AN EVALUATION OF THE FORMAL- DISCIPUNARY PROCEDURES OF THREE METROPQLETH‘! PGLTCE EEPARTMENTS WITH A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE GUIDE That-ls for ”10 Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Bruce C. Young 1963 “:1 fly”!!! will Lu! (T 1 1M! llwllilllljllzl u AN EVALUATION OF THE FORMAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OF THREE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE GUIDE An Abstract of a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Police Administration and Public Safety Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by Bruce C . Young April 1963 APPROVED ' ,2 (Chairman) \‘fit; End/3- /:"7\" °" " ’ MMJWPAA (Member) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should like—to express mw'appreciation to the Provost Marshal General of the Army and to the United States Army for providing the op- portunity'to continue my education while on active duty as a Major in the Military Police Corps. To Hr. Samuel Chapman,:my thesis adviser, my sincere apprecia- tion for his guidance and suggestions to source material. MU’thanks also to Mr. George Eastman and Mr. Frank Day for their views and can— ments on this effort while in all stages of preparation. MW'special thanks to Senior Inspector Fred wright, Detroit Police Department; Lieutenant Alfred Conrad, Chicago Police Department; and Deputy Commissioner'Walter.Arm, New'York Police Department, for their wholehearted cooperation in providing information concerning the disciplinary practices of their departments. B.C.Y; TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Prdblem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 1 Definitions of Terms Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis . . . . . . . 7 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Police Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Employee Discipline in Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Personnel.Amministration.Literature . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Military Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 III. DISCIPLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 35 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leadership Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 IV. A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE FORMAL DISCIPLINARY . PROCEDURES OF THREE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS . . . 55 Chicago 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 55 Detroit 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 67 New York 0 O I O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O 76 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, PROBLEMS PROPOSED PROCEDURE GUIDE . Summary Conclusions . . . . . . . Prdblems to be Answered . Proposed Procedure Guide . BIBLIOGRAPHY............ OTIiER SOURCE O O O O O O O O O O O 0 APPENDIX A. the Chicago Police Department Proposed Change for Dealing with Minor Violations in iv PAGE 88 88 9]. 91 110 117 119 TABLE II. III. IV. LIST OF TABLES An.AnaTysis of 584 Cases Selected From the Records of the New York City Police Department for the Years 1931-1950 . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . Boston Police Department Disciplinary Actions for the Period 1907 through 1932 . . . . . . . . ...... Tabulation of Charges Preferred in the Cleveland Police Department During 1920 by Types of Offense . . . . . Type and Number of Previous Offenses Committed by Those Members of the Cleveland Police Department Tried in 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . Results of Disciplinary Trials Held in Cleveland Police Department During 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 22 24 25 26 27 FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Organization Chart, Chicago Police Department . ..... . 57 Organization Chart, Internal Investigation Division, Chicago Police Department . ..... . . ...... . 59 Organization Chart, Detroit Police Department . . . . . . . 69 Organization Chart, New Ybrk Police Department . . . . . . 78 AN EVALUATION OF THE FORMAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OF THREE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS WITH A RECOMMENDED PROCEDURE GUIDE A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the School of Police Administration and Public Safety Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by ‘ ‘3 \ ‘I14‘1'.J' 0"” Bruce C. Young April 1963 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The achievement of a professional status in the eyes of society has long been a goal of all dedicated police officers and administrators. To achieve and hold such status requires continued advancement in a number of areas. Police discipline is one such area. One need only be a casual reader of the news media, in recent years, to note that alleged crimes and improper actions on the part of police officers and organiza- tions are being widely reported. While such actions involve a relatively small percentage of the law enforcement profession, the damage done to the public image of the police and to the individual officer's pride in service is incalculable. .Although it is not suggested that the entire solution to disciplinary prdblems will lie in improved disciplinary pro- cedures, an intelligent understanding of the role of discipline in an organization combined with wise and dedicated leadership can do much to direct the individual officer to the proper course of action. A well organized disciplinary system, designed to provide the necessary authority for the supervisor, with due regard for the rights of the individual officer, is a goal worth seeking. I. THE PROBLEM t eme ‘9; the prOblem. This study concerns the formal disci- plinary procedures presently followed by three metropolitan police depart- ments. These are New York, New York; Chicago, Illinois; and Detroit, Michigan. The study includes all actions taken frcm the receipt of a complaint, or discovery of conduct meriting investigation, to the com- pletion of indicated corrective action. To complete the picture, the type and extent of the appeal procedure and its effect upon the disci- plinary procedures are considered. To maintain perspective, a study of the meaning and application of discipline as a tool of personnel adminis- tration is necessary. ‘Based upon these combined studies a recommended system.for the administration of discipline in police organization.has been prepared. mestiog to be mad. The first area of consideration con- cerns the broad aspects of discipline. Questions which.mmst be posed and answered include: 1. What are the objectives of police discipline? 2. What principles are utilized in the application of such discipline? 3. What practices have been established to apply the principles and achieve the Objectives? 4. What information is available concerning disciplinary prac— tices in industry and the United States military services which can be utilized by the American police? The second area of consideration involves a determination of the formal disciplinary practices of New YOrk City, Chicago, and Detroit. Questions to be answered include: 1. How are the services organized with regard to disciplinary process? 3 2. What policies and procedures are followed in disciplinary actions? 3. What appeal procedures are allowed? 4. Is the total process, including appellate process, effec— tive? Information will be presented to answer these questions and related prdblems. Imtortagce g; tge stugy. Bruce Smith, Sr., indicated his thoughts concerning the importance of police discipline when.he wrote, "sound discipline will prdbably contribute more to the solution of our municipal police problems than any other recourse now available."1 0. W. Wilson supports Mr. Smith by Observing that "the members of an undisciplined force lack esprit de corps; they suffer from a damaged morale and have a lackadaisical attitUde toward their work, their depart- ment, their supervisors, and the public."2 When discipline is improperly administered, conditions arise which are conducive to criminal or quasi- criminal acts by members of the service. The step from.petty graft to major crime is a short one. Where officers see delinquencies go unpunish- ed and crimes condoned it is difficult for them to maintain even a mini- mum of self-discipline. The growth and effect of such feelings have been lBruce Smith, Po;ice System g1, mg flnited States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940), PP. 171-172. 20. W. Wilson, Police Administration (New York: IMcGraweHill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 367. described by a psychologist: Police officers, especially in larger cities are prObably more often subject to painful temptation than any other profession. The temptation, usually in the form of money, or stock in trade of vice, can.hardly help but appeal. One side of the conflict is the very human desire for money, gifts, or other material gains or pleasures of the flesh. The other side of the conflict is the voice of conscience Which says the officer should be law abiding. The conflict is even more difficult when the police officer is frequently exposed to citizens whom.he knows are crooked, but whom.he watches prosper and succeed on the basis of their racket- eering, high-level thieving, or what-haveayou. The more he learns that Justice is a fickle lady who sometimes rewards the worst and punishes the best, the harder it is to resist temptation.3 It is evident that discipline is important to police and that by the very nature of the 30b, it must be of a type to fit the situation. The public has the right to expect an efficient and honest police organization, Just as the police have the right to expect support in all forms from the public they serve. Neither group will obtain these objec- tives when the police service is poorly disciplined. .Available references, for the most part, refer to discipline in broad, general terms. Detailed guidance to practices and procedures is lacking. While individual departments have developed programs with.many outstanding features, there seems to be little conscious or concerted effort to assemble, evaluate, and publish the results. One of the hall- marks of a profession is its comprehensive body of available reference material. This study will provide useful information to the police profession and will be of direct value to the student, teacher, and law enforcement practitioner. 3Richard H. Blum, "The Prdblems of'Being a Police Officer," Pg;;ce, 5: ll, November-December, 1960. 5 Limitations gt‘ttgngttdy, It is recognized that the legal au- thority of police administrators is frequently restricted with respect to the implementation of discipline within their units. many civil serv- ice regulations present formidable obstacles to the conscientious chief trying to raise the performance standards of his organization.4 This prOblem area was not considered in this study. This study has been limited to three large metropolitan police departments. While the limited scope may appear restrictive, it is be- lieved that the policies and procedures recommended could, with.minor modification be applied to any size police organization. This conver- sion will, of necessity, be left to the individual reader. Because of the rapid progress which has been made in all forms of police management since 1940, this study was limited, except for selected references used only for perspective and historical purposes, to references prepared since that time. II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED Discipline. The term discipline may be defined in.many ways, depending upon the objectives of the author. As derived from Latin, the word means simply to teach. Areas of learning such as medicine and law are referred to as disciplines. This concept of the term has little or no relationship to the common association of the term with punishment. 4A. C. Germann Police Personnel Magggement (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 19583, p. 169. 6 In another sense, some writers have viewed discipline in prac- tice as being positive or negative. Positive discipline is described as the results achieved through example, training, and other nonpunitive measures. Negative discipline is the threat or imposition of punishment upon the person who failed to conform, or in a sense, did not learn.5 For the purpose of this study, discipline, of necessity, was considered as a corrective procedure utilized when other actions had failed to pro- duce the desired result. m disci lin W. As used in this study, formal disciplinary procedures are those measures which are prescribed for the administrative control of the members of a law enforcement agency. Disciplinary procedures do not include such related personnel actions as transfer, nonselection for promotion, or corrective training. Moms. "Morale is the sum of several psychic qualities that include courage, fortitude, resolution, and above all, confidence."6 In short, morale is pride in self. Esprit _c_1_e_ corps. Esprit de corps is pride in unit:7 When such pride exists the individual cheerfully places the goals of the unit ahead of personal gain or desire. 5mm” pp. 165-66. 6 James D. Mooney, Ihe Principles pg gr ggptzation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), p. 125. . 7Department of the Army, Qomnander' 8 11a ndbook _ap_ M List, Pamphlet No. 22-2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952), p. . III. ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE THESIS As an aid to a general understanding of the problem, Chapter II consists of a review of the literature on the subject of discipline and police disciplinary procedures. Since discipline is not peculiar to police administration a survey of discipline in business and the mili— tary was included. Chapter III is devoted to the study of the theory of discipline. In order to intelligently evaluate present practices and propose a recom- mended procedure, it was necessary to understand the role of discipline in police services. Principles of leadership and discipline and their successful implementation at all levels of command are a necessary pre- requisite to the smooth operation of any formal disciplinary system. Chapter IV is a key portion of this thesis. In it the disci— plinary practices of the New York City, Chicago, and Detroit police departments are described and evaluated. Each department has formal procedures which differ from those of the other two. Consideration was given to varied aspects of the disciplinary system.of each department. Chapter V contains the conclusions and a recommended discipli- nary system. Also included are questions which were raised during this investigation but which were not within the scope of the thesis. A.sumr mary is provided to present the highlights of the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Literature, directly devoted to the detailed discussion of police disciplinary problems, is limited in scope. Several excellent volumes and numerous articles may be found dealing with the problems of discipline in business and industry. In particular, considerable attention has been devoted to discipline and leadership in articles concerning the military profession. Extensive studies have also been made and reported on the problems of discipline encountered by schools and parents in controlling children. While all of these sources are valuable and aid in the proper understanding of the whole problem they present a formidable barrier to the individual seeking canplete and direct guidance to the specific prob- lems of discipline encountered in police administration. I . POLICE LITERATURE A. C. Germann, in his text, WWW pre— sents the most detailed discussion of discipline found in any major work dealing exclusively with police management and personnel problems.l He opens his discussion of discipline in Chapter XVIII by noting: Probably the most delicate internal control problem facing the police executive is that of discipline. In a few unrepresentative police agencies, "mooching," "chiseling," drunkenness, inccmpetency, disloyalty, extortion, lechery, perjury, bad debts-—and a host of 1A. C. Germann Police Personnel Management (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1958;, pp. 164-74. 9 lesser offenses-ware thoroughly frowned upon, but just as thorough- ly "whitewashed" by police administrators sensitive to criticism and adept in covering up or minimizing such conduct.2 From this rather depressing view of police discipline, the author proceeds to a discussion of positive discipline and negative dis— cipline. He notes that positive discipline is the ideal approach to the problem but that where such efforts fail, negative discipline or punish- ment is the only solution.3 The role of all supervisors in the area of departmental disci- pline is emphasized. The use of positive disciplinary measures is urged with negative discipline as a last resort. This is a philosophy that is shared by all modern writers on the subject. Germann recamnends the use of a departmental trial or discipli- nary board to review the facts concerning individual disciplinary matters. Based upon this investigation, he asserts the board should offer recom- mendations to the chief as to action to be taken. The use of such a board is urged to "relieve the chief of police of the onus for discipli- nary action, and provides protection against ill-advised peremptory dis- ciplinary decision."4 This statement, when examined criticially, sug— gests that the chief is unwilling to personally and solely accept the responsibility for his actions and cannot be depended upon to act with judgment and consideration. The desire which the modern executive has to shirk responsibility is discussed by Jennings in his book Ap m 91 Legdership. The inclination of present day executives to place more 2%” p. 164. 33.1.1.4... pp. 166-69. 4M» p. 164. 10 and more responsibility on groups for decision-making, under the guise of advice, is viewed by Jennings as a device to escape responsibility.5 On the positive side it should be noted that in a large department dis- cipline is but one of the many responsibilities of the chief or superin- tendent which would make the use of such a board almost a necessity. In discussing the role of such boards Germann considers it desir— able for the previous record of the officer charged to be examined only after a finding of guilty has been reached and prior to determining a recanmended sentence. The unqualified right to counsel and appeal is recommended. No indication as to the extent of either right is suggested. "The use of a departmental investigative unitu'Internal Affairs Unit' or 'Shoo—fly' squad-18 recommended."6 With this picturesque phrase Germann endorses the use of a special group to investigate all complaints made against members of the organization. The use of the polygraph examination in disciplinary investiga— tions is recamnended by Germann.7 It is significant that none of the other references consulted considered this question. Unfortunately, the author did not indicate whether the administration of such tests was to be on an optional basis, what authority should exist to require submission to a polygraph examination, and the weight to be placed upon the results . r '— 5Eugene E. Jennings, 5;; w 2;: Leadership (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 28. 6Germann, pp. git” p. 171. 7:916. 11 The general types of offenses encountered are considered to fall into two categories--incanpetence and misconduct. The types of offenses falling under each category are discussed and general categories are es- tablished. The reason for considering offenses in this way is not dis- cussed. O. W. Wilson, presently Superintendent of Police in Chicago, Illinois, considers discipline in its broader sense in his text‘Epttpp W213. Among the points emphasized by Wilson are the necessity for making all complaints a.matter of record, and the responsibility of the immediate supervisor in all aspects of discipline.8 He indicates that the immediate supervisor has three basic responsibilities with respect to discipline. These are: (l) to discover the weakness, deficiency, failure, or overt act of a subordinate that indicates the need for corrective action, (2) to analyze all the factors involved in order to decide the most suitable action, and (3) to initiate and in.most instances to carry out the disciplinary action. Wilson forcefully urges that the police chief.must be supported by the city administration and points out, in emphatic terms, that the welfare of the department is more important than the rights of the indi- viduals in it. He takes the position that all doubt should be resolved in favor of the department rather than the individual in all disciplinary matters.10 He fUrther urges that appeal boards not be allowed to modi- fy the disciplinary actions of the chief, but that they restrict their 8O.W.Wilson, Police Admiptstration (New York: McCrawéHill Book Company, Inc., 1950), p. 367. 9mm, p. 369. 10:931., p. 371. l2 actions to publication of their findings concerning any matter brought to their attention.11 This firm, but not unsupportable attitude, toward the authority of the chief administrator may be detected in the discipli- nary practices utilized in Chicago at the present time. It is interest- ing to note that Wilson has expressed conflicting views concerning the selection of trial boards. In 1950 he stated: When severe disciplinary action is recommended or contemplated, he should appoint a departmental disciplinary board composed of members of the force, none with a rank below that of the officer charged, to review the facts in the case, to make further investi- gation when necessary, and to submit to him a recommended action. While departmental regulations may establish the relative ranks of board members, it is best that the members be selected on the basis of their competence and fairness and appointed by the chief for each hearing.12 Two years later Wilson wrote: The board may be appointed by the chief or elected by the force, or some members may be selected by the chief and the others by the force. A preferred method is a five-man board with two of its mem- bers designated by the chief and three elected by the force, one of the latter being selected by the committee as its chairman. The board should serve a year term but there should be no restriction on the reappointment or reelection of its members.13 Eight years later in 1960 Wilson directed the following procedure for the selection of the disciplinary board in the Chicago Police: There will be a Disciplinary Board appointed by the Superintend- ent comprised of: three Area Supervisors, or officers of equivalent or higher rank, and six captains who are not serving under the can- mand of one of the higher ranking members.l4 llipid. lzlpid. 130. W. Wilson, Police Plpggpg (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1952), p. 222. 14Department of Police, Chicago, Illinois, "General Order No. 16, 1960, " p. 136. 13 The basis for the changes in belief are not indicated by Wilson, but the course of action actually followed in Chicago is obviously more in keeping with his earlier reccmnendation. A new element in the selection of board members was introduced by Wilson in the second edition of Police P_La_pn_ipg, published in 1958. .. .The board may be appointed by the chief or be drawn by lot by the accused fran officers superior in rank to him but excluding those in his own organic unit. One or more may be drawn in excess of the number needed, with the accused privileged to select the board members frm the total number drawn. When drawn by lot, the board should elect one of its members to serve as chairman. While still Dean of the School of Criminology at the University of California, Wilson wrote a short article pertaining to personnel management in which he pointed out that management is canplex and that all actions are interrelated. Administration for the entire department was related to the selection of personnel; the fixing of responsibility; promotion policies; restriction of authority by civil service regulations; and the failure of leadership. It is for these reasons that discipline must generate and be maintained from the top down in a department and not fran the bottom up.16 Bruce Smith, Sr., who was an eminent police scholar, pointed out in his text, Police Systems _i_._n the United States, the evils of political pressure on police discipline and the problems presented by the require— ments for formal trials, even for minor offenses.l7 15O. W. Wilson, Potice IElannipg (second edition; Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1958) p. 242. 160. W. Wilson, "Problems in Police Personnel Administration," I113 Police e 00 1953 (Washington: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1953 , PP. 188-184. 1'7Bruce Smith, Po1ige m _ip the United fitptes (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), pp. 156-157. 14 Bruce Smith, Jr., published a revised edition of his father's text in 1960. Changes pertaining to disciplinein the revised edition included increased emphasis on the fear of censure by subordinates and elected superior which was viewed as part of the reason wry police super- visors were unwilling to assume their proper leadership role in discipli- narymatters.l8 .A rather surprising addition by Bruce Smith, Jr., in the revised text, was his observation that the reluctance of police supervisors to discipline stems from an adverse reaction to "crude, gruff methods of leadership" encountered during World War II military service.19 This seems an odd statement When considered in the light of the firmly estab- lished modern belief that leadership and positive disciplinary actions are the key to controlling behavior. Bruce Smith, Jr., further indicates that the use of motorized patrols has contributed to the difficulty of supervision and, hence, discipline.20 The effect of police associations and unions is believed by Bruce Smith, Jr. , to have been responsible for sane dilution of the chief's authority. He believed the trend to be turning in the other direction in 1960 but cited no supporting evidence.21 This prdblem area was explored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in a 1944 study which was further developed in a l8Bruce Smith, Poltpe Systems‘tp‘tpp_yp;ted fitgtes (rev.) Bruce Smith, Jr. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960), p. 245. 19:21.9” p. 246. 203.12., p. 248. 