The New York Times front page story by Ginger Thompson reports on the saga of Luis Octavio López Vega. For years, Lopez has been living underground in the U.S. He is former chief of police of Zapopan, a city of more than 1,000,000 near Guadalajara, and top aide to former Gen. Jesus Gutierrez Rebolllo (praised by ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey for his bullet-proof integrity before he was arrested for his ties to a cartel). Lopez was a key DEA informant. As the investigation of Gutierrez commenced, Lopez realized that he was a target for execution and went underground. The U.S. helped his family escape to the U.S.
For a dozen years, top Mexican officials have been trying to get the U.S. to arrest Lopez to turn him over to them, where it is likely, the Times suggests, that he will be tortured and killed. Yet the U.S. Marshals Service raided him -- but he spotted the surveillance and fled. He has been hiding out ever since.
This extensive report confirms our worst suspicions that considerations of justice are abandoned when powerful politicians and powerful criminals feel threatened, and when the trade and political interests of the U.S. may be affected. In this account, the decisions of the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of State about protecting a man who was offered protection by the U.S. for his life-endangering cooperation are swayed by political considerations. When does a government betray someone it has offered to protect?
Drug enforcement is such a peculiar species of law enforcement. No matter how zealously anti-drug agents, prosecutors or officials might be, they all recognize at some level, because the drug trade is so large and perpetual, that any individual load of drugs or any individual defendant is ultimately insignificant. Considerations of national security, national economics, and national politics -- if pressing -- will always trump any investigation.
Is this a form of corruption? Or is it a necessary exercise of discretion? Is letting a cartel leader go for reasons of state legally or morally different than letting a juvenile street dealer go for reasons of compassion and retaining the human capital of a community?
PHOTO SOURCE: CBS Dallas Forth-Worth. Then officer Kelly Helleson caught on a dashboard camera preparing to perform a cavity search on a woman under the suspicion of marijuana possession.
In a recent Reason.com blog post author Mike Riggs points to a clear example of the many failings of the ongoing Drug War, the stigmatization of human beings. This stigmatization leads to the objectification of people, which in turn provides fodder for inappropriate humor. I am not a prude, and I participated in gallows humor for years, there were times as a police officer that it was my only way to maintain my sanity, but I always understood who my audience was, and always lived by the rule of laughing with people, not at people. As a strong proponent of American civil liberties, I also believe in our First Amendment rights, but realize that those in law enforcement (even if they are not cops) or in positions of authority asDale Roberts is as a University of Missouri law professor and instructor at the same school’s Law Enforcement Training Center, should be held to a different standard even in their personal lives.
A Texas state trooper charged withsexually assaulting two womenduring a traffic stop was providing them with “customer service,” says Dale Roberts, the executive director of the Columbia Police Officers Association (CPOA) and a professor at the University of Missouri. (The CPOA is a part of the Fraternal Order of Police, one of the country’s largest police unions.) “It’s called Customer Service!” Roberts wrote in a March 27 Facebook post about the indictment of Texas State Trooper Kelly Helleson, who was charged with two counts of sexual assault after conducting an illegal roadside strip search of two women. “We just did it so they wouldn’t have to make the trip all the way down to the station,” he added. A screenshot of Roberts’s post was taken by Keep Columbia Free, a civil liberties blog run by Mark Flakne.
What I find most loathsome is that Professor Roberts, who is an attorney, former judge, Constitutional Law professor, and the head of the Columbia Police Officers Association, clearly does not recognize his moral failings as he laughs about two innocent women victimized by law enforcement.
On December 19, 2012 the victims were subjected to an unconstitutional body cavity search simply based on the allegation of the smell of marijuana. For those who are not familiar with the case, the women were driving and were pulled over for a littering violation. In California this is simply a traffic ticket, an infraction that should not result in anything more than a summons to court. Yet the trooper alleged that he then smelled marijuana. He conducted a search of the vehicle (I question the legality of the search, but that’s another article) while a female Texas State Trooper conducted an invasive road-side body cavity search that is alleged to include inserting her fingers inside the victim’s vagina and rectum without even changing her latex gloves. When no marijuana was found, the driver was given a field sobriety test and then released with a warning for the littering violation.
