Police corruption is a problem on the rise in the United States, as officers misuse their authority for personal gain. To address this issue, certain elements are crucial: an Internal Affairs department, strong leadership, and community support. In urban areas, it is not uncommon to come across articles in local newspapers or police-related publications detailing instances of corrupt police officers. It is worth noting that police corruption has significantly increased due to involvement in illegal cocaine trade. Officers frequently engage in solo or group efforts to steal money from drug dealers or even participate in distributing cocaine themselves. Major cities such as New York, New Orleans, Washington DC, and Los Angeles have made numerous arrests of corrupt officers.
The text examines external corruption and internal corruption as the two main types of corruption in police departments. The research project specifically emphasizes external corruption, which has recently received more attention. To give a firsthand perspective, the author incorporates accounts of corruption from major cities, particularly New York, where they have lived during the past year. Various sources such as articles from the New York Times and books on police corruption were used to gather information for this project. These sources provided definitions, background data, and insights into different forms, causes, and mechanisms of corruption.
Policing corruption is typically seen as the misuse of power by a law enforcement officer while acting in an official capacity to satisfy personal desires or demands. In order for corruption to take place, all three specific elements of police corruption must be present concurrently:
1) Problems arose as a result of mishandling authority.
Error in managing official duties.
3) Dantzker (1995: p 157) discusses the mishandling of personal attainment.
While power has a tendency to corrupt, it is crucial to recognize that policemen are as prone to fallibility as anyone else in society. Yet, when policemen are discovered violating the law, people frequently experience profound shock and anger. This reaction primarily stems from the sense of betrayal caused by their aberrant conduct. Numerous studies suggest that corruption is prevalent, if not ubiquitous, within police departments.
According to Sherman (1978: p 31), corruption within the police force poses a risk as it can go against the organization’s intended goals and lead to the misuse of authority for promoting and enabling criminal activities instead of preventing them.
Police corruption can be divided into two main categories: external corruption, which occurs when police interact with the public, and internal corruption, which refers to corrupt relationships among police officers within the department. External corruption often involves one or more of the following activities:
1) Payoffs are made to the police by individuals who essentially breach non-criminal elements and do not adhere to strict statutes or city ordinances.
2) Individuals who repeatedly break the law use various methods to earn illegal money and pay off the police.
3) The practice of “Clean Graft” involves paying money to the police for their services or offering regular discounts as a courtesy to them.
Police officers frequently engage in illegal activities, such as extorting money and drugs from individuals involved in drug offenses. These offenders avoid arrest by offering bribes and supplying drugs to the police officers, who then sell them for profit. Despite being aware of these violations, the police officers fail to take appropriate enforcement action. Additionally, they develop personal relationships with drug criminals and sometimes use narcotics themselves. In court, they provide false testimonies to secure the dismissal of charges against defendants (Sherman 1978: p 129).
Scandals like these are socially constructed phenomena that can cause significant changes in organizational power structures. Over a century, New York has faced numerous major scandals involving its police department. The Knapp Commission gained attention in 1972 for uncovering corruption within the New York Police Department after a two-year investigation. Bribery was found to be widespread, particularly among narcotics officers.
As a result, many officers were prosecuted and lost their jobs. This led to a comprehensive restructuring process with strict rules and regulations implemented to prevent future problems. However, it is important to note that the issue resurfaced later on.
In 1992, five officers in New York City were arrested on drug-trafficking charges, shining a spotlight on police corruption. One officer, Michael Dowd, became infamous for his involvement in illegal activities. He started with small favors and gradually escalated to stealing money confiscated during drug raids and robbing drug dealers. Dowd assembled a group of officers in his Brooklyn precinct who regularly targeted dealers. Eventually, a dealer paid Dowd and another officer $8,000 per week for protection. Without arousing suspicion about his income source, Dowd used the money to buy houses and a luxury car.
In May 1992, Suffolk County police arrested Dowd and four other officers for drug trafficking. This not only exposed corrupt officers but also revealed that their crimes had been uncovered by a suburban police force. The incident raised concerns among politicians and media outlets about the effectiveness of the system established 21 years earlier to combat police corruption. Officer Frank Serpico and others testified about extensive networks of corrupt officers throughout the city based on recommendations from the Knapp Commission (New York Times, March 29, 1993: p 8). In the same hearing room where the Knapp Commission was held many years ago, Dowd and other officers added yet another scandalous chapter to the ongoing narrative of police corruption.According to a report from the New York Times on April 3, 1993 (p.5), the worrisome phenomenon of drug money potentially seeping into police departments raised concerns in multiple cities across America.
According to reports, a significant number of corrupt acts committed by police officers involve bribery from both the perpetrators and the individuals involved in victimless crimes. The Knapp commission conducted an investigation in New York and found that corruption among police officers was not limited to a specific area, but a majority of it involved money being exchanged between law enforcement and gamblers and prostitutes (Knapp Commission Report, 1973: PP 1-3). Michael Armstrong, former chief counsel to the Knapp Commission, stated that “police officers involved in corruption two decades ago accepted money to conceal criminal activities of others,” but now it appears that officers are rivaling street criminals (Newsweek, Oct 21,1992: p. 18).
Gambling syndicates in the 1950’s had a more elaborate payoff system than the Internal Revenue Service. Some experts believe that pervasive corruption has decreased in recent years, but there are still individual examples of outrageous behavior. In March of 1993, authorities in Atlanta exposed a group of weight-lifting officers who were accused of robbing strip clubs and private homes. They even managed to steal a 450-lb. safe from a retail store (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11). The drug trade has resulted in an overwhelming influx of cash, providing unprecedented opportunities for quick and illegal money-making.