21mm... p. 247. l5 revised edition in.August, 1958. .A complete analysis of this study would be beyond the scope of this work but portions have a definite relation— ship to discipline. After presenting both sides of the issue of police unions as well as considering the legal aspects, the conclusion was reached that since police of necessity may not be given the right to strike or effectively use the other forms of collective bargaining the argument in favor of unionism becomes meaningless. In addition, if a police department is unionized it cannot help but deter professionaliza- tion since no true profession needs such a collective force. In view of the fact that police supervisors cannot set wages or in many instances take final action on dismissal of personnel these areas would become points of union pressure with a corresponding loss of authority and pres- tige on the part of the supervisor.22 Chapman, in his survey of the Police Department of Meriden, Connecticut, noted that the collective bargaining agreement being pro- posed for the police department of the city "...would further weaken command authority and responsibility and would impose working rules un- realistic in the light of the nature and requirements of police opera- tion..."23 Included in the agreement were provisions which would affect control over the prdbationary period; seniority rights and promotions; \ 22International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police flptppp (Bulletins on Police Prdblems, rev. ed. washington: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1958), pp. 1-74. 23Samuel G. Chapman, Polipe gag Eire §ep11ces p; tpp.gtty‘pf Merigeg, W (Chicago: Public Administrative Service, 1962), p. 14. l6 shift assignments; working hours; grievance procedures; and the right to suspend an officer for any period or reason without a hearing.24 While some of these provisions may seem innocuous on.the surface each represents a lessening of authority and an increase in the mechanics of disciplinary action. These same provisions which "protect" the indi- vidual are not to be ignored but in turn it should be recognized that they remove initiative and make mediocrity the standard. An additional disciplinary consideration involved in police unions is noted by Allen in the prObability of divided allegiance. Loyalty, unity of command, and impartiality are among the many essentials of police attitudes and administration which would be affected by such a situation.25 At the present time the American Federation of State, County, and municipal Employees has sixty-five municipal police departments and one state-AWisconsin—-affiliated with their union. These organizations have a combined total of about ten thousand officers. The total number of departments has not increased or decreased since 1958. While the totals are not large, they do indicate that police administrators will need to become more familiar with all aspects of this movement since it seems reasonable to conclude that union efforts to organize police will continue.26 24Ipid., pp. 14-16 25Edward J. Allen, "Police Unions and Other Police Organizations," The Eplice ieapbpok, 1953 (Washington: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1953), p. 179. 26Interviewwith.Bill Lange, American Federation of State, County, and municipal Employees, Washington, D. 0., January 22, 1963. 17 An interesting discussion of the police review board concept is found in the new text Iptroduction.tpHLp1 Eptorcement by Germann, Day, and Gallati. While not supporting the establishment of police review boards composed of citizens appointed or elected from outside the depart- ment, the authors suggest that persons advocating review boards may be motivated by other than Communistic objectives.27 The authors propose that such.movements may be better opposed by the establishment of more satisfactory procedures within the police departments, such as complaint review boards, use of nonvoting citizen Observers on internal discipli— nary boards, or the use of advisory boards composed of distinguished citizens "who could receive complaints of deficiencies of service or conduct, receive and consider the results of agency investigation, and make recommendations to the Chief of Police."28 They propose, moreover, that citizens should take a direct interest in police delinquencies and make complete reports of such inci- dents and recommend that law enforcement personnel should welcome this assistance and assist by thorough investigations, public trials, press coverage, and a follow-up report to the complainant of action taken.29 This is a more liberal welcoming of public participation and Observation of police disciplinary procedures than those proposed by other writers. Germann et a1. , however, strongly oppose any review board thich would take the responsibility of personnel management, including 27A. c. Germann, Frank D. Day, and Robert R. J. Gallati, Iatro- ductiop,tpflLat,Enforcemept (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1962), p. 192. 28mm” pp. 190-91. 291b1d_., pp. 189-90. 18 the authority and power to discipline, away from the law enforcement ad- ministrator.30 Two extremely strong articles against police review boards, charging that the movement supporting them is for subversive purposes, have been published in W Epagp Qffiicer. In companion articles Captain Edward M. Davis and Sergeant Norman H. Moore, both of Los Angeles, California Police Department, indicate that no matter what names are used by sponsors of the so-called "Police Review Boards" that they are moti- vated by chmmnistic objectives. The guiding spirit of the effort is indicated as the American Civil Liberties Union. Chief Stanley P. Schrotel of the Cincinnati, Ohio police is quoted as supporting this view and in being in opposition to such police review boards.31 This would appear to represent Chief Schrotel's present views on the subject which were expressed in response to a letter of inquiry as: The Cincinnati Police Division is opposed to the establishment of any type of Police Review Board to look into or make decisions relative to disciplinary action taken by our administrators in re- solving canplaints by citizens or misconduct by police officers.32 Davis has continued his opposition to the concept of police review boards and in a speech made recently included an analysis of the experience gained by the Philadelphia board after three years of operation. 30mm” pp. 187-94. 31Edward M. Davis, "Police Review Boards ," Qaufioggta Peace Officer, 113 0-25, September—October, 1960; Norman H. Moore, "Police Review Boards," W Pegge Qfiflper, ll: 5, November-December, 1960. 32Information obtained frcm letter written by Lieutenant Colonel Robert A. Klug, Assistant Police Chief, Division of Police, Cincinnati, Ohio, dated January 3, 1963 in response to an inquiry directed to Chief Schrotel. 19 Pointing to the out-of—date studies used to justify the charges against police departments, Davis in turn questions other aspects of generalized charges utilized to support the demand for outside reviewing authorities.33 While it is possible that groups with obstructive motives may propose police boards as a means of diminishing the effectiveness of the police it is equally true that many others may view this as a means of helping the police. To a large extent the effect of any agency for good or bad is based upon the persons composing it. It is submitted that the views expressed by Germann, Day, and Gallati, are the more reasonable. V. A. Leonard in PM Qrga_n,i_.za,_tion ppg Mapgggmppt makes ref— erence to police disciplinary problems but suggests no solutions not discussed by the authorities previously cited.34 Municipal Pptipe Administpgtion, a canprehensive text on police organization, management, and operations, emphasizes the fact that the principal deterrents to dereliction in performance of police duties are "swiftness and certainty of punishment."35 In addition, the text recom— mends that a memorandum should be made for each disciplinary action call- ing for more than a minor reprimand. The memorandmn should include : 33Edward M. Davis, "Move Over, Chief, " An Address on Police Review Board to the Police Chiefs Section, California League of Cities, October 23, 1962. 34V. A- Leonard. __l_p_P0 i e W am! W (Brooklyn: The Foundation Press, 1951), p. 136. 3 ci Police Admipgstration (Chicago: The International City Managers' Association, 1961), p. 167. 2O (1) the situation calling for the interview with the employee; (2) specific reasons for the interview; (3) summary of employee 3 statement of explanation; (4) suImnary of supervisor's statement; and (5) mutual understanding on what employee and supervisor will do to improve performance or prevent a recurrence with an under— standing of future disciplinary action if the employee fails to correct.36 The employee would then be required to read and sign the memo- randum to indicate understanding and acceptance. Any follow-up action should also be made a matter of record by utilizing the same method. Other areas discussed in W M W in- clude the proposition that all types of reviewing agencies need to be- ccme more aware that the rights of an individual with respect to employ- ment are not as important as the rights of an individual in his person.” For speed and control, more of the authority to discipline should be shifted from boards to the executive.38 Also, police administrators are enjoined to prepare their cases well and to be prepared to back up charges with more than generalities}9 Finally, W Me Admin- tam contends that when a serious disciplinary action is taken, it is mandatory to review the record of the individual and to try to avoid similar situations in the future by detecting weaknesses in recruit selection, training, and leadership.40 29.11%. Disciplim fitgtistics. Unfortunately, police agencies rarely publish statistics on disciplinary actions. An exception to this is New York City where they are published in the form of special orders 321211.. p. 168. 37Ipid., p. 168. 381pid. 391hid. 401pid., p. 170 21 and are made available to the press. Police annual reports infrequently contain such information and when presented, it is not done within a framework which actually has true meaning. As a result there is little basis for determining the type, quantity, and effect of discipline in organizations which are considered to be well disciplined and efficient in contrast to those which are not. Some consultants include specific information on discipline such as the report prepared by George D. Eastman on the Bureau of Police of New Rochelle, New York/*1 Eastman reports that one hundred and seventy-six disciplinary cases were referred to the chief and five to the city manager during a seventeen-year period from 1939 to 1956. The method of handling the cases was described as: In the 176 cases referred to above, and handled by the Chief of Police, the charges ranged from complaints of tardiness to insubor— dination and frcm the loss of a service revolver to drinking in- toxicants on duty. One hundred and Sixty—one of these cases only resulted in a warning and/or admonishment and in only fifteen of the cases was there an actual penalty of extra work days imposed. None of the 176 cases was reported to the Civil Service Commission, an utterly untenable position for the Bureau when it is recognized that ten percent of the grade that may be earned on each prcmotion examination is based on record and seniority... 0n reviewing these 181 cases, one can only ccme to the conclusion unfortunately, that there is an unwillingness on the part of super- visors andézcanmand officers to initiate canplaints against subordi- nateS. . . . "The New York Police Survey" conducted under project director Bruce Smith, Sr., contains detailed information on disciplinary actions f ‘1' r r 41George D. Eastman, "The Bureau of Police Of the City of New Rochelle, New York, A Study and Report, " November 15, 1957, (unpublished). 42mm. p. 10. 22 taken in the New York City Police Department from 1928 to 1950.43 The survey indicates that in 1928 over 5, 000 members of the department were accorded a department trial while in 1950 the number had reduced to about 600. During this same period there was an increase in the size of the department. "Court convictions of police show a slow decline over the years, but dismissals frcn the service have gone down by 90 per cent....44 After reviewing the disciplinary records of the department for the years 1931 through 1950 the records of 584 individuals were selected as representing "all the major cases heard throughout the 20 year period, plus others with lengthy disciplinary records.”5 The disposition of these cases was analyzed and as a result the following information was obtained: TABLE I AN ANALYSIS OF 584 CASES SELECTED FRGI THE RECORDS OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEARS 1931-1950 7—7 r fir r f r .—V Action Taken on Charges ' Per Cent r v—fi—V v—r r—f ChargesDismissed.................ll ReprimandAdministered..............31 FinedOneDay'sPayorLess............ 37 FinedTwoorThreeDays'Pay........... 12 FinedFiveDayS'Pay................ 5 FinedTentothirtyDays'Pay........... 1 Discharged, Resigned or Dropped . . . . . . . . . . 2 Pending, or Filed Without Action . . . . . . . . . 1 ——f f ——fi W T 1 1 WV 43Bruce Smith, Sr. (project dir.), "The New York Police Survey, " (New York: Institute of Public Administration, 1952). 44:931., p. 47. 45mm. 23 Considering only these cases selected by the investigators conducting the survey it mmy'be seen that 88% Of those charged were found guilty and of this number 55% were fined and 2% were separated from the service by dismissal or resignation. In the year 1937 approximately 2,400 members of the department were charged with offenses and of this number eightyaeight were dismissed. By 1950 the number of charges had been reduced to approximately 600 while the number of officers dismissed dropped to eight.46 Dated, but interesting statistics concerning the Boston Police Department are found in a study published in book formt47 One of the focal points of the study was to consider the effect of the police-strike which occurred in.Boston in 1919. For this reason the summary of disci- plinary cases presented was broken into three groupings: the twelveeyear period prior to the strike; the ten.years following the strike; and the four years which followed.48 4619431.” P- 8. 