According to the California Innocence Project

“Police misconduct encompasses illegal or unethical actions or the violation of individuals’ constitutional rights by police officers in the conduct of their duties.”

Black’s Law Dictionary defines misconduct, in this context, in part as

“Any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause.”

These definitions, and others we might find, come close. I would personally define police misconduct as

“Any willful or negligent violation of an applicable policy, rule, or other regulation; or of any statutory or case law, when committed by a sworn or civilian, paid or volunteer, police employee.”

This article deals primarily with misconduct committed by sworn police officers.

Regardless of the source, and there are many, I think most people can agree that police misconduct boils down to a violation of both public trust and professional standards. Misconduct can take many forms and span a wide spectrum of seriousness.

Some Examples

An officer who, absent a reasonable justification, fails to file or correct a police report in a timely manner has committed misconduct, because there exists a policy requiring that he or she do so.

An officer who parks his or her car in a red curb and then enters a restaurant to have a meal has committed misconduct, because there exists a policy prohibiting that and because it is a clear abuse of his or her authority.

An officer who uses excessive force in making an arrest has committed misconduct, because there exists a policy prohibiting that, because it is a clear abuse of his or her authority, and because it may ultimately be deemed unlawful.

An officer who violates the civil or constitutional rights of others under color of authority has committed misconduct, because there exist policies prohibiting that, because it is a clear abuse of his or her authority, and because it is a violation of both state and federal law.

Given the number of policies, rules, regulations, and statutory and case laws that apply to law enforcement, the number of ways an officer might commit some form of misconduct is considerable.

Proving and Documenting Police Misconduct

As I have written in the past, all police misconduct is wrong and, if proven, should result in the strongest sanctions that policy and/or law allow. Not all questionable conduct is automatically misconduct, however, and not all misconduct rises to the level of a tort or a crime.

As with any offense committed by anyone else, an offense of police misconduct must be proven to a reasonable and objective standard before the officer can be punished. I would not presume to claim that we discover all police misconduct which actually occurs nor that it all can be proven. Unfortunately, police agencies and the governments of which they are a part can only deal with the misconduct which comes to their attention and can only punish the misconduct which can be proven objectively.

Condemning misconduct is proper. By the same token it seems unreasonable to paint the entire law enforcement profession, or an entire police department, with a broad brush of condemnation, because of misconduct committed by a relative few.

To my mind, though, the true challenge is less in proving misconduct than in accurately documenting the degree to which it occurs, particularly at the state and national levels.

At LBPD, there exist thorough Internal Affairs records for every officer who has ever had a formal complaint filed or opened against him or her. The longer an employee serves, the larger such files typically, and unfortunately, become. Not necessarily because each officer commits increased amounts of misconduct, but because they often receive complaints whether those complaints are valid or not and each complaint has to be investigated, and each investigation thoroughly documented.

Part of the Internal Affairs Division’s responsibility is to accurately track complaints against officers in LBPD and to provide regular and thorough summaries to Chief Luna and his Command staff.

According to California law, Internal Affairs files are considered part of police officers’ confidential personnel records, thus they are not made available to the general public. Officers have the right to review their own files (under supervision) and department supervisors, managers, and executives may review them as needed. On occasion, the City Manager and elected Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Attorney may also review these files.

To my knowledge, however, there is no government-managed statewide or nationwide database which tracks police misconduct. Given the violation of public trust which misconduct represents, this surprises me. At the very least, State Attorney’s General should collect related data and then voluntarily share it with the U.S. Attorney General for the same purpose…tracking police misconduct and analyzing the types that occur and the discipline typically imposed.

Who Does Misconduct Harm?

First and most importantly, the recipient of the officer’s misconduct is harmed, whether physically, financially, or by being unlawfully deprived of his or her rights to some degree.

Government is harmed. Elected officials are often extremely frustrated with police misconduct, especially the very serious sort, which often results in claims against the city for monetary damages. The Mayor and Council have to approve the settlement of these claims or agree to have the City Attorney litigate them in the event of a lawsuit. Payouts for officer misconduct can –and do- cost the city millions and millions of dollars.

Other cops are harmed. Few people are more frustrated and angered by bad cops than other police officers. Those few bad cops among them only make their own jobs that much harder and, often, far less safe. Given the officers killed and assaulted statistics I reported in my last Op-Ed, no professional police officer wants his or her job made any harder or any more uniquely hazardous than it already is.

The people in the community are harmed. The general public is especially justified in being angry and frustrated with bad cops. As is well known, the police derive their authority from the very public they serve. The public asks a great deal of its police officers and provides them with a great deal of trust, authority, and resources so they can meet the community’s policing needs. When the police violate their community’s trust, they slowly begin to lose the public’s support. Without the public’s moral and financial support, cooperation, and voluntary consent to submit to police authority, local police departments simply cannot function effectively and, in severe cases, may be disbanded altogether.

In Part 2 of this article, I will discuss in greater detail some attempts to quantify and analyze police misconduct in the United States and highlight some violations of public trust by former Long Beach Police Officers.

In Part 3 of this article I will suggest some ways to improve police-community relations, generally and propose some ways police oversight in Long Beach may be improved.

Editor’s note: the views expressed in this OP-ED do not necessarily reflect those of the Long Beach Post, its staff, or its ownership. To submit a letter to the editor or an OP-ED, please email [email protected].