and oath, then the measure of wrong is not the cop who did the shoving, but the cop behind him who watched." Or, in other words, the perpetuation of the blue wall of silence is just as much a criminal endeavor as is the acts of police misconduct that it shields.

So, a good officer not only has a duty to avoid participating in acts of misconduct but also has the duty to report any misconduct he or she witnesses and not participate in covering up such activity either actively or passively… which leads to the root of our question; does the current law enforcement environment allow officers to do their duty when tasked to report misconduct performed by other officers?

…in other words, is it even possible for officers to do what is right and remain a police officer in an environment that does not encourage, or perhaps actively discourages, reporting acts of misconduct? For that answer we need only look at a few examples of officers who did what the spirit of the law demanded of them and see what became of them and their efforts as a result.

The Case of Navin Sharma
In 1998, Vancouver Washington police officer Navin Sharma testified against his fellow officers about a complaint filed by a city attorney who witnessed officers deriding an instructor during an “anti-domestic violence course” and who slept during the class, drew offensive cartoons about the instructor, and threw away class materials while walking out.

Sharma, who was responsible for creating a program that ultimately saved the lives of countless officers and civilians, was rewarded for his testimony with 8 years of extraordinary abuse from fellow officers, dispatchers, and even city officials that one ex-Vancouver police summed up by telling reporters that; “In 24 years with the department I never saw them do to another officer what they’ve done to him.”

Ultimately officer Sharma was fired for an alleged offense that was widely described as a training issue and fired in such a way that he could never work as a police officer again. He ultimately sued and won a discrimination suit against Vancouver but the abuse, while racial in nature, was all about retaliation, and all in response to testimony against other officers that only resulted in minor disciplinary action against two officers. Still, even though all parties now admit that Sharma was an exemplary officer who was honest to a fault, he still can never work in law enforcement again because of that honesty.

The Case of Karl Mansoor
In 1994 Karl Mansoor transferred from Norfolk Virginia, where he was a patrol officer, to Albemarle County where he had hoped to raise his family. At first he was enthusiastic about his new position within the county’s police force but that excitement was short-lived as he began to witness severe cases of misconduct, criminal activity, and cover-ups that even included sexual harassment of teenage girls within the department and brutality against suspects and innocent people.

When he approached supervisors and others about the incidents he was ignored or threatened, warned that if he dared to associate with others who were concerned about problems within the department that he wouldn’t make it anywhere within the department. His problems came to the forefront when, in 1997, he began recording conversations about misconduct and the mistreatment he was experiencing for trying to bring attention to problems within the department and he was forced to undergo treatment for the stress of working in such a hostile environment.

When he attempted to return to duty, however, he was forced to sign an agreement that forbade him from talking with any "third parties" about anything "critical or negative towards the county executive, the chief of police ... or any other county official or employee." But, in 2002 he won a civil rights suit against the county for unreasonably restricting his first amendment rights, but that only delayed the inevitable.

In 2004 Karl Mansoor was finally forced to resign from the police force due to the constant threat of having to respond to calls without backup and due to the constant animosity from his supervisors and fellow officers. Mansoor still works as a certified police instructor, teaching courses in law enforcement ethics, and is working on a book about ethics in policing as well as his own experiences trying to clean up his own police department... but he still does not work as a law enforcement officer as a result of his efforts to clean up his department.

The Case of Sam Costales
In 2006 Sam Costales reluctantly rejoined the Albuquerque Police Department in New Mexico at the request of the chief of police due to patrol shortages. He only joined after promising that he would report any misconduct he witnessed since he had previously resigned because of all the brutality he had witnessed over the 23 years as a police officer.

Shortly after rejoining he testified against three Bernalillo County officers who he witnessed drag Al Unser Sr. from his truck, throw him against the ground, and then handcuff him on Unser's own property after he had questioned why police had placed a roadblock on his land. Moments later he also witnessed police arrest 72 year old Bobby Unser who lived nearby. Costales' testimony not only contradicted the deputies but also claimed that their conduct was unprofessional and unreasonable.

After his testimony the Albuquerque chief of police initiated an investigation against Costales after sending a letter to the police union that stated “Like you, I was shocked and dismayed when I learned that Sam was on the stand sucker-punching our deputies. Make no mistake, while his testimony was a work of fiction, it was pretty much game over after he finished…Sam Costales is incapable of breaking the brotherhood that bonds these great agencies.”

Thereafter Costales was the subject of persecution and retaliation that left him fearful that officers would not give him backup if he responded to a dangerous call... and ultimately led to him seeking treatment for the extreme stress he had to endure as a result of testifying truthfully when called to do so. In the end, his own department and supervisors turned against him for testifying against officers in another department.