47Leonard V; Harrison, Police AdministrationjtpiBoston (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934), pp. 78-83. “big-'9 P. 80- 24 -TABLE II . BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR THE PERIOD 1907 THROUGH 1932 r f I l : Type.Action Taken, -1907-19 .1919-28 .1929-32 Guilty-—cases filed . . . . ..... 44 54 10 Reprimanded . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 32 10 Punishment duty imposed . . . . . . . 69 361 106 Reduced in rank . . . . . . . . . . . l 6 0 Resigned—-charges pending. . . . . 28 236 16 Dismissed from.the department . . . . .23_ .347 18 Total . . . . . . . . . . 218 1,086 160 From this, it can be seen that the proportion of men let off with reprimands or with cases filed has decreased, while the proportion of those given.punishment has shown substantial increase. Of the offi- cers charged one out of five left the service through resignation or dismissal during the last period considered. Fosdick in his study of the Cleveland Police Department consid— ered all aspects of the disciplinary actions taken and presented his find- ings in considerable'detail.49 During the year 1920 sixtyhseven viola- tions were alleged and sixtyhfour officers were charged.50 49Raymond B. Fosdick, Poltpe Admingstgation (Cleveland: The Cleveland Foundation, 1921), pp. 43—52. SQIhid-. PP. 45-46. 25 TABLE III TABULATION OF CHARGES PREFERRED IN THE CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING 1920 BY THE TYPE OF OFFENSE Offense Number of Officers Charged Intoxicated while on duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Intoxicated while off duty . . . . . . . . . . 8 Drinking in uniform.whi1e on duty . . . . . . . . . 3 Neglect of duty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sleeping on or absent fran patrol . . . . . . . . . 11 Reporting late or failure to ring duty calls . . . 11 DisObedience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Use of indecent language . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Feigning sickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Shooting craps or running crap game . . . . . . . . 3 Interfered with an officer on duty . . . . . . . . 9 NHscellaneous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Total . . . . . . . . . . . 64 In continuing his study Fosdick examined the records of these sixty-four:men and determined that thirty-nine of them had previously been charged with a total of ninety-nine offenses.51 51mm, p. 46. 26 TABLE IV TYPE AND NUMBER OF PREVIOUS OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THOSE MEMBERS OF THE CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT TRIED IN 1920 - I' f f Offense Number of Officers Charged Drinking and intoxicated . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Off post . . . ............... 12 Neglect of duty' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Late to roll call . . . ..... . ..... 10 Failure to ring duty calls . . . . . . . . . . 6 Indecent and abusive language . ..... . . 6 DisObedience . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . 5 Failure to report to prosecute . . . . . . 4 Feigning sickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Improper performance of duty . . . . . . . . . 2 MiscellaneOUS........... ...___16___ Total . . . . . . . . Z : . . . 99 ——‘r In comparing the offenses committed during prior'years by the persons charged during 1920, it appears that the type of offense most fre- quently committed involved drinking. Prior disciplinary actions do not appear to have corrected the situation. The results of the sixty—seven trials held in the Cleveland Police Department for the offenses cited above resulted in the following findings.52 521pid. 27 TABLE‘V RESULTS OF DISCIPLINARY TRIALS HELD IN CLEVELAND POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING 1920 M f T fi Al _ I Punishment Imposed or.Action.Taken Number V_Y Reprimand, suspended four days, fined ten days' vacation and required to Sign a resignation to take effect when accepted by the director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Reprimand, suspended four to thirteen days, fined two to six days' vacation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Reprimanded, suspended four to six days‘ vacation . . . 2 Suspended four to thirtybfive days, fined four days' vacation to all vacation for a period of five months , and required to Sign a resignation to take effect when accepted by the director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Suspended three to thirty days, fined one day's vacation to all vacation for nine weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Suspended nine to fourteen days . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fined three days' vacation to vacation for a period of one month, and required to sign a resignation . . . . 2 Found not guilty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Dismissal from the department . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Resigned with charges pending . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____§L__. TOtal O O O O O C O O C 0 O O 67 Of the officers dismissed four were reinstated by the Civil Serve ice Commission on appeal and both of the sergeants Who had been reduced in rank were restored to their rank. In all of these cases the individuals had previous disciplinary records, many of a serious nature. Such actions point up the need for a greater understanding of the role of the Civil Service Commission in disciplinary matters. The attitude which should be assumed has been clearly'defined as: 28 ...The Objective in disciplinary matters should be to maintain the good of the service without violating fundamental justice to the individual. However, emphasis should not be placed primarily upon justice to the individual. It should be incidental to deci- sions that are for the good of the service. It should be remembered that personnel decisions which are painful at the time are not always to the long-run disadvantage of the employee. Civil service hear- ings have often been characterized by maudlin sentimentality, and decisions have been based upon the tug of the heart-strings rather than on Objective eviden.ce....53 Statistics concerning the total number of disciplinary actions taken by the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales may be found in the Annual Report of "Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary." For the year ending 31 December 1960 the following disciplinary actions are indi- cated: Proceedings...were brought against 945 members of county and borough police forces during the year, including 6 policewcnen; 845 were found guilty. The majority of these cases were for can- paratively minor offences, such as unpunctuality or neglect of duty} 317 (including 4 policewmen) were dealt with by caution; 177 by reprimand; and 261 by fine. Of the remaining 90 cases, 19 were punished by reduction of pay, 4 by reduction in rank, 34 by being required to resign as an alternative to dismissal, and 33 (including one policewoman) by dismissal. Thirty-three police- men and one policewoman were found guilty of criminal offences in magistrate's or higher courts; of these, 21 policemen and one policewcxnan were dismissed fran office, 8 were ordered to resign, and one was reduced from sergeant to constable, these being in— cluded in the figures already given. Two others resigned office while criminal proceedings were pending, and one resigned office after conviction.54 Considering that the total strength of these forces during the same period was 7'7 ,056, the number of disciplinary actions taken or 53John M. Pfiffner, James V. Bellanca, and Charles W. Terry, What Elem: £1111 52:11.22 Wiener Leeds 19. £11.01, Personnel Report No. 562: (Chicago: Public Personnel Association, 1956), p. 3. 54Home Office, Report of Eggjestx's c ors of W 12$, (London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1961), p. 10. 29 considered required would appear to be lower than for a comparable num- ber of police officers in the United States.55 The availability of such information on a national basis makes it possible to evaluate the disciplinary standards of various units, and in a limited sense, to judge the ccmand capabilities of the units' supervisors . 56 II. M DISCIPLINE IN INDUSTRY A study of the literature concerning employee discipline under the labor-management relationship, where the authority of the employer has been limited by agreement with the employees through their union contract, is both interesting and profitable for amone interested in discipline. W Discipline by Lawrence Stessin is an excellent volume for this purpose. Stessin skillfully traced the history of the labor arbitration movement in the United States and related its effect upon the authority of management. 57 0f direct interest is his evaluation of the use of an outside arbitrator to settle disciplinary disputes concerning the exercise of authority by management . Such situations occur when a violation of plant rules has occurred and the individual or union is not satisfied 55mm” p. 28 56am Office mflmmwfimmmm We, Part II, (London: H M Stationery Office 1949 , PP. 111-13 57 Lawrence Stessin, M Qisgipline (Washington: BNA Incor- porated, 1960), PP. 8-19. 30 with the decision or penalty imposed by the management. It is the be- lief of Stessin that neither management nor labor "wins" by this system. It is his contention that the real and result of’this resort to an admin- istrative "judge" is a dilution of authority on the part of:management.58 In his study, Stessin compiled a list of forty offenses or rules which appeared to:most frequently merit disciplinary action when violated. These included such things as gambling on the jOb, drinking or drunk on the jdb, disdbedience of orders, and failure to report for work without justification. By checking the penalties imposed by the arbitrators for infractions of plant rules Stessin compiled what may be called a penalty prediction table. In this table Stessin indicates the penalty which the employee may expect to receive upon conviction for a particular offense. This table is organized on the basis of the number of previous offenses committed by the same offender. Some offenses terminate in discharge upon first conviction regardless of previous record. .An example of this type of offense is falsifying records.59 Such information is of value to the police administrator in considering the penalties imposed in.the department and in defending the discharge of officers for certain types of offenses. Certainly the standard of discipline requred in a police force is higher than that of industry for a similar offense. If labor and.management accept the fact that an employee may be discharged on the first offense of insubordina- tion it would appear that similar or.higher standards are supportable for a police department. 5811211., p. 308. 59112151., p. 28. 31 ,III. PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION LITERATURE All personnel administration texts examined contained some dis- cussion of discipline, but the most comprehensive treatment of the sub- ject, in the literature reviewed, was found in Personnel Administration by Pigors and Hyers. The theme of Pigors and myers section on discipline is that most men want to do what is expected of them, The authors assert, "if the basic conditions that make for good discipline are present in the organization...this large group of employees will seldom.'break the rules.”60 The problem then is to provide corrective disciplinary pro- cedures for the minority which does not choose to conform. "A discipli- nary polioy embodying definite penalties is needed for this minority of the work force, who, if unchecked, would spread dissatisfaction and poor conduct throughout the organization."61 As guides for providing the necessary climate for the discipli- nary Objectives to be achieved, the authors recommend the following: 1. A.clear and reasonable list of plant rules, with uniform penalties for their violation. 2. Instruction of all employees in what is expected of them, in terms of both Observance of plant rules and established standards of jOb performance. 3. .A procedure for telling employees how well they are meeting the job standards and rules of conduct. 4. Careful investigation of the background and circumstances of each case before taking disciplinary action, when apparent breaches of conduct or expected performance do occur. 60Paul Pigors and Charles A" myers, Personnel Anninistranion (New YOrk: IMbGrawéHill Book Company, Inc., 1956), p. 262. 