One of the criticisms leveled against the Ferguson, Missouri, police department
One of the criticisms leveled against the Ferguson, Missouri, police department in the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting was that there was a six-day lag between the shooting and when the police department identified the officer involved as Darren Wilson. When Eric Garner died in Staten Island, the officer involved, Daniel Pantaleo, was identified quickly after the video of the event circulated in the news media, even though New York has extremely protective legislation protecting officers’ identities in discipline investigations. The other officers involved were not identified (Goodman and Baker, 2015). In South Carolina, when Walter Scott was shot by Officer Michael Slager on April 4, 2015, the police chief released the officer’s name, again after the video of the event began circulating in the news media. It is unclear what might have happened if the video had not been recorded on a cellphone camera by a bystander.
When there is a shooting by a police officer, should the police department release the name of the officer(s) involved? This is a hotly contested issue since when officers’ names are released after shootings, they are reportedly the subject of death threats. Especially recently, relations between police departments and some communities have sunk to dangerous levels of enmity, and officer-involved shootings may serve as a flashpoint for retaliatory violence. Certainly, police have a right to be concerned after the 2014 assassinations of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos in New York City by a man supposedly “avenging” the death of Michael Brown. In Arizona, a bill was quickly written and passed by the state legislature that would mandate officers’ names be kept private for 60 days after a shooting as a “cooling off” period (SB 1445). Governor Doug Ducey vetoed the bill on March 30, 2015 (“Ducey vetoes bill…”, 2015), but proponents argue such protection is necessary.
In one case in Fairfield County, Virginia, the complexity of the issue was frustratingly clear to members of the Board of Supervisors, who were conflicted about whether they owed the public transparency in revealing the names and details of a shooting or should keep the information private while the disciplinary and legal procedures ensued; however, after 17 months, the investigation had not been completed and the public had lost trust that the response to the shooting was fair and unbiased. Due process for the victim and the officer(s) involved must be balanced against the public’s right to know. Release of investigatory information during an active investigation or before any legal proceedings may bias the case; however, there is widespread belief among citizens that police officer shootings are not investigated thoroughly and that the victims of such shootings do not receive a fair investigation unless there is public pressure on the criminal justice system. The result is that some jurisdictions release very little information, sometimes not even the officer’s name, and other jurisdictions release thousands of pages of investigatory reports (Olivo, 2015).
Law
The law is different across jurisdictions regarding how much may be revealed about ongoing investigations. If legislation like Arizona’s is more successful in other locales, it may soon be illegal to disclose an officer’s name. Generally, it is left to the discretion of the police department and city administrators as to whether and when to release an officer’s name after a shooting. Eventually his or her name must be revealed, but the issue revolves around how soon and how many details of the shooting should be released. There is no law that mandates the disclosure of this type of information, but there are laws that exempt police investigatory reports from open records requests. At least 26 states completely shield discipline records from public disclosure (Goodman and Baker, 2015).
Policy
Police and city administrators owe a duty to the public they serve but they also owe a duty of care to the officers who are their employees. They have a responsibility to ensure that their actions do not needlessly put officers in harm’s way. In recent cases, officers who become the target of public scrutiny have had their personal information revealed to the public by hackers and been the target of threats. The public has a right to a fair and impartial investigation and it is more difficult to believe this is occurring when secrecy shields even the officer’s name. Ultimately, it is an issue of rights with the officer and his/her family members’ rights balanced against the rights of the public and shooting victim’s family.
Ethics
Even before the benefit of a discussion of ethical systems that will follow, individuals may argue that the public’s right to know must outweigh the right of the officer to have his identity remain private. Civilians involved in shootings and accused of other criminal acts are routinely identified in the news media before due process might exonerate them. Only juveniles and rape victims are protected from public identification. It is important to note that the issue of safety can be divorced from the issue of public identification. Only unreasonable or evil people would agree that officers or their families deserve extra-judicial punishment; therefore, one can agree with the “rightness” of public identification without also supporting the potential aftermath. The ethical solution would be to serve the public’s need/right to know and the officer’s right to safety.
For this assignment, address Situation 5 at the end of chapter 2. This is a common problem that some officers have faced at one point in their careers. If you were the officer that came across this disturbing evidence, how would you proceed? Be sure to address each of the questions in the situation.
Your paper must include:
A minimum of 250 words.
Sufficient details about the chosen situation.
All questions have been answered.
Current APA formatting guidelines, which include: double-spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman font.
A paper that has been proofread for grammar, spelling, mechanics, and style.
