2
Disclosing Officer Untruthfulness to the Defense:
Is a Liar’s Squad Coming to Your Town?
Introduction
Integrity and honesty are essential qualities in law enforcement. A police officer with
integrity and who is honest, ensures their professionalism and ethical values will gain the public's
trust. However, once an officer displays unbecoming behavior, the officer's credibility is lost, and
citizens will start to mistrust the officer and question the integrity of the officer's police
department (Singh, 2022). Thus, it is important that officers always remain professional and
truthful; also, it is essential that police leaders hold dishonest police officers accountable. This
paper will discuss disclosing an officer's untruthfulness by examining a scenario of an officer
who lied about misusing departmental equipment. This paper will also determine the most
appropriate and effective disciplinary action that should be imposed on the officer for his
misconduct.
The Scenario
An officer’s dishonesty has placed me in an ethical dilemma. I must determine if the
officer’s dishonesty warrants his termination, or if I should impose a less severe disciplinary
action, such as suspension or a verbal reprimand. To help me resolve this ethical dilemma, and
determine the appropriate disciplinary action, I must ensure I have all the facts, identify the
fundamental values, identify all dilemmas, and decide the most immediate dilemma (Pollock,
2019).
The Facts
My deputy chief of police brought to my attention that a veteran officer was being
investigated for inappropriately using one of the computers in the patrol division. An internal
3
investigation determined that the officer used the division’s computer to search pornographic
websites. When confronted with this allegation, the officer denied any knowledge of this
incident. Upon further investigation, the computer crimes analyst determined that the officer’s
log-on password was used to enter these websites. The officer then admitted to his wrongdoing
and stated this would never happen again. It should be noted, however, that the investigation
never mentioned if the officer was searching adult or child pornographic websites. Had they
specified this, the disciplinary action would not be this difficult.
The Key Values
Officers’ behaviors both on and off duty, matters to police departments and to the
communities that officers are sworn to protect and serve. Because police officers are both crime
fighters and public servants, their honesty and integrity are crucial in building trust and
performing their duties effectively. While they have the discretion to enforce the laws and
maintain order for public safety, they also have the discretion to provide social services to meet
the needs of all people, including criminals. As a result, society expects officers to be always
professional, reliable, and truthful (Pollock, 2019; Singh, 2022).
The Ethical Dilemmas
Between 2011 and 2014, the city of Baltimore, which is the largest city in the state of
Maryland, had to pay approximately $5.7 million in settlements due to Baltimore City’s police
officers making false arrests and police brutality (White et al., 2018). In 2011, the San Francisco
Police Department was involved in a publicized scandal due to officers falsifying official reports
and affidavits, and conducting illegal searches (Pollock, 2019).
Professional misconduct is detrimental to police departments. When police officers are
dishonest and corrupt, they risk their police departments being embroiled in scandals, lengthy
4
federal investigations, and costly settlements (Pollock, 2019). Therefore, when police officers
have been caught being dishonest and unprofessional, their department should immediately take
the appropriate disciplinary action to correct the misconduct.
Disciplinary action is one of the critical elements for an organization. Its primary purpose
is not to terminate or punish an employee for their misconduct, but to provide structure in the
work environment and correct work-related behavior. While disciplinary actions encourage
professionalism and set the standards for work ethics, disciplinary actions also send a message to
employees that there are consequences to behavior that goes against the organization’s values
(Okolie & Udom, 2019).
Although searching pornographic websites is not against the law unless it involves
children, searching on a departmental computer goes against the department’s operating
procedure and policy. The officer inappropriately used a computer that is meant for conducting
law enforcement business only. Furthermore, lying to investigators about the misuse is wrong
and dishonest. When an officer knowingly lies about misconduct, their behavior is unbecoming;
moreover, it goes against the department’s values. Therefore, I must impose disciplinary actions
for violating the department’s policy and being dishonest.
Immediate Dilemma
Recent landmark decisions on professional misconduct in the criminal justice system
have had police executives recognizing the importance of officers’ credibility. In fact, because of
the 1963DBrady v. Maryland decision, today, many police executives have established a zero-
tolerance policy on dishonesty and deceptive conduct (Noble, 2013). Thus, for many
departments, being deceitful is grounds for immediate termination. One example is Kitsap
County Sheriff’s department termination of former Deputy Brian LaFrance in 2001.
5
Brian LaFrance worked as a deputy for Kitsap County Sheriff for 14 years. He was
assigned to a child pornography task force when he became obsessed with protecting children
and started to neglect cases and constantly lie to his superiors. LaFrance was eventually fired due
to 29 documented incidents of professional misconduct and deceitfulness. However, an arbitrator
disagreed with Kitsap County's decision to fire LaFrance. Although the arbitrator agreed that
LaFrance's deception was misconduct, it did not warrant his termination. The County appealed to
the appellate Court and argued that if LaFrance were reinstated and called as a witness in a
criminal proceeding, under theDBradyDdecision, prosecutors would be legally and ethically
obligated to disclose LaFrance's personnel records of dishonesty to the defense counsel. The
appellate Court agreed with the County and reversed the arbitrator's ruling, stating that LaFrance
was unfit for duty as a police officer and reinstating him would violate several public policies
that require officers to be honest (Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County, 2007).