61mm. 32 5. Prompt, consistent application of disciplinary measures by the employees' immediate superior, when guilt has clearly been established.62 In discussing the effect of punishments, the authors consider an area of discipline not discussed by other authorities cited. The use of disciplinary layoffs is viewed as having two possible adverse effects: (1) the employee will either welcome it as a short vacation; or (2) re- turn to work with strong resentment which may cause_further trouble. Demotions are also thought to be a "questionable form of disciplinary action, except where there is a failure to meet established job standards."63 The remainder of'the chapter on discipline by Pigor and Myers consists of an excellent discussion of procedures for handling discipli- nary problems with strong emphasis on a calm investigation followed by remedial action which does not further aggravate the relations between the organization and the individual.64 A.more theoretical discussion is found inuInn_§ninginles n: Wby James D. Mooney. In his text Mooney discussed the dis— ciplinary organizations of the Catholic, Roman, military and industrial organizations. Two points related deserve special consideration: (1) discipline mmst be by example with the highest degree at the top; and (2) so long as the doctrine of procedure is based on rules and not on principles, true efficienqy in decentralized operations remains impossi- ble.65 Rules require strict obedience while principles allow the indi- vidual to deal with the situation with a greater degree of flexibility. 63mg.’ P. 265. 64mg.) PP. 266-74. 6'J'James D. Mooney, Inn Pnincinles 91 W (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947), p. 13 and 131. 33 IV. MILITARY LITERATURE Military literature on the subject of discipline and discipli- nary procedures is extensive. 'While the primary guide to formal disci- plinary procedures in all branches of the armed forces is the Mnnl £9; mm 31211914. Stntes, 3.22;, the police administrator will find the material on administrative proceedings for separation from the armed forces and the authority given to individual commanders to administer nonjudicial punishment more related to his own prOblems and authority. The commander's authority to impose nonjudicial punishment is limited to minor offenses. Punishments authorized include forfeiture of up to oneqhalf of one:month's pay for officers and not over two weeks' extra duty of two hours per day for enlisted personnel. Such punishments do not exclude the additional use of reprimand or admonition. If the individual demands formal trial this punishment may not be administered but formal charges may'be preferred. One interesting aspect of this type of punishment, as far as enlisted personnel are concerned, is that the record of the incident does not become a permanent part of the individual's record, and does not transfer with him to his next unit.66 The advantage of this form of disciplinary procedure from the individual's standpoint is the fact that his record is not permanently marred by'a criminal conviction. .Advantages of this system.from.a super— visor's point of view are the simplicity of the proceedings, the speed is; Persia-Mania; lattes ..taLS 98. 192; (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951, pp. 205-28. 34 with which punishment may be administered, and the direct authority which it gives to the commander to control his unit. While the authority granted the military commander is greater than that necessary for the police supervisor such as the district or precinct commander, it is proposed that the same principle on a reduced scale could well apply; For an example of such a procedure being con- sidered by the Chicago Police Department see Appendix A4 "Army Regulation 15-6" concerns the procedure for investigating officers and boards of officers conducting investigations and includes considerable information on how to prepare, formulate, and conduct a hearing of the type utilized by police boards. Since, in both cases, the Objective of the proceeding is to determine the facts of the situa— tion and to make recommendations this regulation should prove of direct value to the police administratorfl7 .222 AEEEQPE2£22§.0ffi°err a text published by the Department of Defense, is an ideal guide to the philosophy of positive discipline for any person in a supervisor position. Included are detailed discussions of human nature, group nature, discipline, morale, esprit, and using reward and punishment.68 ff 6'7Department of the Army, "Army Regulation 15-6, Boards, Commis— sions, and Committees" (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1960). 6E’Department of Defense, e Armed Eorces Qfgicer (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950), pp. 1-246. CHAPTER III DISCIPLINE Like all other prOblems in police personnel administration, dis- cipline is a part of, and related to, many other actions. Careful selec- tion of personnel can do:much to eliminate future disciplinary prOblems. A.we11 organized training program for recruits which continues through the entire career of each officer of the service provides the guidance so necessary to the proper understanding of duties and standards of con- duct. This is particularly true for newly appointed sergeants and lieuten- ants who are supervisors in direct contact with the individual officer and in the best position to guide and counsel before the need for disci- pline arises. The exercise of sound leadership practices in the depart- ment may avert many personnel prOblems. The availability of grievance procedure which allows the officer with a prOblem.to secure prompt and willing consideration with the knowledge that his grievance will receive careful investigation and action.where warranted is another.means of affecting the disciplinary posture of the department. Public relations, both in the form of publicity for the department and, where warranted, for the proper individual, affects both the Officer‘s attitude toward his job, and even more important, his own self-esteem as reflected by the respect which the community at large holds for the department. Discipline, then, is not a thing apart from'but is a portion of the entire fabric which is the department. 36 I. OBJECTIVES Unless there is discipline, no group enterprise can be carried on efficiently. Where there is discipline, there is orderliness and a sense of direction. This goes beyond the strict adherence to rigid rules and regulations and denotes working, cooperating, and behaving in a normal and orderly way. A primary objective of discipline then is to achieve the assigned missions of the department with a maximum of effi- ciency. Discipline in a department is not a right of the persons in supervisory positions but is a major responsibility. No matter how pain:- ful, this responsibility may not be shared or surrendered without the corresponding right to supervise being diminished accordingly. The existence of this responsibility for decision making does- not relieve the supervisor from sane form of review of his actions. The extent and procedure of disciplinary action reviews need not be as complete as the right of review under our criminal court proceedings but should insure that the punishment imposed was reasonable under the circumstances. A second objective of a police disciplinary system is to provide the super- visor with the necessary authority to secure canpliance with rules and regulations while at the same time providing adequate protection for the rights of the members of the department. Men prefer to be associated with an organization of which they can be proud and from which they derive a sense of satisfaction. The very high standards of training, selection, and discipline demanded of 37 agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the respect which these standards have won for the Bureau is an excellent example of this. A third objective of a disciplinary system is twvide the necessary machinery for securing the canpliance or dismissal of the small minority of officers who do not respond to other leadership techniques. Few people enjoy taking action which may result in unfavorable consequences for another person. This is particularly true in police organizations where a close feeling of comradeship and mutual dependence develops over the years. Under such conditions, the supervisor may hesi- tate to take any action if he is not sure of the procedure and of the appropriateness of his action. The person charged may tend to feel that this is a personal matter rather than an official one. For these reasons, an important Objective is to provide a known, administrative procedure to resort to when such actions are necessary. By their very association with the enforcement of law, police tend to develop a feeling of being "beyond the law." Such an attitude may lead to rationalizations which if not corrected may result in improper conduct which has serious consequences for both the officer and the depart- ment.1 A final objective of police disciplinary procedures is to provide the proper official attitude toward the standards of conduct which will be acceptable within the department. 1William A. Westley, "Violence and the Police," 1119. Anericnn lemma; 9.1: mm, V01. LIX, July 1953. PP. 34-41- 38 II . PRINCIPLES The general responsibility of a supervisor concerning discipline is to maintain orderly conduct among his subordinates and to apply. disci- plinary measures which will eliminate conditions interfering with effici— ency, insure cooperation, and protect the rights of the group. To accom- plish this his goals are: (l) to foster a feeling of mutual respect between himself and his organization; (2) to keep his Officers satisfied while at the same time having them conduct themselves in accordance with the established rules of conduct; and (3) to train the police officers within his control to perform their duties efficiently. To achieve these goals certain principles or guides are available to indicate the type and scope of action to take. M We; 99.2 Mann W PM nnn nngerstnndnble. All orders and in— structions given should be clear and understandable. One cannot expect a subordinate to follow instructions if he does not understand them. The simplest language to express a thought is the best. If there is any ques- tion as to understanding the supervisor must utilize every communication method available to correct the situation. The supervisor must avoid taking as a personal affront any question as to the meaning of his instruc- tions or subordinates will pretend to understand when in truth they do not. The manner in which orders or instructions are given has an effect on the officer's attitude toward Obedience. The average officer desires to get along with his superiors and will readily follow reasonable orders, 39 but they will be reluctant to do more than the minimum for an overbear- ing superior. An order which is given harshly, discourteously or with- out adequate explanation, invites disobedience. Furthermore, it is cmmon sense that an Officer will obey an order more readily if he under- stands the reason for it. This was recognized by George Washington when in an address to his officers during the Revolutionary War he advised "impress upon the mind of every man, from the first to the lowest, the importance of the cause, and what it is they are contending for."2 Familiarity with routine orders makes repeated explanations tmnecessary but an order which is unusual should be accanpanied by an explanation. If the situation does not pemit an immediate explanation the trained officer will recognize this and based upon confidence established in the past will act immediately. W m; 119. Inn supenyison mg; W 9nd_ £91.19: mam. Discipline must start at the top. A supervisor cannot begin to maintain discipline unless he himself knows what action is proper and improper and conducts himself accordingly. The old adage "don't do as I do but do as I say" has little place in the modern police department .3 Where subordinates see their superiors violating the very rules and regulations which they are expected to follow, the effect is obvious. The supervisor who violates the rules 2General George Washington in a message to his officers, cited by W W pigest 17: Cover, February, 1962. BClifford L. Scott and 13111 Garrett, aders £9; 11;; Pglice SW (Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1960 , PP. 61—67. 40 tends to realize that he is in no position to have his actions questioned and may not take the disciplinary actions required for this reason. The end result of such a situation reached its logical conclusion in the recent exposures concerning the Denver Colorado Police Department.4 WWW l‘l1_e_ princlples n; nrggnlznpion nnnt pg lnpln nng fpllowed. Each officer should know and understand the organization of the depart- ment. Such organization should clearly establish the chain of camand allowing both supervisor and subordinate to know and understand their relationship. This provides each member of the department with the knowledge of whom he is responsible to and who receives his report. Not to be overlooked is the effect of span of control. The supervisor who has more subordinates than he can effectively supervise will encounter more disciplinary problems and will find them more difficult to cope with than the supervisor with a reasonable size cmand.5 rnnmm mes E93; Inkg pnmt antion 9n dinciplinnry Ilglntlgnn. When an appar- ent disciplinary violation comes to the attention of any supervisor he must not overlook it or put off taking action. This does not mean that a formal reprimand or other disciplinary action will be assessed every v—j—fi—f 4Keith Wheeler, "Denver‘s Crime and Punishment," Lifle, 52: 109- 20, May 18, 1962. 5G. Douglas Gourley, "Police Discipline," Ennnnpl n: W Mariam 41: 8'7, January. 