The Case of Frank Serpico
Of course, all of this is nothing new... In 1967 Frank Serpico sought to bring attention to widespread corruption within the NYPD, but it wasn't until 1970 when the New York Times finally broke the story about corruption in the NYPD that the mayor formed the Knapp Commission to investigate the claims made by officers and civilians alike.

In 1971, while working a drug bust, Frank Serpico was shot in the face while his fellow officers refused to provide backup. As officer Serpico laid on the floor of an apartment building slowly bleeding to death his fellow officers refused to call in a request for emergency services but another tennent in the building sat with Serpico and called for an ambulance.

For his attempts to bring to light the rampant abuses and corruption within the NYPD, officer Serpico had to endure a lifetime of chronic pain from bullet fragments left in his skull and the harassment from his fellow officers who taunted him in his hospital room. He still testified to the commission later that year and worked tirelessly thereafter helping officers who faced similar problems when they tried to do the right thing as well, people who he termed "lamp-lighters".

Even in Seattle
Sometimes, even when officers are not actively punished for testifying against their fellow officers, they are usually not protected from retaliation by their fellow officers when they try to do their duty and testify honestly when demanded to do so by law. Sometimes, too, officers do cave into the pressure to remain silent and not rat out their fellow officers.

In 2004 a four year FBI investigation into corruption within the Seattle Police Department ended abruptly after the investigation was compromised by those police officers themselves. The incomplete findings were turned over to the SPD and as a result one officer resigned, one was dismissed, and two others faced other disciplinary actions. One of the officers, a sergeant, ultimately faced discipline for allegedly referring to a subordinate who cooperated with the FBI as "a rat", an accusation which he later denied by stating: "I have denied saying anything to hurt the tender feelings of this young officer."

In a second hearing performed by the chief of police, the officer who made the accusation changed his story without explanation and as a result the sergeant wasn’t fired for violating rules against intimidating a whistleblower. There was never an investigation into whether or not there was any coercion involved with the officer's change of testimony.

Are There Good Cops?
What does all of this tell us? If anything it suggests that the blue wall of silence is still in force and still working to ensure that the thin blue line that enforces society’s laws does not extend into the police department itself. That officers are still actively discouraged from doing as duty demands, to enforce the laws evenly and fairly, even when the laws are broken by one of their own…

Ultimately, such stories show us that the blue wall of silence exists to ensure that if there is such a thing as a good cop, that such a cop will be punished until that cop conforms to the unspoken rule of silence or is exiled from the ranks of law enforcement. It shows us that while there are good cops out there, that their good deeds will not go unpunished and that those few good cops, no matter how dedicated they may be, just cannot remain cops for long... that it's a lot more difficult for a good cop to remain true to his or her ideals.

But, there is another lesson here as well, one not so bleak, in that these stories prove that there are good cops out there, cops who are devoted to doing what is right and are willing to enforce the law beyond the blue wall, even when that blue wall threatens to crush them.

…meanwhile, those shirts printed by the Denver police union have been so popular with police officers in the region, that they sold out of the 2000 they had printed and had to order more. So, now not only do cops remain silent when other cops abuse their authority, but they celebrate it brazenly without fear of repercussion, all thanks to the perpetuation of their blue wall of silence.

While there are good cops out there who can follow the legacy of sacrifice left before them, we need to wait and see if there are there enough out there to stem the tide against such apparently wide-spread corruption. Hopefully, someday, such officers will be rewarded and prized for their honesty and dedication instead of punished for it.

Footnotes:
For more information about Navin Sharma see:
"Good Cop, Mad Cop" -Willamette Weekly
"Navin Sharma: A Good Cop Who Can't Be A Cop" -Injustice In Seattle

For more information about Karl Mansoor see:
"Former Officer Alleges Corruption in Albemarle County Police Department" -WCAV 19 News
"Virginia County Wrong To Muzzle Officer's Speech" -Freedom Forum
"Blue Must Be True" - www.karlmansoor.com

For more information about Sam Costales see:
"Cop of the Year-2007" -The Agitator
"Bully Cops May Cost Taxpayers" -The Citizen Media Group

For more information about Frank Serpico see:
"The Official Frank Serpico Website" -www.frankserpico.com

For more information about the FBI Investigation Into SPD Corruption see:
"Seattle police plan to fire officer in misconduct case" -The Seattle Times
"Police Chief Fires Officer, Disciplines 2 Sergeants" - The Seattle Times

Navin Sharma - A Good Cop Who Can't Be A Cop Wins Settlement

(UPDATE: Another suit has been filed against the city of Vancouver in December of 2008 related to this case, more information about this case and the related case can be found here).

Navin Sharma was, by all indications, a good and dedicated police officer with the Vancouver Washington police department. Navin's efforts with the department to develop the Tactical Emergency Medical Support (TEMS-SWAT) Unit was instrumental in saving the lives of numerous fellow officers and citizens alike and his efforts to lead charity drives and events were inspirational.

