In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

65 CHAPTER FOUR Exploring Career-Ending Misconduct in the NYPD Who,What, and How Often As the title suggests, this chapter is descriptive in its scope and intent, focusing on several of the basic questions that frame the study. Specifically, we examine two broad questions related to police misconduct: 1. What was the nature and prevalence of organizational misconduct during this 22-year period that included a fairly complete cycle of scandal and reform? 2. What were the relevant personal and career history characteristics most responsible for distinguishing between officers who engaged in career-ending misconduct and officers who did not? In simple terms: who, what, and how often? The chapter begins with our new misconduct classification scheme, which was developed through review of the misdeeds of the study officers and with the goal of addressing many of the definitional problems that have limited prior research. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to examining the prevalence of police misconduct both overall and over time (the “how often”), as well as the most common types of misdeeds (the “what,” using our new classification scheme). Last, we explore the background and characteristics of study and control officers (the “who”) searching for notable differences that will serve as a launching point for the multivariate analyses in the next chapter. The Jammed Up Police Misconduct Classification Scheme Although there is a fair amount of consensus on the key elements of the major forms of police misconduct (e.g., physical abuse of authority), there are myriad factors that make a precise definition of police misconduct elusive . These include misbehaviors that “fit” multiple definitions of misconduct (e.g., can be defined as both corruption and police crime), that are not related to the person’s position as a police officer (not police crime), are administrative violations but not criminal, and misbehaviors that occur when the officer is off-duty. Several case studies illustrate these problems. Case Study Recall Mitchell Tisdale, who was introduced in chapter 1. He was the officer who had an extramarital affair with a woman he met 66 Exploring Career-Ending Misconduct in the NYPD at a bar while off-duty. During their encounter, a struggle over his firearm ensued, and the woman ultimately was shot to death. Tisdale disposed of his gun and failed to report the incident. Tisdale’s actions subsequent to the shooting amounted to police misconduct to the extent that he was charged administratively with “failure to safeguard a firearm.” This, however, is not a classic, or clear-cut, case of police misconduct because (1) Tisdale’s actions that led to the shooting were not precisely related to his position as a police officer, and (2) the shooting itself was deemed to be noncriminal. Tisdale clearly violated department policy, as well as failing to take proper action as a police officer once the shooting occurred. We classify Tisdale as having committed police misconduct because of his clear intentions to evade responsibility for the shooting incident, as well as the fact that the only reason he possessed a firearm at the time of the shooting was because he was a police officer. Specifically, Tisdale fits the administrative/ failure to perform criterion, and perhaps even the obstruction of justice definition, even though he was not charged for that offense either administratively or criminally. Case Study Recall Paul Barrett, also introduced in chapter 1. Barrett and his partner responded to investigate a possible deceased person call in a Brooklyn apartment. Upon their arrival, Barrett and his partner discovered that the resident of the apartment was indeed deceased. Before calling the city’s medical examiner’s office, the two officers conducted a search of the apartment, finding a stack of U.S. savings bonds. Once they cleared the call, the officers went to the bank (in plain clothes with Paul impersonating the deceased owner of the bonds) to try to cash the bonds. The two were subsequently arrested and fired from the department, but Paul was the only one convicted of a crime: conspiracy. Both officers clearly committed a profit-motivated crime; and despite the fact that Paul’s partner was not convicted criminally, we nevertheless retain him in the study as a jammed up officer. Case Study Finally, recall Rochelle Bearie, the divorced mother of three who, prior to entering the NYPD in 1993 as a police officer, was receiving public assistance income for herself and her three daughters. She did not inform the NYPD that she was receiving public assistance...

Share