When I saw this story and viewed the videotape, I was simply stunned. The victims have filed a lawsuit and the female trooper was terminated and is awaiting a criminal trial. The taxpayers will once again suffer by having to pay a large settlement for the malfeasance, while the media and our political and law enforcement leaders will label this an isolated event instead of looking at it as an example of the culture that surrounds the enforcement of the Drug War.
This case is a clear example of the Machiavellian effect that the Drug War has had on the police. What is so astonishing is the lack of judgment as expressed by Dale Roberts in his Facebook post. Given his gross lapse in judgment, I find it ironic that he is a lead instructor at a law enforcement training center as well as a Constitutional Law professor. But more chilling for me is that his statement is so similar to others that I heard while a sex crimes investigator that the victim is somehow to blame for the suspect’s actions, or that she enjoyed being victimized.
So the Drug War marches on with more victims, collateral damage to a futile attempt to control human nature. All the while, supposed criminal justice professionals like Roberts continue to influence a profession that I loved, changing our course from protecting those we have sworn to serve to victimizing them at unknown cost to our humanity. Professor Roberts, I would simply ask you that if this were your wife, your daughter or someone you loved, would you be so callous? I think not. So I offer a bit of advice that I used to tell my officers: Before you say or do something, ask yourself if your mother would be proud of your words or actions, and would you be happy to see it on the front page of the news? Clearly, with this remark, you failed both standards, and would have done well to remember that even if you are not a real police officer, as the head of their union you don’t just represent yourself, but also a profession that you have brought to a new low.
Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement who retired as the first female lieutenant for the Redondo Beach Police Department, (CA). During her career she worked and managed a variety of patrol and investigative units. She is recognized as a subject matter expert and trainer in the area of crisis negotiations and critical incident management. During her career she was one of the original founders of the California Association of Hostage Negotiators receiving an Honorary Life Member Award in 2007. She is a speaker and Executive Board Member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a guest columnist for The 420 Times and has appeared on radio, and television as a commentator.
In 1983 I was hired as a police officer in the community that I grew up in. If you had asked my friends, they would have said law enforcement was an unlikely professional choice for me, but I understood that it would not just challenge me personally, but that I could also make an impact in other people’s lives. So I took my oath of office and attended the academy, where I was given the basic tools necessary to enter an incredibly complex profession. What I learned immediately is that the most vital skill that law enforcement uses is effective communication. I believe that words matter and that what is currently lacking in the administration of justice is that we no longer emphasize the “peace” in “peace officer.”
In the United States, law enforcement agencies have statewide credentialing organizations aptly named Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) which is tasked with ensuring the professionalism of the police. In California, in addition to POST, the law also designates us as peace officers with policing authority. Philosophically we have strayed from the mission of being peace officers and I would argue that we have instead become “police officers” by virtue of our failed national drug policy. The distinction is a subtle one, as there are times that as professionals we must “police” people who are harming others, but I believe our core mission is to be peacekeepers within our communities by serving others.
What I learned immediately is that the most vital skill that law enforcement uses is effective communication.
In order to discuss the impact of the drug war on policing we must understand the purpose of law enforcement. Law
Sir Robert Peel: Father of Modern Policing
enforcement authority was established as a theory of a social contract that recognized obligations between constituents and government. Kardasz notes that as members of a community we agree to abide by the rules and laws of our state and cede our right to defend ourselves and our property to the police. Sir Robert Peel, the father of modern policing, developed ethical principles that clarified the roles and relationship of the police and the public they serve. He posited that “The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.” As our federal government continues to impose a one-tool solution to the political problem of drug use in America, I believe the public’s support of law enforcement’s effort in waging the drug war is waning, and with it, the moral authority from which it derives it power.
