Essay On Police And Truthfulness

Police managers or executives do not take the decision to terminate a police officer or any criminal justice employee casually. This is especially true when it comes to making the decision to terminate a law enforcement officer. When police managers consider the termination of a police officer, it is usually for the serious violation of policy or with the compromise of the credibility of the officer. Nothing undermines the credibility of an individual more than untruthfulness. Truthfulness is one of the fundamental tenets of the law enforcement profession, and like trust, is part of the foundation for a good relationship between communities and law enforcement. A police officer, who is untruthful, is a liability for a criminal justice organization.
These cases are Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The decisions in Brady and Giglio are further expanded in other decisions including United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), United States v. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667 (1985), Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U. S. 419 (1995), and most recently in Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 165 P. 3d 1266 (2007). The Supreme Court decision of Brady v. Maryland in 1963 resulted in a landmark decision that significantly affected the criminal justice system (Rothlein, 2007). Brady, the petitioner in Brady v. Maryland, was a co-defendant in a murder trial where the state did not divulge to the defense a statement made by the other co-defendant. The statement in question was an admission by the other co-defendant admitting to the actual killing that the prosecuting attorney withheld from the court. The withholding of this evidence led to the conviction of Brady. Upon appeal, the court decided that by withholding evidence favorable to the accused, the prosecutor violated the Due Process Clause (Hochman, 1996). The decision in Giglio v. United States expanded the duties of disclosure the prosecution has in criminal cases. In Giglio v. United States, the concern was a deal between the state and the co-conspirator in exchange
The fact is that the untruthfulness of a police officer, especially when under an official investigation or when documenting official records, comes with a very high cost. There is a cost to the officer, to the family of the officer, and to the organization. Untruthfulness may also affect past criminal cases, and current cases awaiting a hearing. For the officer and the family, it means loss of a job, income, and benefits such as health insurance. Additionally, it means that the officer may not be able to gain future employment in the field of criminal justice. For the organization, it may mean the loss of an experienced officer. However, the loss of the organization by terminating an officer is minimal compared to keeping an officer with the stigma of untruthfulness. Even if an officer was untruthful only one time, the reality is that the officer crossed the line and the integrity of the officer is no longer intact. The fact that the officer lied speaks boisterously of the character for the officer. The Bible addresses of importance of truthfulness in Proverbs 14:5 (NIV) which states, “An honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies.” From the moment, an officer has a documented incident of untruthfulness; the courts can no longer consider the officer a credible witness. In turn, the police officer will never be able to testify again in a court of law, especially when