Chapter 2

Understanding Police Deviance

Police Deviance in the United States

The United States routinely ranks in the top 20 nations (of 182 United Nations
member states) when the public perception of government corruption is ranked.
However, the United States has consistently received a score that indicates that the
public believes that approximately 25–30% of American government officials
engage in acts of corruption (Transparency International 2017). Clearly this is
alarming, but this would be even more disturbing if the agencies responsible for
enforcing the law were excessively involved in these practices. Fortunately the evi-
dence appears to point predominantly in the direction of private corporations and
special interest groups attempting to obtain advantages within the political arena.
When the American law enforcement profession was recently examined, the rate
of police misconduct within the United States was noted to be below 0.5%, i.e., less
than half of 1% of all police personnel had been the subject of allegations of crimi-
nality or serious misconduct in 2009 and 2010 (Packman 2010). This supports the
findings of the Christopher Commission that revealed that less than 0.5% of LAPD
officers could be labeled as being “problematic” (Independent Commission on the
Los Angeles Police Department 1991). Even when examining involuntary termina-
tions from law enforcement agencies, less than 2% of police officers were found to
have been separated from the organization for cause, including dismissals, termina-
tions, and forced resignations or retirements. Of those involuntary separations, more
were found to be attributable to profit-oriented corruption than to brutality or other
allegations of civilian abuse and were found to likely involve male rather than
female officers (Fyfe and Kane 2006). Other studies have supported the notion that
a small percentage of officers account for a disproportionate amount of agency mis-
conduct (Harris 2009). While ultimately the goal should be total eradication of
police deviance, it should be noted that the number of reported incidents of police
misconduct is relatively minimal and that many empirical analyses have based their
findings on the total amount of allegations made and not the number of ­substantiated

© The Author(s) 2017 3

J.F. Albrecht, Police Brutality, Misconduct, and Corruption, SpringerBriefs
in Criminology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-64438-7_2
4 2  Understanding Police Deviance

cases or criminal convictions, which undoubtedly would result in a much smaller

value for identified deviant police personnel. Regardless, any accusation of police
deviance or criminality often taints the reputation of the entire agency involved, and
the more sensational cases (e.g., the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles, the
Abner Louima attack in New York City, etc.) have often placed the credibility and
legitimacy of the entire law enforcement profession into question.

Police Corruption and Deviance: A Brief Literature Review

The first issue that researchers should attempt is to specifically delineate what police
deviance is. Unfortunately there is no one common definition or typology for this
phenomenon, and many researchers have listed different inappropriate behaviors
when discussing the topic. Kappeler et  al. (1998) included corruption, abuse of
authority, police crime, and occupational deviance as categories of police deviance,
but this examination was not inclusive of all potential classes of police misbehavior.
Klockars et al. (2003) produced the seminal survey instrument to examine the per-
ceptions of corruption. Actions which they described as involving police corruption
also included working in the security profession while off duty,1 accepting free cof-
fee and meals,2 police officers referring victims to specific businesses, drinking
alcohol while on duty, and other questionable or illegal actions by law enforcement
personnel. Their research has been replicated in other countries including Poland,
Slovenia, and Croatia (Haberfeld et al. 2000). Barker and Carter (1993) identified
five patterns of police deviance which included corruption, courtroom perjury,
police brutality, sex on duty, sleeping on duty, and drinking on duty. Punch (2000)
separates the concept of police deviance into three categories, namely, corruption,

1
 In New York City and other jurisdictions, police officers are permitted to work in most security
positions with the specific permission of their agency administrators, so this does not necessarily
mean that police personnel who work a second job in the security field are deviant or corrupt. As
such, classifying the option of working security as a secondary profession as ‘police deviance’ or
‘corruption’ would not always be accurate.
2
 Accepting free coffee has presented some discomfort to police administrators. On one hand, the
police should move closer to the community, and accepting a cup of coffee or a nonalcoholic bev-
erage would be considered appropriate within the boundaries of community policing. Some busi-
nesses that operate 24 h (e.g., 7/11 stores, Dunkin Donuts, diners, and some gas stations) have
established the standard practice of providing free coffee to uniformed police personnel, more so
on the night shift. On the other hand, there are businesses that provide free coffee and/or dis-
counted meals to police personnel often with an expectation (e.g., no traffic tickets issues in front
of their business or perhaps permitting illegal activity such as gambling to take place on those
premises). Again, this is a sensitive situation as each instance may have to be judged on its own
specific characteristics and intentions. A troubling issue for frontline police personnel is that they
often see high-ranking administrators attending community, business, or interagency meetings
where meals are served and they do not understand how that is different from them accepting cof-
fee or discounted meals from local restaurants. The matter also has to be evaluated in relation to its
perception by the public.
Theories of Crime and Police Deviance 5