1950- 41 time a violation occurs. It does mean that the supervisor is faced with the responsibility of investigating the facts and doing sanething about the violation. The supervisor's action will depend upon the nature and circumstances of the offense, and upon the individual's record. The in- fraction may call for merely cautioning the officer about his conduct, a verbal warning without putting anything on his record, a formal repri- mand with a notation on his record, a disciplinary layoff, or even dis- charge. This does not imply that all supervisors should have the au- thority to impose these penalties but that these are the possible actions which may occur. The main point is that under no circumstances may the supervisor ignore misconduct which canes to his attention. Inaction is equivalent to condoning the violation and over a period of time could result in making the particular rule or regulation unenforceable unless some affirmative action is taken to warn that in the future such viola- 6 tions will not be overlooked. Minis-3. Ember. E112 lnyestigate p_ej,‘_gr_e_ ngflng. Once the facts of any disciplinary case are assembled the decision as to the proper disciplinary action to take is usually clear. Since most of the difficulty in disciplinary cases involves these facts the same care should be given to disciplinary investigations as would be given to any criminal investigation. As far 6Earl R. Bramblett, "Maintenance of Discipline," Mnnngnnenp p_f_ Pensonnel W, 1: 11, Autumn, 1961. 42 as possible the normal rules of evidence should be followed; however, this does not prevent the consideration of hearsay and other evidence, providing that it is recognized as such and weighed accordingly. Disciplinary action should be taken only where cause exists if personnel relations are to be kept at the highest level. In any case where disciplinary action is challenged, the burden falls upon the department to sustain the action taken. The responsible individual therefore must make an early and thorough investigation of the facts of alleged disciplinary breach. This allows the proper action to be taken.as quickly as possible——either to clear the officer or take appro- priate action. No decision.should be based upon suspicion or personal bias. Minis mam; an: Engineers.“ edgrtmmermmmmmmm se mama Mpg m degision 1% mas. As a general rule, disciplinary action should not be taken before the accused officer has a chance to explain his conduct. Scott believes that this should be accomplished prior to any investigation as a means to assure the officer that he is not being prejudged and to avoid needless investigation since many incidents may be resolved at this stage:7 In addition he notes the following advan- tages: First: It affords the officer who has made an.honest mistake a chance to save face. 7Scott, 22. £15., p. 29. 43 Second: It cements the feeling of team spirit within the de- partment. Third: It is an efficient device for discovering the officer who is inclined to bluff, rationalize, or lie. Fourth: It makes for efficiency in the handling of canplaints in that the Obviously phony complainers can'be more easily recognized. Fifth: It guarantees the officer an opportunity to defend hime self and if necessary, to secure counsel in controversial cases. Sixth: It builds a departmentawide feeling of trust in the com- mand policies of the department by all its members. Seventh: It stimulates confidence on.the beat and hence makes for increased efficiency throughout the department. Eighth: It discourages rumor mongering and tale bearing while it strengthens the loyalty of the men to the command and the command to the men. Ninth: It clears the air for a fair and impartial investigation of charges and accusations.8 W m seep Reside Elsi; Lem t9 take. This decision will involve a nmnber of considerations. a. Know and understand the principles of corrective discipline. The philosophy of corrective discipline Should be based on the following general concepts: (1) the purpose of discipline should be to obtain compliance with.the established rules of conduct. Its application should not be punitive in nature and it should not be used to "get even" with the employee. No decision or action should be taken on discipline while in a state of anger or excitement; and (2) while discharge is not correc— tive in nature as far as the department is concerned it may be the only solution for certain types of offenses or where previous efforts to bring about a change in conduct have not succeeded. In this regard it is imr portant to understand that: T—ffifi 8mm, pp. 29-30. 44 ...corrective discipline does not apply to the so-called major offenses. It applies only to the lesser offenses which, however, make up the bulk of disciplinary situations.9 The utilization of corrective discipline involves the use of reprimand or minimum punishment, depending upon the nature Of the offense, for the first offender. The objective of such action is to impress the offender with the desirability of following the rules without at the same time causing him to feel that he has no chance of "living down" his delinquency. If this action does not bring about a change in attitude and the officer is again involved in an offense, a stronger penalty is assessed the second time. If further offenses occur, particularly if they are identical or similar to the prior ones, discharge may be the only solution. This is not to imply that there is any fixed formula for award- ing penalties or making decisions on the best disciplinary procedures to follow. The members of the department deserve to know that their case will receive individual consideration and that twenty years of service will not be sacrificed for scme minor error in judgment or lapse of attention. There are certain guides to keep in mind in deciding the best course of action to take. First, the seriousness and circumstances of the particular offense; second, the past conduct record of the officer and his length of service; third, the lapse of time since his last misa- conduct for which disciplinary action was taken; and fourth, the precedent ‘—_V 9Bramblett, 22. 93.1., p. 11. 45 for punishment in.similar cases. Careful consideration of all these factors should produce a disciplinary'action'Which will fit both the man.and the offense and therefore have the best chance of bringing about the desired change in conduct. Because of their importance each of these will be considered separately. b. Did the act or omission constitute a major or minor offense? In the police service, this is normally not too difficult a determination to make. If the rules are clearly written they will indicate those of- fenses which, if proved by such evidence that a reasonable man can accept as adequate to support the conclusion, will be considered major. IMajor offenses are those offenses so serious in nature that dis- charge is required without consideration for the officer's service or prior good record. Conviction in criminal court for any offense involv- ing integrity or moral turpitude would automatically fall in.this cate- gory. Drunk on duty or abandoning post or patrol without excuse or per- mission would also be major offenses. Minor violations would include conduct or omissions such as dirty'uniformb reporting late, and abuse of equipment. These are some of the offenses for which the concept of corrective discipline may be utilized to good effect. c. Determine the rule or rules violated. Where the act or omission results in the violation of several rules only the more serious violation normally should be charged. For example, failure to properly account for and turn in property secured as evidence could be larceny and failure to follow regulations concerning the handling of evidence. 46 Where only suspicion of the more serious violation exists it may prove necessary to select the lesser offense for which evidence is available. If at a later time the evidence for the more serious offense is secured, in this case larceny, the defense of former jeopardy does not exist since this is an administrative and not a criminal process. Situations may occur where an Officer's actions may constitute a series of separate and distinct acts of misconduct. For example, an officer might leave his patrol area without permission, drink while in uniform and in a public place, and assault a citizen while attempting to make an illegal arrest. Each act of misconduct, while related in sequence is a separate and distinct act of its own and could properly be charged. d. Factors to consider after the offense is established. Con- sideration as to the action to take in a given disciplinary situation may be given by an individual supervisor in his deliberations as to the preferring of charges, or the final decision by the supervisor with the authority to assess punishment, or by a disciplinary board. In any of these cases certain considerations are in order, after a finding of responsibility or guilt has been made, but prior to the final decision as to the proper penalty to impose. The prior record of the offender is an important guide line as to his attitude and his value to the force. If prior disciplinary action has been taken, what was the offense and what penalty was given? How long has it been since the last or previous disciplinary problem? Minor Offenses occurring over two years prior to the incident in question 47 should not normally be considered by a board or supervisor in deciding what action to take. In the military forces such consideration is limited to offenses committed during the present enlistment or in the last three years preceding the trial.10 Such a practice is an aid to morale in that an officer knows that he can "live down" a delinquency by good conduct and that such incident will not survive his entire career to prevent promotion and to weigh against him at some future dis- ciplinary hearing. Since persons who camnit major offenses should be eliminated from the force this should prove no loss to the department and will improve morale . The precedent of punishment in similar cases is a consideration but not a binding guide. Similar cases imply similar offenses committed by officers Of comparable value and record. While this is a broad guide both the individual officer and the service as a whole are quick to sense actual inequal treatment which can directly affect the support of the group for the action taken. While such support is not necessary, it can be a very strong factor in the morale of the department. Matter in extenuation of an offense serves to explain the cir- cumstances surrounding the canmission of the offense, including the reasons that actuated the accused but not extending to legal justification.ll Matter in mitigation is submitted by the officer and considered by the department for the purpose of lessening the penalty to be imposed. 1 1:92 W 11m._ted gem es, .2211 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951), p. 119. 11min," p. 121. 48 Prior record, citations, and character evidence would be appropriate to consider in this regard. e. Suspension while awaiting disciplinary action. Where minor offenses are concerned the use of suspension is seldom necessary. There will be occasions when the charge against the officer is such that it is not desirable for him.to continue on duty while the problem is being re— solved. One example of this is when criminal action is pending but the case has not been tried or where the officer has been convicted by a criminal court and has appealed the conviction. This presents a diffi- cult situation for a department. Where possible, if there is sufficient evidence to sustain a dismissal it would appear that the appropriate ac- tion should be taken to reach a decision in this regard without waiting for the final determination of the prOblem. In.most situations the sus- pension will be only for the purpose of completing the investigation and if indicated, taking appropriate disciplinary action. The use Of the suspension.must be carefully considered since investigation.may reveal that the charge is unfounded or that it was a minor offense which could properly have been dealt with by‘a reprimand. In such a situation the department is required to reinstate the officer with pay for the suspension period. Where possible, in doubtful cases, the use of a temporary assignment in a noncritical position may be con- sidered. Suspension should never be used unless the offense under con- sideration would at least merit time off without pay. 49 Principle Nnnbpn E_ignn Mammaamnaedrefihawdisci li Wintergreen-m- nnnnpg, Whether the information to be provided the Officer is in.the form of indicating the action which has or will be taken to prefer formal charges or to inform the officer of the final verdict regarding a disci- plinary proceeding, the procedure is not one which most supervisors find pleasant. The best procedure is to accomplish the action as soon as possible after the decision is made. It should be accomplished in private and in as impersonal a manner as possible. If a formal reprimand is to be administered it "should be given without a show of emotion, without humor, without sentimentality, with- out excuse, without rationalization, and without apology."l2 Since the action has been thoroughly investigated and the deci- sion has been made, the firm nonargumentative attitude is the proper one to maintain. The Objective of the discussion is to "...explain to the employee what he did wrong, what disciplinary measure is being taken, and what is expected of him in the future."13 Principle Ember. line 3.4286 r.___ecords 212 all Lama—l and i.___nfomal dissinlinamx a.___ctions taken. Where formal disciplinary action is taken there should be a com- plete record of the charge, investigation, board action if taken, lZScott,lpp.