That is unknown according to a dated, yet still pertinent, report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs:

“The incidence of wrongful use of force by police is unknown. Research is critically
needed to determine reliably, validly, and precisely how often transgressions of use-of-force powers occur.” National Institute of Justice Research Report, Use of Force by Police, Overview of National and Local Data, October 1999, Ch. 1, pg.10

In the same report it is noted that:

“Academics and practitioners tend to presuppose that the incidence of excessive force by police is very low. They argue that, despite their shortcomings, agency statistics provide a useful picture of the use-of-force problem. These statistics show that most officers do not engage in force on a regular basis, that few people are injured by police use of force, that only a small number of people complain about police misconduct involving use of force, and that only a handful of these complaints are sustained.”

But all of that is just as it states – presupposing.

Defending the presupposition, the same report goes on to say:

“The argument has appeal. We believe that the vast majority of police officers are professionals who respect the law and the public. If use of force is uncommon, civilian complaints are infrequent, and civilian injuries are few, then excessive force by police must be rare. That conclusion may indeed be correct, but to the extent that it hinges on official police statistics, it is open to serious challenge. Current indicators of excessive force are all critically flawed.” (Emphasis added)

Certainly society wants to think the best of its heroes; in this case law enforcement officers as the report stated, “We believe that the vast majority of police officers are professionals who respect the law…” However, by its own admission the report indicates this is just a guess.

But there are other forms of police misconduct besides excessive force. Law enforcement officers can abuse their authority in many different ways.

Consider this. The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs conducted another study titled, “Police Attitudes Toward Abuse of Authority: Findings From a National Study." Among other information it stated:

“Notwithstanding its positive findings, the survey suggests that police abuse remains a problem that needs to be addressed by policymakers and police professionals. Even though most police officers disapprove of the use of excessive force, a substantial minority (almost 25 percent) consider it acceptable to sometimes use more force than permitted by the laws that govern them. The code of silence also remains a troubling issue for American police, with approximately one-quarter of police officers surveyed stating that whistle blowing is not worth it, two-thirds reporting that police officers who report misconduct are likely to receive a “cold shoulder” from fellow officers, and more than one-half reporting that it is not unusual for police officers to turn a “blind eye” to improper conduct by other officers. These findings suggest that the culture of silence that has continually plagued the reform of American policing continues.” (Emphasis added)

Another study conducted by Neal Trautman, Director of The National Institute of Ethics and presented at a conference of The International Association of Chiefs of Police in 2000 had even more stunning statistics concerning the police “Code of Silence.” It provided the following about police recruits:

Twenty-five basic law enforcement academies from 16 states took part in the research by administering and collecting 1,016 confidential questionnaires completed by academy recruits. The findings included that:

 •79% said that a law enforcement Code of Silence exists and is fairly common throughout the nation.
 •52% said the fact that a Code of Silence exists doesn’t really bother them.
 •24% said the Code of Silence is more justified when excessive force involves a citizen who’s abusive.
 •46% said they would not tell on another officer for having sex on duty.
 •23% said they wouldn’t tell on another cop for regularly smoking marijuana off duty.

Here is some of the information the study provided about current officers:

The sampling of current officers was comprised of 2,698 fulltime officers from twenty-one different states. A total 1,116 of the 2,657 officers asked to complete a confidential questionnaire, did so. This equates to a response rate of 42 percent. An additional forty-one officers provided confidential interviews. The following facts were revealed.

 •In response to “Please describe the first time you witnessed misconduct by another employee but took no action,” 46 percent (532) advised they had witnessed misconduct by another employee, but concealed what they knew.
 •In response to the question “At the time of the incident occurred, what did you think would happen if you revealed what had taken place?” the five reasons listed most often were: I would be ostracized (177 times); the officer who committed the misconduct would be disciplined or fired (88 times); I would be fired from my job (73 times); I would be “blackballed” (59 times); the administration would not do anything even if I reported it. (54 times)
 •73 percent of the individuals pressuring officers to keep quiet about the misconduct were leaders.
 •Eight percent (40) of the 509 officers who admitted to intentionally withholding the information about officer     misconduct were upper administrators. The upper administrators of the average American police department     comprises only five percent of the agency.
 •The average age of an officer who covered up an incident for the first time was 31.4 years of age.
 •The average years of experience when they first took part in the Code of Silence was 8.2 years.
 •449 of the 532 officers were male, while 74 were female.
 •Of the 532 who confessed they had participated in the Code of Silence, 252 were pressured to keep quiet by the officer(s) who committed the misconduct and 118 felt pressure from uninvolved officers. The remaining 162 officers advised they covered up the incident even though they were not pressured.
 •Excessive use of force was the most frequent situation over which the Code of Silence occurs, with 217 excessive use of force circumstances.

When you factor in the prevalence of the Code of Silence, how can anyone say with any degree of certainty that police excessive force and other abuses of authority are a rare phenomena? The significant evidence of the Code of Silence says otherwise.

I have worked with law enforcement officers who are worthy of emulation. They were and are true professionals dedicated to serving with integrity. Regrettably, I am also personally aware of, and have worked with, law enforcement officers who are just the opposite.

While I have only worked in two police departments and trained with perhaps several hundred officers from various agencies (only a fraction of officers in the U.S.), I get the strong sense that police culture is consistent throughout the United States. A negative aspect of that culture is the “Code of Silence.” It may be true that many officers do not personally engage in excessive force or other aspects of misconduct, it is also likely true that many law enforcement officers will not speak up about issues that need to see the light of day. Citizens are wrong if they think this problem will self-correct. They are even more wrong if they think the problem is sparse and of little consequence. Be wary of police administrators who tell you they can fix it absent any civilian oversight - some are part of the problem. If self-policing worked, then society would not need the police would we? Law enforcement agencies (as miniature societies) are no different - they cannot police themselves.

Often, when police misconduct hits the news it is quite likely because a particular agency could no longer keep an incident under wraps. A sacrificial lamb may be thrown out to the public and occasionally there may be ethical leadership that is truly cleaning house but by and large, police misconduct is purposely kept from the public eye.

Revised 09/18/2009