misconduct, and police crime. We are thus left with no universally accepted defini-
tions or typology for police deviance, police corruption, and other forms of profes-
sional abuse and the absence of a distinct typology is apparent. More importantly,
this vacuum has often made it difficult for researchers, practitioners, and policy
makers to comprehensively address these troubling phenomena.

Theories of Crime and Police Deviance

Many noteworthy researchers have attempted to apply specific theoretical explana-

tions for police deviance or corruption, but there has been no universal consensus as
to the specific actions or categories that would define deviant police behavior, nor to
the distinct criminological or sociological theories that would help in better under-
standing these phenomena. One interesting viewpoint promoted by Kappeler et al.
(1998) and Erikson (1962) is that deviance must be measured from two separate
perspectives, the perception of the actors who are committing the corruption and the
other view through the eyes of those who observe, investigate, or research the matter.
As such, while the public may view certain actions of the police as being inappropri-
ate or deviant, the law enforcement officers involved, due to the subcultural environ-
ment, may believe that their acts should be construed as being appropriate or ‘correct’
in order to more effectively deter crime and remove criminals from the streets.
Some more common examples of police deviance include professional courtesy
at traffic stops, not reporting police misconduct involving colleagues to supervisors
or administrators, and even courtroom perjury. Unfortunately fidelity to other police
officers under these circumstances has exceeded their loyalty to their oath of office
and their service to the public, as these deviant officers have clearly opted to engage
in and to justify obvious illegal behavior. The use of excessive force against criminal
suspects and falsifying evidence or courtroom testimony have often been rational-
ized through the “just desserts” conception, in which no true harm has been done to
society through these actions, since criminals deserve to be punished. Such acts
have been routinely referred to as “noble cause” corruption (Crank and Caldero
1999), since officers may have considered their efforts to ensure that criminals be
properly punished, regardless of methods used, to be an acceptable option to control
crime. As a result, some police officers have incorporated aspects of police deviance
into their law enforcement and order maintenance practices. These disconcerting
actions clearly must be addressed in order to reintroduce professionalism, integrity
and legitimacy into policing in practice. Emphasis on ethics and public service must
be paramount.
Many other studies on the application of criminological theory to inappropriate
police behavior have been reported. One significant research publication made an
attempt to apply control balance theory (Tittle 1995) to police deviance. Tittle
(1995) and Hickman et al. (2001, p. 503) theorized that “the amount of control to
which one is subject relative to the amount of control one can exercise (the control
ratio) affects both the probability of deviance as well as the specific form of devi-
6 2  Understanding Police Deviance

ance.” Control balance theory outlines that actual deviance is a product of complex
interactions between three factors: motivation, constraint, and opportunity. Each
person has a “psychic need” that draws them toward deviant action and a desire for
autonomy. Their actions within a specific opportunity are therefore triggered by an
imbalance within their “control ratio.” A person could then be motivated to act in a
deviant fashion if they could escape a “control deficit” and extend a “control sur-
plus.” As a result, the opportunity for some type of deviance is almost always pres-
ent (Tittle 1995). Within police work, the frequency of the opportunities and the
isolated and unsupervised nature of the events add to the potential that officers may
act in a deviant fashion. The findings of this research revealed that police personnel
with control deficits were more likely to report police misconduct to supervisors and
agency administrators (Hickman et al. 2001), which is counter to what is commonly
observed in many police organizations. As such, this conclusion poses that officers
with stronger attitudes toward ethics were more likely to engage in appropriate con-
duct and less likely to engage in activity that would support the “blue wall of
silence” phenomenon. This theory would appear to provide support for the need for
effective pre-employment screening methods, organizational and supervisory lead-
ership, and mandatory integrity control measures.
Once again, however, using one criminological theory to generalize all catego-
ries of police deviance leads to challenges in developing and implementing appro-
priate policy measures to enhance individual and organizational professionalism.