‘2i1., p. 33. lBBramblett, _p. cit., p. 12. 50 recommendations, final action, and appeal if made. This practice is normally followed. Of equal importance, but less frequently followed, is for the supervisor to maintain a record of all administrative actions taken which have a disciplinary implication. Examples would be an "on the spot" reprimand for.minor delinquencies; counseling sessions required because of borderline performance or conduct; and transfers made because of the individuals inability to perform properly in the prior assignment. Such information can frequently be more revealing concerning an officer's attitude and value to the service than one single instance of misconduct. Princlple‘flnnnnn’len Eollon established disciplinnny procedures. Disciplinary pro- cedures are established to protect the rights of the department and the individual officer. TO deprive either of any portion of the established procedures may result in the reversal of an otherwise well processed action. Where the appropriate punishment is voided by improper action by supervisory personnel the result is worse than if no action had been attempted. Each time an officer "beats the charge" there is a loss of respect for the system and for the supervisor involved. This cannot help but affect the morale and discipline of the organization. To the casual Observer, it also makes the charged but aquitted officer appear to have been needlessly harassed. Pningiple unnber Elepnn Disciplinnny Eclion3.2£”ihé chief,nn superintendent should npp .22 subjecp‘pn replew other‘pnnn.£nn dismissal from 322 serylce. With 51 the implementation of a fair disciplinary program within a department the supervisor responsible for the operation should have the freedom to discipline as necessary. If the responsible person is not considered competent to assume and properly exercise this authority, he should be replaced. Review of cases appealing dismissal from.the service should be limited to the evidence presented to determine its sufficienoy and not as a means of "second guessing" the value of the individual to the department.14 III. LEADERSHIP INDICATORS Mbrale, esprit de corps, discipline, and proficienoy of the group are all indicators of the effectiveness of leadership within a police organization. By a continuous evaluation of these indicators it is possible to determine where leadership is weak and what actions need to be taken to correct the situation. These indicators are largely interdependent and therefore some factors will affect one or more. "Although discipline, esprit de corps, and proficiency are dependent on the degree of morale present, all four are of equal importance."15 For this reason it is necessary to understand their relationship if the supervisor is to understand his role in the disciplinary process and to fUrther anticipate the results of his action or inaction upon the depart- ment. l4Gourley,_p..9_it_., p. 87. 15Department of the Army, Militnny Leadership, FM l9-lOO (Wash- ington: Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 38. 52 Morale IMorale affects the attitude of the individual officer toward his fellow officers, his supervisors, the department and his very way of life. If the standards of the department are high, it is prObable that the in- dividual officer will identify himself with the department in a favorable light and approach his job with a positive and receptive state of mind. ZMorale cannot remain static but will be moving up or down at all times. Mbrale may be measured by diligent Observation of the daily activities of the men and their immediate supervisors. Indicators to observe are : Appearance. Standards of courtesy. Personal hygiene. Internal bickering. Harmful rumors concerning the department and its commanders. Condition of police buildings. Care of equipment. Response to orders and directives. Job proficienoy Attitude toward training. OOCDQO‘UIAWNH H Esnliidefiarna Esprit de corps is manifested by loyalty to, pride in, and en- thusiasm for the department. Acceptance of responsibility by individual officers, pride in the department, and a personal regard for the honor of the group should also be considered. Esprit de corps may be compared to team spirit or loyalty above and beyond the individuals who make up the unit. A critical factor in this depends upon the satisfaction the members derive from belonging to the department. Indicators which should 53 be considered in evaluating esprit de corps in a department are: 1. Overt indications by individual officers which show enthusi- asm.for and pride in the department. 2. The respect which the department receives from the community and other departments. 3. The spirit of friendly canpetition within units of the depart- ment. 4. Willing participation by the officers in department projects not directly involved in their duties. 5. Willing assistance to fellow officers. 6. The percentage of resignations from the department and the waiting list to get in. Disnipllne Discipline is nearest perfect when it assures the individual the maximum.amount of freedom of thought and action while at the same time increasing his feeling of responsibility toward the department.16 This is achieved through effective training and leadership which pro- vides the individual with the information and confidence necessary to take proper action when an independent decision.must be made. When this situation exists mutual confidence between all ranks in the department will decrease the necessity for punitive action. Important factors to consider in evaluating the status of discipline in a department include: Individual attention to details. Cooperation between sections and individuals. Mutual respect between subordinate and superior. Conduct of the department's members both on and off duty. Appearance and courtesy of department members. Promptness in responding to commands and directives. Utilization of the chain of command. Number of disciplinary actions taken as compared to similar periods in the past. (DQO‘UI-thF-J O 16Department of Defense, The Armed Eorces foicer (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19507:-p. 142. 54 9. The number and type of complaints being made against members of the department. Summnny Discipline then, far from being an entity standing alone, must be considered as it is, a part of the totality of a complicated and sensi- tive structure, the modern police department. Discipline cannot be self-generated, cannot start from the bottom, and cannot survive in the face of incompetence and indifference from above. The very number and complexity of the principles Of disci- pline when compounded with problems which have generated unchecked over long periods of time may provide an almost impenetrable obstacle to the police supervisor seeking to reorient the department's thinking, person— ality, and productivity; It is unfortunate that a stubborn.minority in opposition is frequently more vocal than the majority who would like to see reforms effected but lack the spirit to "cross the line" and take a stand. For these reasons, any initial efforts to improve the state of discipline in a department will be slow and must be based upon clear Objectives, explained to the entire membership Of the department, and formulated in the departmental regulations. How this prOblem.has been met in.three of our major metropoli- tan police departments is reviewed in the next chapter. CHAPTER IV A DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF THE FORMAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES OF THREE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENTS While much may be learned from a theoretical consideration of disciplinary practices and procedures, of even greater importance is the study of the actual‘application of these practices and procedures. For this reason three of the five largest municipal police departments in the United States were selected for evaluation and comparison. A study was made of the published rules and procedures of each department. In addition, visits were made to the Chicago and Detroit Police Depart- ments, as a further aid to understanding their disciplinary procedures. From these combined studies the following information was obtained. I. CHICAGO Introduction. 0. W. Wilson, formerly Dean of the School of Criminology at the University of California, Berkeley, California, was appointed Superintendent of Police for the City of Chicago in February 1960. By this act he assumed command of a force of 10,587 officers and 1 496 civilians. This number serves a city of 3,550,404 persons.2 Among his first acts was an attempt to abolish the Civil Service lMunicipnl Yen; Book, 1961 (Chicago: International City Managers Association, 1961), p. 401. 2W0rld.AlE§E§2 (New York: New York World-Telegram, 1962), p. 263. 56 Commission of police disciplinary appeals and the establishment of the Internal Investigation Division to investigate complaints against members of the Department as well as improper practices which were brought to their attention by other means.3 These changes were strongly resisted at the time by Patrolman Frank Carey, President of the Patrolmen's Association and the opposition has not lessened to Spring, 1962.4 It is worthy of note that Frank Carey was reelected to his post in April 1962 by a vote of only one-eighth of the patrolman in the Department.5 It can be seen that disciplinary procedures are a matter of no small importance in the Chicago Police Department. Disciplinnny organization. The command or disciplinary organiza— tion of the Department as shown in Figure l originates with the Super- intendent and continues down to the individual officer through the Bureau of Field Services and the various divisional chiefs. With the exception of the Superintendent the span of control does not exceed the optimum number. Outside of this command chain, but with important responsibilities in the disciplinary procedures of the Department, is the Bureau of Inspec- tional Services. This Bureau acts in a staff capacity, directly under 3Peter Wyden, "He Makes Cops Come Clean," saggdgx pm Posp, 234: 69, August 12, 1961. 4lpid., and news item in the gnlnngp Tribune, April 3, 1962. 5Editorial comment in the Chicago Tribune, May 1, 1962. SUPERINTENDENT STRATIVE ELATIOIS TION HUMAN R SEC DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT PERSONNEL PUBLIC INFORMATION FINANCE PLANNING CRIME ANALYSS STANDARDS INSPECTION DIVISION INTELLIGENCE DIVISION DIRECTOR TRAINING DIVISION DIRECTOR CENTRAL SERVICES DIVISION DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR DIRECTOR GAMBLING SECTION EXAMINATIONS FILES SECTION NARCOTICS SECTION INQUIRY SECTION DIRECTOR IDENTIFICATION SCHOOLSE PROGRAMS SECTION MICROANALYSI S SECTION SECTION RADIO MAINTENANCE specmoscopv MAIL DELIVERY REPORT RECORDING EXTENSION DIVISION PAT R 0 L SECURrTY SECTION SECTION omacron DIVISION CHEMISTRY SECTION COMMUNICATIONS SECTION DOCUMENT SECTION ANIMAL CONTROL SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF DEPUTY CHIEF PHOTO SECTION DETECTIVE DIVISION CNIEF TRAFFIC DIVISION POLYGRAPH MOBILE SECTION ADMINISTRATIVE DEPUTY DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DISTRICTS DEPUTY CHEF DEPUTY CHIEF AUTO THEFT SECTION BURGLARY SECTION YOUTH DIVISION ROBBERY SECTION BOMB a ARSON SECTION STAFF SERVICE FIELD SERVICE FIELD SERVICE TRAFFIC AREAZ AREA NO. I AREA NO. I FIELD SECTION TASK FORCE AREA NO AREA NO. 2 TRAFFIC AREA3 AREA NO. I RADAR SECTION COURT LIASON SECTION AREA N0. AREA NOT 3 CANINE AREA N04 2 SECTION TRAFFIC AREA 4 OPERATIONS SECTION TRAFFIC AREA I ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION AREA No.4 AREA N0. AREA NO 3 TACTICAL AREA NO. TRAFFIC A AREA NO. 5 REA5 CENSOR SECTI ON AREA NO. 4 AREA No.6 AREA N0. 6 6M AREA PLAMIING 41h AREA SECTION AREA NO. 5 TRAFFIC AREA 6 In AREA AREA NO. 6 C H l C A G O P O L I C E D E P A R T M E N T -PLA/V/V//VG D/ /S/0 - 0 OCTOBER I96] l—lv UT ....... 58 the Superintendent. The Bureau of Inspectional Services is divided into four divisions with a director in charge of each. Of these four divi- sions the Internal Investigation Division is organized and staffed to investigate, prosecute, and record disciplinary actions within the De- partment. As shown in Figure 2, the Internal Investigation Division is composed of three sections: The Complaint Investigation Section, Depart- ment Advocate Section, and General Investigations Section. Disciplinary procedure. Alleged or suspected violations of law, ordinance, or Department rules, regulations, or orders, Observed by supervisory personnel in the Department are reported to the Complaint Investigation Section of the Internal Investigation Division. Complaints from citizens may be made direct to the Section.by any means or:may be made to any police agency. When canplaints alleging improper conduct on the part of the police are received by police agencies, such information is forwarded by telephone to the desk sergeant on duty in the Complaint Investigation.Section. This report is required even if immediate investi- gation by the supervisor proves the complaint to be unfounded.6 To process canplaints in the Internal Investigation Division the Complaint Investigation Section.maintains a twenty-four hour sched— ule. All complaints, regardless of the source, are entered in a bound ledger called the Discipline Register. Information entered in the 6"General Order Number 16," Department of Police, Chicago, Illinois. 59 wHOGwH N omHo>Do morHow uww>wazm2e Hzemwz>fi HzcmmeHobeHoz UHmz_N>.:OZ>_u 01.9.3. /oo, _ oozzfiflozmm _ mcvnaidnzoni _% I F IIIIIII 32.3 - «cvnaidmzonzd M an Umvc4< , 0823.... 