NCJ Number
92407
Date Published
1982
Length
29 pages
Annotation
Police officers are ethically justified in violating their rules of office when it can be shown that such violations can implicitly achieve the aim of the rule violated more effectively than would adherence to the rule in the circumstances at issue, without detracting from any of the rule's other aims.
Abstract
Police justifications for disinterested violations of their rules of office center in their claims that such violations contribute to the more effective fulfillment of the criminal justice goal of maintaining a minimally just social order than would be the case if the rules were followed in the situations in question. Four general types of disinterested rule violations are (1) the meting out of justice via violations of the Constitution (illegal searches and seizures that secure incriminating evidence), (2) meting out justice via selective enforcement of the law (making arrests based upon officer determination of who is and is not deserving of punishment), (3) the promotion of social order via violations of the Constitution (preventive stop-and-frisk), and (4) the promotion of social order via selective enforcement of the law (failure to arrest so as to promote a more efficient use of police resources). The first three of these rule violations involve infractions that inflict legal or social harm on citizens, which overrides any justification for the rule violations. The fourth rule violation does not involve harm to any citizen and promotes the more efficient fulfillment of the ultimate aim of law enforcement. No rule violation, however, should become a matter of routine practice. Non-enforcement practices should be tested in the courts, and if they are determined to be legally acceptable, specific guidelines for the use of such practices should be set. Seventeen notes are listed.