Defining Police Deviance: A Clear Typology

Police deviance can take many forms, from serious crime to simple violations of
agency rules. In simplest terms, police deviance can be defined as disregarding
agency policy, rules and regulations, policies, and/or criminal law. The observations
and research conducted by the author concluded that there are five basic categories
of police deviance:
1. Police corruption
2. Police criminality
3. Excessive use of force
4. Abuse of authority
5. Police misconduct
Police corruption involves situations when police officers lose integrity in their
professional actions and accept benefits or rewards in exchange for violating their
mandated responsibilities. Examples include bribe receiving, receiving reward for
official misconduct, and official misconduct. Police criminality occurs when police
officials engage in direct acts of crime, such as robbery or theft, whether on or off
duty. The use of excessive force involves engaging in menacing (i.e., threatening
with a weapon) actions, assault, battery, and perhaps murder, when it is not justified
while acting in the capacity of a police professional. Abuse of authority involves
References 7

violating the legal mandate of the police position. Such infractions could include
illegal stops, searches, and arrests. Finally, police misconduct includes acts that
violate the rules and regulations of the respective law enforcement agency. Such
agency infractions could include arriving to work late or an unprofessional appear-
ance (which could be indicators of other serious personal issues that could nega-
tively affect police performance). Most acts of police misconduct are not illegal but
are violations of agency policies and procedures. They are usually punished through
administrative means (e.g., loss of a fixed amount of pay, suspension from duty for
a fixed period, demotion, or a change in assignment).
In order to establish a more concrete understanding of police deviance, signifi-
cant related events, incidents, and agency protocols that have occurred within the
New York City Police Department,3 as an example of an American municipal police
agency, over the last 50 years will be comprehensively examined. Additional exami-
nation of sensational police scandals in the Los Angeles Police Department and
other American law enforcement agencies will be conducted.
After describing the accomplishments and ignominious experiences of the
NYPD, an evaluation of the research related to law enforcement pre-employment
screening and the application of theoretical explanations for crime will be con-
ducted in order to determine if there are any effective means to screen out poten-
tially problematic individuals before hiring or during the police academy and field
training stages to avoid and deter later criminality and serious misconduct within
police organizations. In addition, concluding recommendations will follow that will
outline practical measures to enhance individual and organizational integrity and to
prioritize professional and ethical standards.

References

Barker, T., & Carter, D. L. (1993). Police deviance (3rd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing
Company.
Crank, J. P., & Caldero, M. A. (1999). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Cincinnati,
OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
Erikson, K. T. (1962). Notes on the sociology of deviance. Social Problems, 9, 307–314.
Fyfe, J. J., & Kane, R. (2006). Bad cops: A study of career-ending misconduct among New York
City police officers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Haberfeld, M. R., Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., & Pagon, M. (2000). Police officer per-
ceptions of the disciplinary consequences of police corruption in Croatia, Poland, Slovenia,
and the United States. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 1(1), 41–72.
Harris, D. A. (2009). How accountability-based policing can reinforce—Or replace—The fourth
amendment exclusionary rule. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7, 149.
Hickman, M. J., Piquero, A. R., Lawton, B. A., & Greene, J. R. (2001). Applying tittle’s control
balance theory to police deviance. Policing, 24(4), 497–519.

3
 The author worked for the New York City Police Department for 22 years from 1982 through
2003, including an assignment conducting internal investigations.
8 2  Understanding Police Deviance

Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department. (1991). Report of the indepen-
dent commission on the Los Angeles police department. Los Angeles: Independent Commission
on the LAPD.
Kappeler, V. E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert, G. P. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark
side of policing (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Klockars, C. B., Kutnjak Ivkovich, S., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2003). The contours of police integrity.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Packman, D. (2010). National police misconduct Reporting system. Washington, DC: Cato
Institute.
Punch, M. (2000). Police corruption and its prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research, 8, 301–324.
Tittle, C. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Transparency International. (2017). Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Berlin: Transparency
International.