02.3.9. (9:3..o.<.a.9. 280.... So: $9.03. rot . ... 3. 9.393.. m mm 0.339 0119 9.... 0.589. 9.983.... 9.3.9. Con . on 330229. 0022. 902 . . 3 seal... 1 43:8 033...... 0.112. ca... fl — «3.9 ...-.8203 «8.9 .3339. 58m scan...» I .5qu... 38 . .5902. 9.32.. 2:52.... 0 2.2.2:.» I . 8.3. 9.... vmnmozzmr Evans"... ..oaqaonmhmrn o. 0:83.! .53.... 38.6... Fr 02.5): III I , mxvro935 395.10: ” III I III. I nun-.5120 .63.. 3.2.3 356225. Ill .2338 . . I A . . . imauozzmr onznabr Canaan Illovnzbqoafi . OI... I03...- 3358. , $30.2:- , mxgzmaa 88:21.3 Canaan 9:! Quinn __ .II 3.....- 0322. .. 0-4 "-.-. 2.00 ...).2H. 32...... _ Son 0233192” : - .u - .u 8;».3... alaqunxa< 011.5... IF Cocoa «Mg .. 333:. . 2.2.8 .0. 08:"... 9.323 Cancun . 3:3 8.2.2. 538‘ .IIFlllltauoa ,. .35.. win»: ‘D'I-C. g0 .MOO‘M! 888. :°.¢ 93.32.95 .23.? 3......"' a; 38:49 .8...an . an”? 534.303.02.335 _lL _ . 5...... “3:32... clog-«59... g '0". g: a; s 842?. ..0-IId-1.0o I Choir gauged. 7O Disciplinary procedures. The authority of commanding officers of the various units of the Department to take disciplinary action in minor cases is limited to admonitions or warnings. When such action is taken a report is made through channels to the Deputy Superintendent.20 The authority to suspend an officer on the receipt of a com— plaint or on becoming aware of an offense which requires immediate removal from duty is vested in all superior officers. When such action is taken, a short written report in three copies is prepared. One copy is given to the suspended officer, a copy is sent to the officer's com- mander, and the third copy is attached to the report of investigation if one is forwarded. An officer who has been suspended may only'be restored to duty by direction of the Superintendent or Deputy Superintendent. When an officer is suspended, he is immediately required to surrender all Department property including his badge and identification card, and is not authorized to wear his uniform while in a suspended status.21 When.misconduct is reported to the offender's commanding officer, he is required to make a thorough investigation. This may be accomplised in person or by the use of investigators. The officer accused may submit a statement in.writing giving his version of the incident being investi- gated. If, as a result of the evidence Obtained by the investigation, the commander concludes that a violation has occurred, he supervises the 2ODetroit Police mappgl, Department of Police, Detroit, Michigan, Chapter 10, Section 112. 21Ibid., Sections 99—102. 71 preparation of charges and forwards the entire file to the Deputy Super- intendent or Superintendent who in turn transmits it to the Commissioner.22 The charge and specification are prepared and submitted on a Nfisconduct.Report Form. The charge consists of a short statement identi— fying the type of offense alleged to have been committed and the specifi- cation is a short concise summary of how the violation occurred. The following is an example: Charge: Neglect of duty; Specification: That on January 4, 1958, at 2:00 AtM., he, Patrolman JOhn Doe, being assigned to patrol duty on Woodward Avenue, from Grand Boulevard to C1airmount.Avenue, did neglect his duty, to-wit, he did enter a business place at 9287 Wood- ward Avenue and remained therein fran 2:00 A.M. to 2:35 A.M., and not on pplice business, in violation of Cha ter 10, Sec- tion 129, Paragraph 10, Detroit PoliceManual.2 If additional specifications are utilized they are listed and numbered in sequence. Charges may be preferred when substantial evidence exists that a member of the Department has violated a "rule or regulation, a provi- sion of a general or special order, or who commits one of the following listed offenses...." Included in the list are forty acts or omissions ranging from laziness to accepting bribes.24 If, after examining the file, the Commissioner determines that punishment should be imposed, the charges are served on the accused officer. The charges are signed by both the accused and the officer serving the charges and a copy is returned to the commander. One copy 2%I21Q., Sections 104-105. 23Ipid., Section 106. 24;p;g., Section 129. 72 is sent to the Commissioner and the third copy is kept by the accused. This action.must be accomplished by at least twenty-four hours prior to the date set for trial.25 The Commissioner has the power to subpoena witnesses and this is accomplished by the commander of the accused. The hearing of charges is conducted by a Trial Board composed of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Chief of Detectives, or such assistant as he may appoint, and such other executive officer who may be designated by the Commissioner as the Chief Inspector of Police.26 .No challenge procedure is provided. The trial is conducted by taking a plea from the accused offi- cer which is entered on the reverse side of the charge sheet. Testimony under oath is taken first from the complaining witnesses, and then from the witnesses for the defense. The substance of all testimony is recorded by a stenographer. All officers being tried by the Board have the right to counsel which may be an attorney.27 It is the practice of the Detroit Police Officers.Association to provide legal counsel for all officers tried by the Department.28 The penalties which may be assessed by the Trial Board include v—v 25;p1d., Sections 115 and 116. 26Ibid., Section 121. 27Ipid., Section 124. 28Information obtained during interview with Senior Inspector Fred Wright, Detroit Police Department, February 16, 1962. 73 reprimand, suspension, forfeiture of pay, dismissal, or other penalty as the Commissioner may direct. Appeal from the decision of the Trial Board may be made to the Circuit Court of the State of Michigan.” W W. If, after a case has been tried, new evidence or testimony is obtained, application may be made to the Com- missioner to reopen the case. Such evidence would then be considered for the purpose of mitigating the sentence.30 Where an officer is on temporary duty with another command and is involved in a disciplinary action, the normal procedures are followed except that an extra copy of the report of investigation is sent to the canmanding officer concerned.3l Commanders are responsible for taking action when misconduct of subordinates canes to their attent:I.on.32 The lie detector is used on an optional basis during Depart- mental investigations. An officer cannot be required to take such an examination and refusal to submit is not held against him in any way. A member may request such an examination with the objective of clearing himself but the weight given to such tests either way depends upon all of the circumstances . 33 v—v—fr 291mm 302mm mica Manual, 22. in... Section 129. 31119.43. , Section 113. 32mg,” Section 114. 33Information obtained from letter written by Senior Inspector Frederick F. Wright, Research and Planning Bureau, Detroit Police Depart- ment, dated March 27, 1962. 74 Eyaluation. The disciplinary regulations of the Detroit Police Department place almost complete responsibility on the command officers for observing, reporting, and prosecuting disciplinary actions within the Department. Such a situation has advantages and disadvantages. Authority, at least to report, is maintained without the interference of any staff agency. Such a procedure does have the disadvantage of leaving the decision as to investigation and prosecution of offenses almost totally within the area where personal feelings are most likely to interfere with Judgment and where individual attitudes toward disci- plinary offenses can.make the action taken in similar cases vary greatly in different units in the Department. While anonymous complaints are given attention if they "appear" to have any basis, only in person canplaints which can be sworn to are referred to in the manual as far as procedure for handling. No provision is made for centralized recording of complaints or disciplinary actions. Such a situation was credited with sidetracking citizens‘ complaints in the Buffalo Police Department where complaints were often processed by the same unit which had generated the complaint.34 With the exception of admonitions or warnings issued by command- ers of units no disciplinary action can be taken in the Department with- out referral of the case to the Trial Board. The Board is composed of three of the ranking members of the Department which would appear to be York State Crime Commission of Investigation, January, 1961), p. 125. 75 an unwarranted imposition on the time of such officers. Such a situation might discourage subordinates from processing any charges unless of a serious nature. The policy of the Detroit Police Officers Association in pro— viding legal counsel to its members when tried by the Department insures protection of the rights of the officer but also makes the proceedings appear to be a contest between the officers and the commanders of the Department. Such an adversary relationship does not seem conducive to the proper respect between the two groups. .A newspaper account of a Trial Board decision pointed up one problem area where a Trial Board is organized to reach a final verdict rather than acting in an advisory capacity to the chief administrator. With the department's two top officers over-riding Commissioner George Edwards, the Detroit police trial board acquitted three white patrolmen.Thursday of cruelty to a Negro prisoner... "The preponder— ance of evidence in this case and its impact on.me is the belief that an effort to extract the location of the gun from Mr. Daniels was made," Edwards said in announcing the 2-1 decision. "I discussed this at great length with the other two members" (Of the trial board), he continued. "I respect their view, which is that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the officers."35 Where such a procedure is to be followed it would be preferable for the Commissioner not to be a member of the Board and to act in a reviewing capacity. In this way a united front would be presented by the highest ranking administrators in the Department. 35Associated Press dispatch, State [Lansing] Journal, March 17, 1962 O 76 III. NEW YORK Serving the largest city in the United States, the New York City Police Department is no stranger to problems of any description. A focal point for immigrants, political organizations, international trade, and communications make the city a police problem of the first order. The population of New York City in 1960 was 7,781,984.36 To provide police service for these citizens 24,456 officers and 1,107 civilians are pro- vided.37 In addition other specialized groups such as the New York Port Authority and the Transportation System.maintain sizable forces for specialized purposes. During the period 1955 to 1961 Stephen.Kennedy was the Commis- sioner of Police for the city; Commissioner Kennedy received consider— able publicity during this period fer his outspoken comments on discipline and other aspects of police administration. He was not reappointed in 1960 when he coupled a demand for an annual increase in salary for all patrolmen.with accepting the appointment.38 Nun Kennedy's successor, CommissionerflMichael J. Murphy, a long time member of the force, initiated the Grievance Board which is composed of the presidents of the various organizations representing the members W 3§florld.étpgpgp, op. cit., p. 271. ”amnion Isa-‘r; 2221;. 1.92. .c_i_t.. 38Murray Kempton, "The Cop as Idealist: The Case of Stephen Kennedy, " flagper's, 224: 66-71, March, 1962. 77 of the Department with a Deputy Police Commissioner acting as chairman. The Objective of the Board is to resolve problems which affect the opera— tion of the Department. That Commissioner murphy is not without his problems in admin- istering discipline in a Department the size of a small army is shown by the fact that the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association recently advised its members not to file afinancial report as required by a new directive prior to being considered for promotion to plainclothes men and detec- tives.39 Discipligagz‘grgagizgtigg. The Commissioner of Police, appointed by the Mayor is in.charge of the Police Department of New'York City. He is assisted by a Chief Inspector who is in direct command of all operat— ing divisions. In addition, the Commissioner has a staff which is directly responsible to him.and Which administers such activities as legal matters, community relations, trials, confidential investigations, administration, licenses and youth activities. With the exception of the confidential investigating unit which is commanded by an Assistant Chief Inspector, the other activities are supervised by Deputy Commis— sioners. Each Deputy Commissioner has the authority to suspend from, and restore to, duty members of the force.40 For a graphic demonstra- tion of this relationship see Figure 4. 39News item in the New York Times, July 25, 1962. 4ofifiules and Procedures, Department of Police, New York, New York, 1956 with 1960 changes, Sections 5-11, Chapter 1. wHocmw b 2m: «emu OHHN worHom ummbwezmza owDPZHN>eHoz omwa floosswmmwosowl_ . 78 h _ n - H _ _ 41‘ _ Hand Umocaw consdw Umosdw M: Umvsww H: nonmwmmsawmw Umvsdw w: Umocdw Ho wouanw Ha oosawmmwoamw ws owmumm ovmumm om ormumm ow Hsdomwummawom assume ow ormwmo om oumumo on em bmmmw oosacswaw caww >mawswmwumwwos bwomsmmm mossy wwomama zmdwmam wowmawosm bly oruow Hsmvmoaon - owwmw ow- - Hsomamsw mam wmoonam mmwduom bw