Question

Disciplinary Research Paper: Decision Making Assignment Instructions

Overview

This is a continuation of the Disciplinary Research Paper: The Criminal Justice System in Its Environment Assignment. Students will combine both Disciplinary Assignments and submit both assignments as one single document during this Module.

Since 1963, a series of United States Supreme Court case decisions have clarified that in criminal cases, prosecutors must disclose to the defense evidence favorable to the defendant. This includes information that may be used to impeach the credibility of government witnesses, including law enforcement officers. These decisions mean that police officers who have documented histories of lying in official matters are liabilities to their agencies, and these histories may render them unable to testify credibly.

With this in mind, you are the Chief of Police of a municipality. Your Deputy Chief of Police advises you that one of your officers was investigated for inappropriate use of one of the computers in the patrol division. As a result of this internal investigation, it was determined that the officer used this computer to search pornographic web sites. 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 logon password was used to enter the unauthorized web sites. The officer then admitted to his wrongdoing and stated it would never happen again. This officer has been with your organization for 15 years, and the only other disciplinary action taken against him was for being involved in an at fault traffic accident 10 years ago. As the Chief of Police, you must decide how you will handle this situation?

Instructions

Write a 2.5-3 page professional memorandum outlining and explaining how you will handle this situation.

Discuss the policy recommendations would you make?

Use the cases listed below to assist and support you in your decision.

• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

• Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972)
• United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)
• Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)
• United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985)

This assignment requires that students follow a template. Students must review and follow the template carefully. You will combine the two Disciplinary Research Paper Assignments as one Word document assignment.

Combine this assignment with the Disciplinary Research Paper: The Criminal Justice System in Its Environment Assignment.  For the final submission this module, you will submit:

• 5-6 pages (double spaced) excluding the title page and reference page.
• Current APA format. 
• 5-6 scholarly sources
• Acceptable sources (course textbooks, academic books, .gov websites, peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last 5-10 years only). 

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.

Answer

Summary of Facts

The police officer lied to the investigator that he was not the one that accessed the site through the patrol division computer. The police officer was being investigated for inappropriate use of the said computers, and when asked, he denied it. Therefore, an internal investigation was conducted, which proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had been accessing the sites. He only admitted to his wrongdoing after the data analyst determined that his password had logged into the inappropriate site.

Analysis of the Impact of Lying

Law enforcement officers are expected to uphold higher ethics standards than ordinary citizens because they are placed in authority. The officer, under the circumstances, lied when he was asked about the inappropriate use of the computers for official use at the patrol division. In the world that we live in, the police have come under sharp criticism because of excessive force indiscipline level, among other misgivings. It is now necessary that police bosses protect and ensure that the people placed to guard society are integrity and practice good work ethics. The type of action taken to discipline the office er who lies should be comprehensively considered.

On the one hand, it is essential to note that the confession came after the officer confronted the evidence against him. Were it not for the evidence by the analyst who determined that the login password was used to access the sites, then the officer would probably not have admitted to any wrongdoing. The criminal justice system in the conduct of criminal trials relies on the honesty of the police, which is essential when they testify before the court. Under the collective knowledge doctrine, officers rely on other officers' information. Therefore, an officer who lies is untrustworthy, and a simple lie could have negative consequences on the operations of others. Secondly, supervisors make decisions using information obtained from their juniors. When conducting cases, the prosecutor relies on the reports filed by police, and an affidavit is sworn by them when conducting the trial. the members of the jury and judges, when making their decision rely on the evidence collected by police officers their testimony in addition to other documents. Therefore, the officer lying to investigators and superiors and continued insistence that he in the celebrated case of Brady v Maryland, the court held that the prosecution suppressed evidence that favored the accused person violated the due process requirement because the evidence was material.[1]In the case of United States v Bagley, the Supreme court ruling on the suppression of evidence reiterated the test of the Brady materials. The court held that the condition of the material would only be traversed if the evidence was material, and suppression of the same would have affected the outcome of the trial.[2] The court held that the non-disclosure by the prosecution of evidence that might have been importantly inion-conducting cross-examination would only be considered a constitutional error where the suppression could have resulted in different results at trial.

In the case of United States v Agurs, the Supreme court held that the prosecution is duty-bound to disclose any exculpatory information, even in cases where the defendant failed to ask for it.[3]Similarly, in Kyles v Whitley, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution has an affirmative duty to ensure that they know of any information that might be favorable to the defendant. The information must be within the knowledge of the police and other people acting on behalf of the state. It should ensure that they disclose such information to the defendant to ensure a fair trial.[4] The decisions by the Supreme court cited above evidence the importance of telling the truth and resulted in the creation of what was termed as the Brady List. The list comprises of officers that have been untruthful in their official. Capacity and is used for disclosure purposes. Therefore, such information should be availed to the defense, meaning that the prosecution may refuse to conduct any criminal cases associated with an officer on the list.

Analysis of policy Recommendation to Implement as Chief of Police.

The police officers in the conduct of their duty have a higher duty to maintain integrity and honesty because they are responsible for the safety of people, and any person found to be untruthful should have their services terminated. Suppose such an officer placed on the Brady List continues with their work. In that case, it means that any evidence they collect, statement, report, and any other official document they prepare might become inadmissible before the court because their credibility might be questioned.[5] Such evidence before the court might also have lesser probative value, negatively affecting the victim's attaining justice.

In answering the question, one of the policy recommendations that I would make is to ensure a termination clause that allows for the immediate termination of any officer found to be untruthful. The reason for recommending termination is that their lies negatively impact the police department and affect the entire criminal justice system, resulting in a denial of justice for the victims of crimes. Therefore, I would terminate his services immediately because he will negatively impact the department. Any work he conducts or anything he reports or files will have to be verified to determine accuracy and reliability. It would not be tenable for other officers in the police department to work with such a person. If one cannot be relied on to tell the truth in an investigation about their conduct, it evidences a lack of integrity.

Another policy recommendation would be to develop a Brady List where such officers that are not terminated get named and shamed for a while to ensure that they understand the impact of their action. Disciplinary processes should be put in place to curb indiscipline and promote integrity. The criminal justice process and the stakeholders involved are persons of integrity who decide the guilt or innocence of a person. The whole process should not be tainted from the investigation to arrest, trial, and sentencing of the individual; otherwise, a mistrial might result. The lies, therefore, do not only affect one person. The officer being in the line of duty knew the importance of telling the truth as police are often collecting information from people and asking them to speak the truth. Therefore, for such a person to lie knowing the impact, then it means that they are unreliable and cannot pass the integrity test.

[1] Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

[2] United States v. Bagley - 473 U.S. 667, 105 S. Ct. 3375 (1985)

[3] United States v. Agurs, 427 U. S. 97 (1976)

[4] Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995)

[5] Ryan, J. (2007, May 31). Dishonesty by Officer Requires Termination. Retrieved February 24, 2022

from http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/1894-dishonesty-by-officer-requires-

termination-