By Neal Trautman

For most of the nation, the only American law enforcement in large cities consisted of night watchmen who tended to be very lazy. There were often instances of watchmen being asleep or absent from duty.

The mid 1800’s found some larger cities passing ordinances which provided for daytime police officers to replace night watchmen. When agencies started experimenting with this and other basic improvements, inefficiency and ineffectiveness were very prevalent. As the population of cities increased, so did the problems for law enforcement.

These were difficult times for American policing. The badge was looked upon in a degrading manner. Corruption and graft became widespread as political interference and manipulation grew. Almost no employment standards except size and strength existed.

Police Chiefs didn’t have the authority to appoint, assign or terminate officers. Discipline could not be enforced because of the political protection. Extortion of citizens, drunkenness on duty and assaulting superior officers were fairly common.

The lack of employment requirements, other than political ones, also resulted in a relatively low salary. Officers wore no uniforms. The numbers on their copper badges were the only means of identification. An officer’s 33-inch nightstick was the only weapon of defense. Political favoritism and interference continued to flourish.

A 1980’s Case Study

To a dedicated officer, reading a newspaper headline such as "police officers indicted during drug probe" is devastating. Every profession has members who violate moral, ethical or professional standards of conduct. When the individual in question is a police officer, the offense seems even worse.

Perhaps it’s because no other occupation is afforded so much authority and responsibility. Citizens have literally given police officers the right to be judge, jury and executioner. They expect high standards and offer little sympathy for ineptness or corruption.

Just as with the general public, good cops don’t tolerate internal corruption. We would be naive to believe future law enforcement can prevent some officers from "going bad." Yet past and current levels of graft and corruption cannot be tolerated.

Agencies must give no compassion to officers who have yielded to temptation. Following due process, automatic termination for a substantial offense must be standard policy across America.

Examining a department having become infiltrated with graft and corruption offers insight as to how other departments may prevent similar problems. If we are to deserve the status of professionalism, then we must learn from past mistakes and press on to achieve unyielding, higher standards for the future. The future is certain; what we make of it is not.

More than 75 City of Miami police officers were arrested between 1980 and the end of 1986. Chief Clarence Dickson has written, "Paranoia and suspicion has run rampant through the police department and city hall, to the extent that free verbal expression cannot be exchanged without fear that the halls, telephones, desks, walls and offices of everyone who is part of the decision-making process is illegally bugged."

The inside of the Miami Police Department is filled with suspicion and uneasiness. Officers must live with the fact that they neither respect nor trust many fellow officers. Major drug dealing has been conducted by some officers. Others have been charged with murder. The special investigation section has found $150,000 missing from its safe. Several hundred pounds of marijuana are also missing.

The purpose here is not to examine isolated incidences of officers who have gone astray. We must inspect what went wrong with the organization. Furthermore, our inquiry should be taken in the context of constantly seeking what can be learned to safeguard against similar travesties in the future.

Demoralized, ashamed, sickened, scared and frustrated are accurate words for how some Miami officers have felt. Who is to blame? Certainly the officers having committed unethical, immoral or illegal acts. Yet what about supervisors who take part in or allow conversations that demean or ridicule administrators?

How about top level managers who conveniently remain unaware of low morale or dissension within the department? Aren’t they responsible for taking quick and decisive steps to correct department-wide apathy? Could administrators be to blame for wide-sweeping internal policies which are blatantly unfair? Could local politicians be guilty of political interference or persuasion that demoralizes the rank and file?

The nightmare within the Miami force also involved racial tension. White, Black and Hispanic officers were openly angry and distrustful of each other. Separate bulletin boards were displayed in the hallways. Various groups allege others have hampered investigations of them. Resentment over hiring practices and promotions had torn fellow officers even further apart.

Responding to public pressures created by two devastating riots in the last ten years, the city had attempted to revolutionize the police department. Depending upon whom you ask, unprecedented recruitment and affirmative action efforts may have been beneficial or harmful. The facts are clear: within two years, the department was transformed from a strong majority of white males to 60% minorities. It increased in size from 650 officers to 1,050.

An agency once dominated by white males, suddenly found that white males compromised only one-third of the force. Two out of five Miami officers were Hispanic. Women accounted for approximately 11% of the force. Almost one in five officers was black.

Having a majority of officers who are minorities does not mean the agency will be ineffective. What went wrong in Miami is the manner of the transformation. The true "root cause" was the fact that several local people influenced local politicians to lower the hiring , training and promotion standards of the department.

by Neal Trautman

Tuesday, February 03, 2004   dw