What Is Officer Noname Violation Of The Spring Falls Police Department

1. On 28 April 2015, Officer Noname was found to be in violation of Spring Falls Police Department ‘s policies in regards to appropriate computer usage. Officer Noname was also found to have given false official statements in regards to this investigation. Through the investigation it was discovered that Officer Noname utilized department resources to view pornographic material. Furthermore, during the investigation, Officer Noname lied to investigators about his wrongdoing when confronted, claiming he did not misuse department resources to view an unauthorized site. It was only later in the investigation that the Computer Crimes Analyst discovered Officer Noname’s user login ID and password were utilized to gain access to the unauthorized

I have given this investigation careful consideration due to Officer Noname’s length of service within the Spring Falls Police Department. Through the facts given and statements made by Officer Noname, I am requesting immediate termination of employment. By lying to investigating officials in his involvement with the misuse of department resources, Officer Noname has become untrustworthy and his credibility as an officer of the law has been brought into question. It is from this incident that if Officer Noname were to give testimony in a hearing, his credibility would be called upon due to his dishonesty during this investigation. In Brady v. Marland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), the Supreme Court has imposed rulings that all exculpatory evidence must be disclosed and that the defendant has a right to learn of any incriminating and/or discrediting information pertaining to the witnesses against them and may result in impeachment of witness testimony. With that said, Officer Noname’s ability to be an effective cop has diminished in the eyes of the department because his lack of integrity and dishonesty “is likely to undermine the officer’s ability to testify effectively” in court. (Judge, 2005, para.

Officer Noname has brought into question his work ethic and that of his fellow officers. With other officers in the area, someone could have become offended and filed a sexual harassment grievance within the workplace. Perception is everything in the eyes of the public. The unethical behavior that Officer Noname has demonstrated has created an unhealthy relationship/environment that not only affects the officers around him but also the perception of this department in the eyes of the community. In the case of San Diego v. Roe (2004) the courts ruled that if the statement or activities of an employee do not inform the public about the police department, yet, are detrimental to the agency, then the department could take disciplinary action against the employee to prevent further damage. (Social Media, 2010, p.3). Officer Noname’s actions have caused a domino affect of several variables that if not dealt with immediately and effectively, could damage the perception and effectiveness of this department. This is why I am requesting termination of his