If you look at religion, traditional childrearing techniques, conventional wisdom, and even common sense, you will find in each area a saying pointing out the inadvisability of criticizing others. It is especially risky when there is a chance that you are guilty of the same thing you are criticizing, or something worse. You have likely heard such phrases as "Don't pick at the mote in someone else's eye when you have a beam in your own," "The pot shouldn't call the kettle black," "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," and "When you point a finger at someone else, you have three fingers pointing at yourself."

We in law enforcement are especially vulnerable to this temptation, in that we have a perceived (and in my opinion, real) obligation to live to a "higher standard" than the general public. The problem is that when you are being critical of another person or group you are frequently blinded by tradition, pride, desensitization, or some other factor to what may be the same issues in yourself or your organization.

A real-life example occurred recently that brought this issue directly home to those of us in the property and evidence management profession. It was on a law enforcement related Internet mail list, and although it was seen by thousands of people, I wonder if it hit home with others like it did with me.

The person that made the mail list posting was highly critical of a "former cop" who was convicted of child pornography. Portions of his email posting follow, and were edited only to shorten it and to remove names and identifiers:

"A man who admitted possessing child pornography received less prison time than federal guidelines call for because the judge found him addicted to pornography. Sentencing guidelines called for 21 to 24 months in prison, but the U. S.

District Judge gave him 13 months and recommended he be treated in prison. The man, 51, pleaded guilty to possessing almost 700 computer diskettes of child pornography showing children as young as 4 years old engaged in sexual acts. The man had previously worked in the juvenile wing of a hospital, and was fired after pleading guilty. Guess what else about this guy ... HE WAS AN EX-COP. Scary, isn't it? He worked for two different Sheriff Departments until leaving law enforcement. He still had badges from each, and some uniforms. There was no indication that he had used them to further his "addiction", but we'll never know for certain."

So far, so good, but the writer continues: 

"The badges were found in his glove-box when we searched his vehicle, so they are now part of my desk drawer collection. He said that he still carried them around to help get out of traffic tickets. Yeah, right! Never write off a suspect because he once wore a badge. All of us can't be perfect. signature"

Now that last part grabbed my attention, both from the perspective a police administrator and from the perspective of a property and evidence professional. It also demanded the answer to a major unanswered question. How did the badges found in the suspect's glove box during the search end up in the Detective's desk drawer badge collection?

There may be a slight chance that they were booked as evidence and the proper authorities authorized their being diverted to a private collection. What is more likely is that they were confiscated (read "stolen") from the suspect, and that the official police report either conveniently omitted mention of them, or falsely accounted for them (read "perjury". Perhaps the officer convinced (read "extorted") the suspect to give them to him in order to avoid being prosecuted for having or using them, or perhaps there was some other attempt to make the transition from suspect's property to officer's property seem legal, but it doesn't look good. And for the non-law enforcement people that may have access to the mail list, what statement is made to them regarding the ethical standards of police officers?

Another major question immediately followed. Why didn't this professional police officer see anything wrong with taking the badges?

Studies in the Los Angeles Police Department and in other large law enforcement agencies dealing with major corruption investigations have identified what they call "entitlement" as a root cause of officers making the transition from cop to criminal. When officers begin to think that they are above the law, that it applies to "others" but not to them, and that the ends justify the means regardless of what they are, then they will no longer be true to the principles in their oath when they became peace officers.

The third and last major question hit me a little later. Why didn't anybody do anything about it? Did his partner see him take the badges or place them in his desk? Did he show his trophy badges to other officers? Did he brag to senior detectives about taking the badges ITom the "pervert" ex-cop? Did he check them out of evidence and not return them? Did he sign them out to court or for return to the suspect and never justify their actual disposition? Did the suspect know the Detective took them? Did other officers booking property notice that the badges were not submitted?

The mail list posting castigated an ex-cop for being a pornographer, but in doing so the author essentially admitted being a thief. But who has responsibility for any wrongs that occurred? I suggest that anyone who knows of misconduct, especially misconduct rising to the level of a crime, has the responsibility to prevent it, mitigate it, convince the perpetrator to confess it, or to report it to appropriate authorities. Only when that happens will we be able to truly "clean our own houses." We must recognize "entitlement" when it is small enough to purge from our own thoughts and from our organization. The alternative is unacceptable.