In the court of public opinion, a recent Rasmussen poll reflected that only 7% of Americans believed that the United States is winning the War on Drugs. I stand with others polled who believe that our national drug policy is an abject failure. Every society in history has used mind-altering substances of one form or another. The smart ones have acted to reduce the harm of that use rather than trying to prevent it altogether. Throughout my 21 year career in law enforcement I saw the damage that this war on human nature has caused. The unintended consequences of trying to achieve a drug-free America have done more damage to those we have sworn to serve. From opinion pieces to headlines, we are inundated with stories of police misconduct, excessive force allegations, personal corruption and what is now known as Machiavellian police corruption, where the police officer believes they are acting correctly because the end justifies the means.
The survey revealed that when asked if the War on Drugs had been successful in reducing drug use 82% of our national law enforcement leaders stated no.
One recent example, a piece in the New York Times titled “Why Police Lie Under Oath” by Michelle Alexander, was gut wrenching to me, not less so because it’s a topic largely ignored by police professionals across the United States. Alexander clearly points out the Machiavellian effect the Drug War has had on our profession with distinct examples of how and why police lie in order to meet quotas, obtain promotions or simply because they can as they are more respected within the community. But these lies, although not publicly supported, can and do at times occur with a wink and a nod as just one more aspect of the means justify the ends in saving American’s from themselves.
The recognition that our national drug policy has not been successful is not news. Our law enforcement leadership cadre admitted as much in survey conducted in 2005 by the National Association of Chiefs of Police (NACOP).The survey revealed that when asked if the War on Drugs had been successful in reducing drug use 82% of our national law enforcement leaders stated no.In light of these findings, why have our political and law enforcement leaders not recognized the impact of the drug war on relationships between police and the communities they serve? Since Nixon initiated the “War on Drugs” in 1970, each and every president, attorney general and drug czar has tried to perpetuate the perception that we are winning the war. In addition to playing cheerleader, the federal government has funded the expansion of the War on Drugs through both increased grants and by allowing local police departments to share money and other property seized through federal asset forfeiture laws. Currently as a nation we spend more than 41.3 billion dollars a year in continuing to wage a rhetorical war on an unachievable goal of a “drug free” America.
But this continued optimism and funding has a significant cost to our society. It results in law enforcement and other policy makers’ unremitting support in a mandate that no one is willing to challenge contributing to a groupthink mentality. Consequently, the public recognizes the impact of the Drug War as a failure as they watch their neighbors, families and friends suffer the consequence of discriminatory laws impacting not just minorities but all Americans, and resulting in the tearing of the social contract between law enforcement and the citizens they serve.
Both the federal government and law enforcement leaders have largely refused to admit that in attempting to win an unwinnable war they have lost the trust of the very people they have sworn to protect.In a situation similar to our entrenchment in Vietnam, our politicians and law enforcement leaders know that this war is unwinnable, but continue to sacrifice their officers and their communities by not searching for the truth. In 399 B.C., Socrates, reflecting on life’s purpose, challenged the Athenian government, saying, “There you are mistaken: a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong – acting the part of a good man or of a bad.”
Both the federal government and law enforcement leaders have largely refused to admit that in attempting to win an unwinnable war they have lost the trust of the very people they have sworn to protect.
From my experience in law enforcement, I believe we have a moral imperative to critically analyze public policy by questioning how we enforce social order and demand that above all we aspire to conduct ourselves as Socrates envisioned governance by knowing and doing good above all else. By using this lens to study what the role of law enforcement should be, we can reflect upon and correctly assess the destruction of the peace officer and its effect on our society. Clearly, it is time to end the Drug War and return the peace to the term “peace officer.” We must engage in a discussion that challenges our politicians and law enforcement leaders to design policy based on science and harm reduction strategies that includes compassion and human rights.
Diane Goldstein is a 21-year veteran of law enforcement who retired as the first female lieutenant for the Redondo Beach Police Department, (CA). During her career she worked and managed a variety of patrol and investigative units. She is recognized as a subject matter expert and trainer in the area of crisis negotiations and critical incident management. During her career she was one of the original founders of the California Association of Hostage Negotiators receiving an Honorary Life Member Award in 2007. She is a speaker and Executive Board Member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a guest columnist for The 420 Times and has appeared on radio, and television as a commentator.