Resolving the Dilemma and Implementing the Appropriate Disciplinary Action
Although terminating this officer would not go against the department’s policy for
dishonesty, and termination would send a message that this department has zero tolerance
towards dishonesty, the officer’s actions do not warrant his termination. Because I do not know if
the officer was searching child pornographic websites, I can only assume that the officer’s
actions did not break any laws, only a departmental policy. Furthermore, his dishonesty did not
place citizens or fellow officers at risk.
Finally, the officer has been with this department for 15 years, and unlike Deputy
LaFrance, the only other disciplinary action taken against him was his involvement in an at-fault
traffic accident that happened ten years ago. Thus, for inappropriately using a departmental
computer and lying to investigators, I must impose a written reprimand and a two-week
6
suspension, effective immediately. Although I would only like to issue a verbal warning to a
veteran officer who virtually has a clean personnel record, his dishonesty is unbecoming of a
police officer.
I have not ignored the fact that if this disciplinary action is placed in his personnel file,
and he is called to be a witness in a criminal proceeding, the prosecutor may have to disclose the
officer's dishonesty to the defense counsel. While I believe he will never do this again, I must
consider the importance of maintaining the department's integrity. Also, I must send a clear
message to other officers that they must conduct themselves honesty and professionally.
Biblical Worldview
God detests lying. In Proverbs 12:22, “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord….”
(New American Standard Bible,D1971/1995). Because lying is not of God and is a sin, Christians
are discouraged from being dishonest. Just like officers will face consequences for being
deceitful, God warns us that those who engage in deceitfulness will experience suffering in the
lake of fire (Revelations 21:8).
When we speak of honesty, we are speaking of God’s nature. Honesty is so important to
God that He made it one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:16). Integrity is also important
to God and is essential in our daily lives. Integrity keeps us closer to our Lord (Psalm 24:3-4),
and it brings Him delight (Proverbs 12:22).
Jesus Christ is the perfect example of integrity and honesty; as Believers, we are called to
be like Christ. This means that we should not conform to the world's ways (Romans 12:2) or
even participate in behavior that is the opposite of God. Instead, we must expose deceitfulness
with love and compassion (Ephesians 5:11). Our purpose is not to condemn or embarrass those
7
who practice dishonesty. Instead, we are to encourage them to walk and live righteously for the
Lord (Ephesians 4:29).
Conclusion
Law enforcement officers are valuable to the community. Society relies on them to
maintain order and provide safety and social services. Citizens will interact with them frequently
when dealing with crime. Hence, officers are held to a higher standard and, therefore, must
always maintain professionalism, integrity, and honesty—both on and off duty.
Since 1963, landmark decisions have clarified the importance of an officer’s credibility. A
defense attorney can request and examine evidence in a criminal trial that may favor the defense.
This includes disclosing the personnel file of a police officer, who is also a witness for the
government. A law enforcement officer with a history of dishonesty can be detrimental to a
prosecutor’s case and, thus, may not be a credible witness.
A dishonest police officer casts doubt on their integrity and honesty; additionally, their
unethical behavior can discredit their police department. If police leaders want to continue to
build trust and partnerships, they must not ignore dishonesty and other unethical behaviors.
Instead, they must be transparent and hold unprofessional officers accountable. Accountability
involves implementing a fair disciplinary action plan that will address and correct the dishonesty.
In addition, the disciplinary action will ensure that other officers are aware of the consequences
and will want to conduct themselves honestly and with integrity.
8
References
Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff's Guild v. Kitsap County, 140 Wn. App. 516, 525-26, 165 P.3d
1266 (Wash. 2007). https://casetext.com/case/kitsap-county-v-kitsap-county
New American Standard Bible. (1995). Literal Word.Dhttps://nasb.literalword.com/D(Original
work published 1971).
Nobel, J. (2003, October). Police Officer Truthfulness and the Brady Decision.
Policechiefmagazine.org. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/police-officer-
truthfulness-and-the-brady-decision/
Okolie, U. C., & Udom, I. D. (2019). Disciplinary actions and procedures at workplace: The role
of HR managers. Journal of Economics and Management Research, 8, 90–105.
https://doi.org/10.22364/jemr.8.06
Pollock, J. M. (2019). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Cengage Learning.
Singh, D. (2022). The causes of police corruption and working towards prevention in conflict-
stricken states. Laws, 11(5), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws11050069
White, C., Weisburd, D., & Wire, S. (2018). Examining the impact of the Freddie Gray unrest on
perceptions of the police. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4), 829–858.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12439
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
