GOOD COP BAD COP - SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

FRANK SERPICO PLAYED BY AL PACINO, A TRUE STORY OF A WHISTLEBLOWER IN THE NYPD IN THE 1970s AND A FICTIONAL VETERAN DETECTIVE FROM THE LAPD ALONSO HARRIS PLAYED BY DENZEL WASHINGTON.

The films explore themes of abuse of power, moral compromise, and the blurred line between justice and corruption.

While Training Day isn’t a direct retelling of true events, it was heavily influenced by the Rampart Scandal—one of the most notorious cases of police corruption in U.S. history.

• Rafael Pérez, a former LAPD officer in the Rampart Division’s anti-gang CRASH unit, was the real-life inspiration for Alonzo Harris.

• Pérez was caught stealing cocaine from evidence lockers and implicated in drug dealing, false arrests, beatings, and even shootings.

• His testimony led to over 70 officers being investigated, and dozens of convictions were overturned due to fabricated evidence.

• The scandal exposed deep systemic issues in the LAPD, including collusion with gangs and widespread abuse of power.

Serpico and Training Day both dive into the murky waters of police corruption, but they approach it from opposite ends of the moral spectrum.

SHOOTING THE MESSENGER

There are many ways that colleagues can retaliate against a police whistleblower, one way is simply to do nothing when you need help.

Whilst a shocking example of Serpico being shot whilst colleagues stood by and watched, there are many others around the world where officers have been killed especially, when corruption and organised crime is concerned.

A more common form is to push officers to the brink so that they take their own lives.

Whilst there are various policies, procedures and agencies that exist to encourage the reporting of wrongdoing, in reality your disclosures will not be welcomed.

This standard response is tailored to what usually what happens in the police but follows a standard pattern and useful for any whistleblower to be aware of what they might expect in the worst scenario.

It is a worthwhile exercise when thinking about police reforms to ask why police forces respond in the specific non-accountable ways that they sometimes do. One could roughly arrange these by the degree of defensiveness to which a police force/employer feels driven.

Hot Air

The force will appear at first to share your concern. Many fine words will be generated, insubstantial memoranda may fly about, a meeting may be convened, and promises will be made. No action will be taken, except perhaps the most trivial. At a later date any conversation not recorded on paper may be strenuously denied.

Send to Coventry

A change of mood comes over certain managers and colleagues. Initially this is quite subtle. Greetings, smiles and friendly banter are less frequent. At first you brush it off. Then it becomes more pronounced. Eyebrows are raised, you are avoided and left out of events and decisions, sarcastic comments are made. If you mention it you may find that your mental health is questioned.

Close Ranks

It is clear that what you said to one colleague or manager has been passed on, and possibly distorted, to his or her peers. When you approach a manager further up the line it is clear that they have been forewarned. Your concern has somehow created an anti-you group. You are identified as a ‘trouble-maker’ by most people with any authority, and any attempt to raise your concern is now pre-empted and prejudged. Some of your colleagues feel that your complaint demeans them by implication.

Stonewall

When you raise your concerns formally you find that your letters are unanswered, the manager is never available, promises to ‘get back to you’ are broken, you are passed on to someone who eventually sends you a letter thanking you for raising the concerns and the matter has been investigated. You may be told directly not to send any more reports or letters.

Biomedical Diagnosis

It is suggested that you have been under a ‘lot of stress lately’ and that you ought to visit the occupational health department, seek counselling or visit your GP. You are asked if you are ‘coping’. It emerges, unknown to you, that you have been informally diagnosed as anxious, depressed, paranoid, having a personality disorder, or as being ‘neurotic’.

Spying

A colleague is passing on information about you (and has, perhaps, been asked to do so). You are the object of close observation, fault-finding, and perhaps your e-mail and telephone conversations are being monitored. Some of your work goes wrong or astray and you wonder about sabotage. If you mention this it is taken as further evidence that you are unable to cope or are ‘paranoid’.

Grind Down

Work becomes more difficult. Your workload increases, you get the unpopular cases or incidents. Your attempts at promotion are made difficult and your appraisals are unfairly written and do not accurately reflect your performance. You may be transferred to another station or department and your request for leave and time off are refused without valid reasons

Sticks and Carrots

An intermediary, usually a non-independent person is chosen to act as a facilitator and will call you aside for ‘a chat’ and you may feel that at last you are getting somewhere. Your career prospects may be discussed, the suggestion being that you drop your complaints. Alternatively, or if you refuse to accept the carrot, veiled threats will be made such as ‘Are you sure you wouldn’t be happier working elsewhere?’ These become overt threats such as ‘You are jeopardizing your future’ and ‘you won’t be working here much longer’. If you raised concerns about colleagues, you may find that you become a victim of harassment.

Character Assassination

Aspersions will be cast on your character, your personal conduct, your personal past, your political views, your class or ethnic origin, or your sexual orientation. These may progress to accusations of your own misconduct including criminal, theft of documents, lying, disloyalty, breach of confidentiality, and the like.

First Strike

Official counter-complaints may be formulated against you in a disciplinary hearing before your own concerns are addressed or instead of addressing them. You may be made a scapegoat. Disciplinary or grievance procedures may be used and abused as a pre-emptive or retaliatory measure. The force will attempt to get their revenge in first.

Second Strike

If you manage to get through the first strike, your force may abuse their powers and decide to maliciously investigate you on suspicion of a criminal offence, your home may be searched and you will be interviewed in a custody suite to cause you the maximum amount of distress.

You may be charged and relevant evidence is witheld from the crown prosecution service.

You may be wrongly convicted and spend many years trying to clear your name and searching for evidence some of which has been destroyed.

Dismissed

If you remain in the force; your presence is no longer tolerable. You may be wrongly suspended and then dismissed or there may be a re organisation in which your post is made redundant.

Cosmetic Reshuffle

If your concerns were of a serious nature, especially if an inquiry took place, then there will be some changes at your workplace of a cosmetic nature. Some posts may be reshuffled, but it is unlikely that policies will be revised or that managerial heads will roll. Certainly no acknowledgement will be made that there is any connection between your raising a concern and the changes which followed.

Detective Frank Serpico

The Knapp Commission and Frank Serpico’s whistleblowing were seismic events in the history of American policing especially in New York City. They didn’t just expose corruption; they cracked open the culture that allowed it to thrive.

© 2023 by The Artifact. Proudly created with Wix.com

Did Corruption Return?

Unfortunately, yes though not in the same form. The Knapp Commission shattered the illusion that corruption was limited to “a few bad apples.” But systemic issues proved harder to eradicate.

• There were cycles of Reform and Regression, over time, some reforms were weakened or inconsistently enforced. Political will fluctuated, and oversight bodies lost teeth.

• There were new Forms of misconduct as overt bribery declined, other issues emerged such as racial profiling, excessive force, and cover-ups.

• There is a continued need for oversight, the Commission’s legacy includes the creation of permanent external watchdogs, like the Civilian Complaint Review Board and special prosecutors.

Michael Armstrong, the Commission’s chief counsel, later emphasized the enduring need for outside monitoring and transparency to prevent backsliding.

The UK is no different and future posts will help raise awareness of the similarities this side of the pond.