During the 1980’s, Philadelphia saw over 30 officers convicted for extorting money from drug dealers. Similarly, in Los Angeles, the LA County sheriff’s department faced an FBI investigation that resulted in 36 indictments and 19 convictions for thefts during drug raids. This amounted to over $1 million in one case alone. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Bauer stated that the deputies’ focus was more on pursuing money rather than drugs (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p.11). As cities grow, their police forces must quickly address public concerns about crime. However, this can lead to hiring younger officers while reducing well-trained and suitable ones. This issue played a significant role in a corruption scandal in Miami during the mid-1980s where around 10% of Miami’s police force were imprisoned, fired or disciplined due to their involvement in a scheme where they robbed and sometimes killed cocaine smugglers on the Miami River before reselling the drugs. Many of these officers were quickly hired following the 1980 riots and the Mariel boatlift.Department spokesman Dave Magnusson acknowledges that they did not obtain officers of desired caliber (Carter, 1989: pp.78-79).Former Miami police chief Perry Anderson recalls facing significant challenges in his attempts to reform the police force. He explains that members of the civil service board often opted to shield corrupt officers from disciplinary action if there was insufficient tangible evidence for conviction in court. Anderson specifically mentions his struggle to terminate 25 individuals who possessed tarnished badges (Carter, 1989: pp.78-79).
The Los Angeles sheriff’s department is measured not by officers’ susceptibility to money, but by the presence of a culture that discourages corruption. FBI special agent Charlie Parsons affirms their collaboration in the investigation (Washington Post, Jan 18, 1993: p. 11). In response to the Knapp Commission findings, New York City police department’s internal affairs division gained recognition for its effectiveness against corruption. Yet, police sergeant Joseph Trimboli faced obstruction from higher-ranking officials when attempting to uncover corruption involving Dowd and other officers within the department. Trimboli even recounted being accused of drug trafficking during a meeting with police officials who opposed his investigation. According to Trimboli, “They didn’t want this investigation to happen.”
(New York Times, April 3, 1993: p. 5). The commissioner of the New York City police department was mentioned during this period.
Raymond Kelly introduced several reforms to enhance internal affairs, such as expanding the staff and improving the coordination of field investigations. However, critics argue that these changes were insufficient and occurred too late in the process following Kelly’s initial announcements.
Obtaining information about corrupt police officers was even more difficult when officers were encouraged to report wrongdoing within their own department. Internal affairs divisions, present in many cities, are resented by fellow officers for getting them to turn in their colleagues. In some cases, police-academy cadets are even recruited as informers. Walter Mack, New York’s deputy commissioner of internal affairs and a former federal prosecutor, acknowledges the existence of a cultural problem within the department that allows corruption to thrive. He emphasizes that effecting cultural change takes time. Dowd, who pleaded guilty and received a prison sentence, expresses the reluctance of cops to report on their peers. He highlights the lack of receptiveness from authorities even when honest cops are willing to blow the whistle. Finding a solution to the police corruption problem is unlikely, as corruption has persisted throughout policing history despite various attempts to eradicate it. Strategies implemented by police agencies, such as increasing salaries, enhancing training and education requirements, and developing policies targeting corruptive factors, have been pursued.
Although police departments make efforts to control corruption, it remains prevalent and cannot be ignored. To effectively limit corruption, it is necessary to control both the individual police officer and the environmental factors that contribute to corruption. Therefore, controlling corruption requires collaboration and support from both the police department and the community members.
Controlling corruption within a department requires a strong leadership organization. Corruption can occur at any level, from patrol officers to chiefs. It is crucial for the top administrator to clearly convey their stance against any form of corrupt activity and their commitment to not tolerating it. Failure to take disciplinary action against corruption sends a message of leniency and may even encourage more corruption among officers, as they believe they will face no consequences.
To address the corruption problem in police agencies, several key areas require focus. Firstly, it is crucial to prioritize ethics and proper behavior during training academy instruction. Neglecting this aspect would result in officers being unaware of the consequences linked to corruption, potentially promoting its occurrence.
Furthermore, it is advisable for police departments, particularly larger ones, to establish an Internal Affairs unit. This unit would be responsible for investigating any instances of misconduct within the department. In certain cases, these units may operate internally; however, in other situations, they may involve an external agency to ensure impartiality and prevent corruption within the Internal Affairs unit itself. This approach effectively deters officers from engaging in corrupt behavior patterns and safeguards the integrity of the police force.
Despite the police department’s responsibility for controlling its own corruption problem, it also requires support from the local community. Educating the public about the negative impacts of corruption on the police agency is crucial. The community can establish review boards and investigative bodies to closely monitor the agency. If corruption is not addressed, it can have significant consequences for individuals, their department, the law enforcement community, and society as a whole. Police corruption can be managed with extra effort, benefiting both the agency and the community (Walker, 1992: p.89).
Concerns have always been raised regarding the powers granted to the police by the state to use force. Although efforts have been made to control corruption, opportunities for deviant and corrupt practices still exist within the police subculture where fellow members often overlook and tolerate officers engaging in such behavior.
As stated earlier in this paper, completely eradicating police deviance and corruption is impossible just as eliminating all crime in society is unrealistic. However, steps can be taken to minimize it through surveillance and regulation of law enforcement along with proper implementation of policing methods that enforce laws and serve the public effectively (Policing Methods).
The relationship between police corruption and organized crime is easily understood. If there is no corruption present, it would be significantly more challenging for organized crime groups to conduct their illegal activities. If we imagine a hypothetical city or town without any corruption, these criminal organizations would struggle to operate at their usual pace. Conversely, a city with high levels of police corruption would greatly benefit illegal businesses associated with organized crime. Typically, law enforcement agencies pose a major obstacle for these criminal groups, but corruption undermines their efforts and mitigates most of the issues they would otherwise face.