Navin started with the department in 1997, however things went downhill for him after he testified against senior officers during an internal investigation, that's when the threats and harassment began. Superiors would use crude racial slurs when referring to him, rude notes were left on his cruiser by fellow officers, he would get profane messages on his answering machine constantly.. He filed a suit against the city in the hopes of stopping the harassment and threats in 2001 after officers threatened him during a roll call meeting and he won that suit, but the harassment still continued. All the while, his efforts to stop the harassment failed and his complaints went unheeded while city officials would refer to him as "Sharmageddon" or "the sand nigger who sued the City and won".

Navin was finally forced to resign in 2006 for copying and pasting information for DUI reports, a practice used by many other officers in the department without any consequences. In fact, during the current suit filed against the city it became clear that other officers who did much worse kept their jobs, and his suit prevailed because it was made clear that the city was merely looking for any excuse to get rid of an honest officer who told the truth and the city was punishing him for it.

Navin Sharma won a 1.6 million dollar settlement from the city of Vancouver Washington yesterday, (read the press release here), perhaps the largest ever employment discrimination suit against a city in the state of Washington. But the cause of the disturbing racial abuse wasn't just because Sharma's east Indian race, but the fact that he was brave and ethical enough to not perjure himself when testifying about other police officers. His racial background was merely the tool with which the city's police officers and elected officials used to punish him for telling the truth.

Navin, currently working as a nurse, now says it's unlikely that he can ever work in law enforcement again even though he wishes he could. While part of the settlement forced the city to amend his records to show he resigned in good standing, removes him from the Brady list of officers who can't give testimony, to change state records which canceled Navin's law enforcement certification, issue several commendations, and restore his rights to his pension; he says word of mouth will have more impact on his ability to get another law enforcement job, and even then it appears that his reputation for being honest will keep him out of the career he loved.

Good luck Mr. Sharma, the police desperately need more role models like you... and it's damn shame that they don't want them. Unfortunately, it's another example that shows even police officers can be the victim of police misconduct.

Blue Must Be True

"If self-policing worked, then society would not need the police would we? Law enforcement agencies (as miniature societies) are no different - they cannot police themselves." -Karl Mansoor

Who is Karl Mansoor?

Mr. Mansoor is an ex-police officer and a current law enforcement instructor in Virginia... He is also the author of "Blue Must Be True", a blog about law enforcement leadership, ethics, and misconduct. He is also one of the examples of law enforcement professionals that prove not all police officers are bad.

Here is a portion of the latest post at Blue Must be True, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about:

"Certainly society wants to think the best of its heroes; in this case law enforcement officers...

I have worked with law enforcement officers who are worthy of emulation. They were and are true professionals dedicated to serving with integrity. Regrettably, I am also personally aware of, and have worked with, law enforcement officers who are just the opposite.

While I have only worked in two police departments and trained with perhaps several hundred officers from various agencies (only a fraction of officers in the U.S.), I get the strong sense that police culture is consistent throughout the United States. A negative aspect of that culture is the “Code of Silence.” It may be true that many officers do not personally engage in excessive force or other aspects of misconduct, it is also likely true that many law enforcement officers will not speak up about issues that need to see the light of day.

Citizens are wrong if they think this problem will self correct. They are even more wrong if they think the problem is sparse and of little consequence. Be wary of police administrators who tell you they can fix it - some are part of the problem. If self-policing worked, then society would not need the police would we? Law enforcement agencies (as miniature societies) are no different - they cannot police themselves."

The post in question is filled with very informative figures, statistics, and other facts that are both incredibly interesting and important for people to understand. But that's not necessarily what should draw someone to this site. The interesting story here is the perspective of the person who is presenting these facts and what that represents, because the person discussing these issues was a police officer himself and is currently a licensed law enforcement instructor.

The site, and the person who writes it, also represents the hope that not all police officers are bad or willing to look the other way when police abuses occur. I say this is a hope we need because it's true, we cannot have trust in our society if we cannot trust those who are entrusted to enforce society's laws and without that trust then such a society will certainly fail.

This is not to say that Mr. Mansoor is the only good officer out there, by far I know that's not the case. But, he is one of the few who have taken the brave step to bring an honest perspective to the issues surrounding misconduct and the need to find that delicate balance of authority and accountability. While the author of Blue Must Be True says that he will not be writing often since he is also working on a book, it's still a site I'll be following with interest...

An Ex-Cop's Story

While it's not a Seattle story, I think this former police officer's reflection on police misconduct is very interesting and, judging by the types of messages left by officers here and on other local sites, seems to accurately explain the "Us vs World" police mentality.

