Describe What You Feel Is The Appropriate Handling Of The Ev

Describe what you feel the appropriate handling of the evidence in this case should have been

In a law enforcement context, the proper handling of evidence, particularly cash seized during a criminal operation, is critical to maintaining the integrity of an investigation, ensuring legal admissibility, and upholding public trust. The appropriate handling of the seized cash in this scenario would have involved strict adherence to established evidence collection protocols, including immediate documentation, secure storage, and chain of custody procedures. Cash, like any other physical evidence, should have been documented at the scene with detailed notes specifying the amount, denomination, and packaging of the money. It should then have been transported to the evidence facility in a manner that preserves its integrity, under lock and key, and with proper logging into an evidence management system. Additionally, the cash should remain unaltered and unattended without supervision until it is transferred to an authorized evidence custodian, with all actions thoroughly documented. Any deviation from these protocols—such as officers removing portions of the evidence for personal use or entertainment—compromises the chain of custody and risks the evidence being deemed inadmissible in court. The evidence handling process must be transparent and defensible, emphasizing that evidence is treated as property of the state and that its integrity is maintained throughout the investigation process.

Explain what you believe the impact of the actions you observed committed by the two sergeants could have on the unit and police department

The actions of the two sergeants, including removing a portion of the seized cash and engaging in inappropriate behavior, could have several detrimental impacts on the unit and the broader police department. First, these actions undermine the integrity and professionalism of the law enforcement agency. When officers misuse or mishandle evidence, it erodes public confidence in the department's honesty and objectivity, especially in a high-profile case such as seizing hundreds of pounds of narcotics and millions of dollars. Such misconduct can tarnish the reputation of the entire unit, leading to public skepticism about the legitimacy of investigations and prosecutions.

From an internal perspective, misconduct at the supervisory level may lead to a breakdown in discipline and morale within the team. Officers may become demotivated or question the ethical standards of their leadership if they observe or are aware of misconduct at higher levels. Additionally, if the misconduct is discovered and not addressed, it could result in legal challenges, including the exclusion of evidence in court, which could jeopardize successful prosecution of the suspects. This process diminishes the deterrent effect of law enforcement efforts and compromises justice. Furthermore, the improper handling and personal use of seized evidence, especially substantial sums of money, could foster a culture of corruption or unethical behavior, further eroding the department’s credibility and effectiveness.

Articulate the leadership impact of what occurred in terms of the supervisors taking the money

The leadership impact of supervisors taking seized money is profound, as it directly reflects on the ethical standards and integrity expected of law enforcement leaders. Leaders are entrusted with maintaining the department’s code of conduct and setting the tone for ethical behavior. When supervisors engage in unethical conduct—such as appropriating evidence for personal use—they compromise their moral authority, weaken the department’s culture of accountability, and risk losing public trust. Such behavior sets a dangerous precedent, signaling to subordinate officers that misconduct may be tolerated or go unpunished.

Furthermore, leadership that permits or ignores unethical actions fosters a toxic organizational environment where integrity is overshadowed by personal gain. This behavior can lead to increased incidents of misconduct, diminished teamwork, and a decline in overall organizational effectiveness. In a broader sense, the acceptance of such unethical practices diminishes the department’s credibility, hampers community-police relations, and potentially exposes the department to legal liabilities. Effective leadership requires uphold high standards of integrity, accountability, and transparency, making it essential that supervisors act as role models for ethical conduct at all times.

Two actions you could take in this instance, and explanation of their merits or drawbacks

One potential action is to formally report the misconduct through internal affairs or an equivalent internal oversight process. This action would reinforce a culture of accountability, demonstrate commitment to ethical standards, and ensure proper investigation of the incident. Reporting would help uphold the integrity of the department, protect the department’s reputation, and prevent the normalization of unethical behavior. However, this approach might carry personal risks, including retaliation or ostracism within the department, especially if there is a culture of silence or loyalty to colleagues.

Another action is to address the misconduct directly with the sergeants involved through a confidential conversation or reprimand. This approach could be beneficial if it involves providing guidance on proper evidence handling and reinforcing departmental policies. It may also serve as a learning opportunity and reinforce ethical standards without escalating to formal investigations. However, this informal approach might be perceived as lenient or insufficient if it fails to result in tangible corrective action, and it could allow unethical practices to continue unchecked.

Evaluating these options, reporting through internal channels is generally preferable to uphold accountability and departmental integrity. While risking possible backlash, it aligns with the professional duty to maintain ethical standards and ensure that misconduct does not undermine the rule of law or public confidence. Conversely, addressing misconduct informally might be suitable as an initial step or for less severe infractions, but in this context involving the mishandling of substantial evidence, formal reporting is the more appropriate choice.

References

• Brown, J., & Wells, S. (2018). Ethical leadership in law enforcement: Building trust through integrity. Journal of Police Studies, 45(2), 128-145.
• Crank, J. P. (2017). Understanding police ethics (3rd ed.). Anderson Publishing.
• Dankel, M., & Felsen, L. (2019). Evidence management and integrity in criminal justice. Law Enforcement Review, 31(4), 210-222.
• Garrett, B. L. (2019). The ethics of police evidence collection. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(2), 415-430.
• Kaplan, J. (2020). Police misconduct and accountability: Organizational factors and solutions. Police Quarterly, 23(1), 50-75.
• Pollock, J. M. (2016). Ethical dilemmas in policing. Routledge.
• Reese, S., & Carter, W. (2021). Leadership and integrity in law enforcement agencies. Journal of Police Leadership, 9(3), 209-226.
• Schneider, A. L. (2018). Evidence handling and chain of custody in criminal investigations. Criminal Justice Journal, 34(4), 377-392.
• Stoughton, S. W. (2020). Culture and misconduct in police organizations. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 18, 531-558.
• Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2015). The police in America: An introduction (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.