INTERNAL DISCIPLINE
By Robert Vernon
Published in Law Officer Magazine © 2007
One afternoon on the job as a new lieutenant watch commander, I prepared for the night watch roll-call assembly of our accident investigation division. A senior sergeant walked into the office to pick up the assignment board. I smelled alcohol. His eyes were slightly bloodshot. I watched him carefully as he walked about the office. He did not stagger or slur his speech, but I knew he’d been drinking. And I knew that if I could detect his drinking, so would others. I had a difficult decision to make. My dilemma involved the integration of two responsibilities that seemed to conflict.
On the one hand, I felt a duty to take some type of corrective and/or disciplinary action. I had a clear responsibility to look out for the interests of our organization, profession and society in general. On the other hand, I felt an obligation to care for the interests of this fellow officer. After all, I reasoned, our stated purpose of internal discipline was to improve the performance of our personnel. To train them, not destroy them. How could I take appropriate corrective action while at the same time preserve, at least to some degree, the self respect and future effectiveness of the sergeant?
First, I isolated the sergeant in the vacant captain’s office. I had a breath analysis device brought to the office, and I administered the breath test privately. The sergeant blew a .12—clearly under the influence. I placed another sergeant in charge of the office and walked the sergeant out a side door to his private vehicle. I drove him home, ordered him to remain there, obtained a statement from him and told him I would return the vehicle keys to him when he was completely sober. Another sergeant picked me up and returned me to my office. I prepared a formal investigation report, attaching the results of the breath test, and placed it in a confidential envelope on the captain’s desk. Only one other sergeant was somewhat aware of what was going on.
The sergeant was disciplined with a suspension without pay and enrolled in an
outpatient-counseling program. When he returned to duty, he was assigned to a
position where he would be under close supervision. He made a successful
recovery and returned to full duty.
Conflicting Responsibilities
All law officers, even those without supervisory responsibility, encounter
difficult decisions involving seemingly conflicting responsibilities. You may be
thrust into a position of facing another officer (usually off duty) in violation
of the law. Some situations will be either so serious or so minor they’ll be
easy to resolve. In between those extremes, however, the tough dilemmas arise.
Our profession understandably leads to a band-of-brothers mentality. We face
physical as well as emotional dangers on a regular basis. We depend upon one
another for survival. It’s easy to adopt unbalanced decision making when facing
competing emotions. An overpowering urge to “protect” our colleague can take
over, and we ignore consideration of the full ramifications of this code of
silence. We may suppress our competing sense of duty to protect the integrity of
our profession and fulfill our duty to society. Do we really protect an officer
when we allow them to violate the law with impunity? In such situations, we’re
complicit in the development of a lifestyle that can lead to eventual deeper
trouble and even major disaster.
Basic Principles
One night, two officers under my command stopped a speeding off-duty officer
from an adjoining police department after a brief pursuit. No alcohol was
involved. A supervisor was on scene due to the broadcasted short pursuit. The
supervisor notified me by telephone. I asked that the entire matter be
documented formally and submitted to me. We could later decide the propriety of
disciplinary and/or criminal action.
The following day, I contacted the chief of the speeding officer’s department, explained the situation and told him I would send him a copy of our documentation. He thanked me profusely. This was not the first time the officer had been involved in unacceptable behavior. His own fellow officers resisted working with him. This would be the final straw that would help them remove an undesirable employee.
Of course we have discretion in dealing with minor violations involving
officers just as we do the general public. But for the more complicated
situations there are no easy answers. A few basic principles do apply, however:
1. Stop the immediate danger. Example: Don’t allow a DUI to continue to drive;
2. Accept your entire responsibilities—not just the “protection” of a fellow
officer;
3. Document the facts (e.g., a breath test when alcohol is involved);
4. Keep the investigation unobtrusive and discreet; and
5. Allow the proper person with all of the facts (e.g., knowledge of the
officer’s prior behavior) to make the appropriate decision.
Being a law officer who makes balanced decisions involving competing
responsibilities is never easy, but leads to integrity—on point.
Bob Vernon retired from the Los Angeles Police Department after 37 years on the
force. He earned an MBA at Pepperdine University and is a graduate of the
University of Southern California’s Managerial Policy Institute and the FBI’s
National Executive Institute. After retirement, Vernon founded The Pointman
Leadership Institute (visit pointmanleadership.org), which provides
principle-based ethics seminars around the world for police agencies, parliament
members, military leaders and a variety of other groups.