His post was left on a message board in response to an interesting story from Radly Balko's TheAgitator about officer Sam Costales, his "officer of the year", who has recently filed suit against his own police department for being harrassed due to his testimony that confirmed a case of police misconduct by officers in another department, (in other words, for busting down the blue wall of silence).

Coming from a former LEO, that is hosed up, but not horribly surprising to me.

While I can only speak for the single department I worked in (and maybe for the dozenish I had regular contact with officers from), this isn't something that is isolated to a single department or even a bad apples issue. It started when we were in the academy. From one side of the field, you have instructors teaching you about honesty, integrity, and how once those qualities are questioned in you, that you are forever tainted as a credible witness in any case you testify in. Then from the other side you have the instructors, mostly in defensive tactics and at the range, drilling it into your head about backing up your fellow officers no matter what, the mantras of "I'm going home tonight no matter what" and "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Which is all well and good, until you get on the street at your department and the first two things that your FTO tells you are "Don't listen to anything I say about the other officers, you need to form your own opinions" while at the same time badmouthing everything and everyone in the department, and "You don't want to be out here alone, so make sure you don't do anything to make anyone not want to back you up."

Then it starts out with small things. You see someone swipe the money from a found wallet before they log it into evidence, and you don't say anything. You bust up a party and confiscate all the alcohol, but "Hey, we don't need all this for evidence, and they're just going to pour it down the drain, lets have a party after work," and you play along. Because, you tell yourself, it's minor poo poo on the grand scale of things, and noone is really going to care.

Then you get into a knock-down drag-out fight with someone. There's 4 or 5 of you trying to subdue one suspect, and he's going apeshit. You get popped, or spit on, or scratched, or some other minor insult that goes with the job. So once he's down, your buddies give you a couple free shots on him before he goes in cuffs. Or while you're still fighting with him, maybe you crank his arm a little harder than you should, or dig your knee into his groin, or some other "minor" retaliation. Hell, maybe you get out the tazer and zap him a couple times. He deserved it, right? But because you're already heading down that road, you don't realized that for all intents and purposes, you're no better than the guy laying on the ground in cuffs with the ruptured testicle, or the bloody nose, or the tazer wires stuck in him. He committed assault, and so did you.

I guess I don't really know exactly where I'm going with this. It's been over two years since I left the PD after I started calling people on their bullshit. It ended up getting me a job offer withdrawn 4 days before I was supposed to start, and after it was too late to withdrawn my resignation from my current job. And I've been defending officers tooth and nail in a lot of incidents on this board since then, because I know how scary those situations really are, and I know what if feels like to have to make a major decision in a split second with little to no information, and then have dozens of people scrutinize it for weeks and months based on information that you didn't have available to you at the time.

But some of this poo poo just kills me. The corruption, the arrogance, the belief that they can get away with anything because the only people who would ever testify against them are people that would never be believed. Who's gonna believe the crack dealer with no front teeth, or the single mother addicted to meth who witnesses it, compared to 4 pressed and starched officers of the law.

It's hard to explain the mentality of all of this to people who've never worked the job before. It doesn't help that the officer selection process is geared to weed out many of the most practical candidates for the job, leaving you with malleable, impressionable wide-eyed no-life-experience young people on one end, and pathological liars who can tell anyone exactly what they want to hear on the other end. Nowhere near everyone falls into these two extremes, and the process is getting better as minor transgressions of youth are more and more overlooked, but you still get a solid number of people that are either already partially corrupted and dishonest, or are so impressionable that they get molded into being that type of person.

Again, it's hard to explain without doing the job. You have it drilled into your head that everyone out there would rather kill you than say "hi" to you, that around every dark corner lies a cop killer in wait, and you must exercise CONSTANT VIGILANCE (to quote JK Rowling) to make sure you go home at night. Which is a good theory to have in the back of your head to bust out when you need it, but it makes a lot of people paranoid and weapon-happy, and then they end up having to cover their asses to save their job.

For the most part the job is 90% the same old boring poo poo. Theft reports, speeding tickets, baby momma drama, etc, stupid poo poo that once you handle a couple of them, you can pretty much do on autopilot. But bad stress management can lead to bad handling of the other 10%, the fights, the gun runs, the crime scenes, the nasty auto accidents. It also causes the adrenaline to bleed over into other stuff. You pull someone over right after you just had to watch EMS scrape a 5 year old off the street, and you're testy with him, see or hear something wrong and flake out, and the next thing you know Joe Citizen is in cuffs with tazer wires in his back.

Again, hard to get the reality of it across. The longer I'm away from the job and the more I read about this poo poo happening, the more I realize that this country does a piss-poor job of training it's officer for real life policework. There's a huge emphasis on cultural diversity and street survival, and precious little on how to manage the adrenaline and stress effectively so you don't turn into a little ball of rage in a goofy hat on a daily basis.