Truthfulness in Law Enforcement Essay

From the point of recruitment, law enforcement agencies require their officers to observe higher personal standards than the general public they have sworn to serve. This is especially important when the agency is facing criticism from citizens, and the law professionals find themselves trapped in a societal microscope. However, despite the situation, law enforcement officers are required to adhere to a strict code of truthfulness in whatever they do within the agency premises or generally while on duty. This is to ensure that the actions of the officers conform with public ethics, policies, the notion of morality and the law they swore to observe and protect. Therefore, law enforcement individuals are required to be truthful at all times and are prohibited from establishing conditions upon which they can be truthful.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It has come to my attention that some officers are under investigation for inappropriate use of office computers, particularly in the patrol division. The report I received also indicated that one particular officer denied these allegations even after being presented with sufficient evidence suggesting that he used his computer to search pornographic websites. This memo is a reminder not only to use your work hours for work but also to highlight the implication of untruthful police officers to the department and to the public they serve. Just like stated in Proverbs 12:22, The LORD detests lying lips, but He delights in people who are trustworthy; the police officers must understand that the criminal justice system and everyone involved relies heavily on their honesty. Therefore, they must be familiar with the continuum of untruthfulness. For instance, law enforcement officers must understand that judges rely on their honesty in evaluating warrants thereby, they must be truthful at all times. Similarly, both senior supervisors and prosecutors depend on police truthfulness when rendering decisions and while prosecuting criminals. In addition, officers must understand that jurors highly depend on police sentiments testimonies to determine guilt or innocence during prosecution.

In this memo, I want to stress that officers' untruthfulness can have a great impact not only to the officer involved but also the agency as agencies are required by law to disclose officer's untruthfulness in any criminal proceeding the officer is involved. Proverbs 14:5 states that an honest witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies, and for this reason, untruthful officers are view by the court as incredible witnesses. In any law enforcement department, truthfulness is considered a virtue and a serious obligation which officers have to follow to the latter, otherwise might compromise their testimonies in the prosecution of criminal cases. Similarly, untruthfulness is seen to undermine the legitimacy of police work because the general public depends highly on police discreetness on the street and in the court of law. This means that every officer in the department must strive not only to gain the trust of fellow officers but also the trust of the public in which he/she severs. In addition, untruthfulness among police officers can undermine the overall success of the law enforcement agency. For example the perception of the public on police personnel reflects on the entire criminal justice system therefore actions by individual officers can impact the agency's overall success. Moreover, the work of law enforcement is even in line with the teachings of the book of James 3:1, which states that; not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. Ideally, law enforcement is often held at a higher standard of conduct compared to that of the ordinary citizens and as such, police officers must act in a manner that is trustworthy and brings respect and honor to the agency.

Brady Rule notes that the prosecution must always disclose to the defendant any information which contradicts the credibility of any witness, particularly the police witnesses. For instance, considering a case of Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court concluded that suppression of any evidence by the prosecution no matter the intention violates due process. Similarly, on Giglio v. U.S, the US Supreme Court applied the collective knowledge doctrine and suggested that exculpatory information given to defendant must include insight on the credibility of the law enforcement witnesses. Additionally, the US Supreme Court later added that it is the duty of the prosecution to share exculpatory information with the defendant team even without an official request in US vs. Agurs case. Moreover, according to the court's decision on Kyles v. Whitley case, it is the duty of the prosecution to learn any evidence in favor of the defendant and share that information with the same.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as evidence suggests, law enforcement officers are prohibited from conducting fraudulent activities that can be seen to violate or breach both the public trust and the departmental policies. As the Chief of Police of this municipality, I believe that any officer found engaging in untruthful conducts must forever be removed from any police activity in which the officer could be called upon as a witness.

References

Grossman, J. M. (2016). Getting Brady Right: Why Extending Brady vs. Maryland's Right to Plea Negotiations Better Protects a Defendant's Constitutional Rights in the Modern Legal Era. BYU L. Rev., 1525.

Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 137-149.

Serota, M. (2011). Stare Decisis and the Brady Doctrine. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev., 5, 415.

Starger, C. (2012). Expanding Stare Decisis: The Role of Precedent in the Unfolding Dialectic of Brady v. Maryland. Loy. LAL Rev., 46, 77.