Law enforcement officers, sworn to uphold the law, are not immune to domestic violence, as the article Dealing with Domestic Violence in Law Enforcement Relationships indicates. The article discusses steps administrators can take to avoid hiring potential abusers, and discusses ways to implement policies on handling such incidents. It lists specific strategies to guide administrators, taking the approach that it is possible to screen for and weed out those most inclined to abuse.

The article, which I chose for its relevance to my interest in social work, is very well-written and informative. One author is an assistant district attorney, the other, a retired police Major. The ideas seem common-sense, and easy to implement in some areas, and in others the implementing may, in my opinion, take time and be difficult to implement because of reluctance to arrest and charge a fellow officer, especially one with whom the arresting officer works.

“Ironically,” as the article points out, “individuals who make good law enforcement officers often share some personality traits with those who batter or abuse their families.” (Kruger, Valltos 2) The traits, “inclination to maintain control..., establish a position of power and authority, and physical presence to use...methods of physical control...” are indeed excellent traits for an officer to have (2). Can the recruit curtail these traits, and use them only in appropriate situations however? This is where the screening process, described as Step Two in the article, is most useful. Witnessing violence in the home is a key predictor of potential for future abuse. Questioning if their were incidences of violence should be a key part of any pre-employment interview.

Criminal justice agencies should have legally based policies and regulations articulating a zero-tolerance policy for domestic violence (2). Officers should be required to report when they are respondent to any type of protective order (2). When such a report is made, the administrator receiving the report should evaluate the severity of the incident; the report should be given to either internal affairs or a first-line supervisor, based on this evaluation. Liability must also be evaluated; weapons should be seized if thought necessary. Psychological treatment may be needed, and an evaluation should definitely be made prior to the officer returning to work. One last policy that may be considered beneficial is a reciprocal agreement, with other local law enforcement agencies, to be notified in a timely manner of any officer-involved domestic violence (2).

Training is also key, utilising role-playing and classroom instruction–including a history of officer involved domestic violence–and possibly assignment of new officers to work several hours taking hotline calls at a domestic violence crisis centre (4). Training should not exclude supervisors, who can be trained in crisis assessment, and evaluating risk factors or behavioural clues that abusers, and those being abused, often show (4). The supervisor, well-trained in this area, then knows when and how to make referrals as necessary.

In instances where abuse by an officer has been confirmed, the first, and immediate, step should be to suspend the officer’s police powers, and reclaim–if not already done–any department issued weapons and vehicles; if the officer is charged criminally, court orders may impose a firearms restriction additionally officers may be tempted to improperly or criminally use their weapons to “manage” the situation (5-6). Placed off duty, these officers should then receive a mandated psychiatric evaluation; if fit for duty, the officer can be placed on non-contact assignments pending disposition of the case; if a case is made public, the integrity and impartiality of the officer in question is now suspect in the eyes of the public (5-6).

Police officers called to the scene of a domestic dispute who find a fellow officer, either co-worker or one from another jurisdiction, engaged in an argument or physical fight with a domestic partner must understand the unique situation, which cannot typically be handled in the same manner as that of a civilian offender. Responders often fail to realise that the person with whom they are dealing is not currently “Sergeant Jones” or “Officer Smith” but rather Jane Jones or Tom Smit” having a fight with his or her partner (6). The officer is not rational or level-headed; he or she also knows all the tactics involved, possibly having used them in the course of duty (6). Furthermore, the officer may still have access to the department issued service weapon(s) or off-duty weapon; once police are called, there may be a level of desperation involved–the officer may know that this event could result in dismissal from the agency, and possibly incarceration (6).

A lot of this information is corroborated in a 2003 report titled “Developing Policy on Officer-Involved Domestic Violence” found on the Abuse of Power website; this report was presented at the National Centre for Women and Policing Annual Conference, 1998. Pre-hire screening is advocated, going so far as to suggest a background investigation conducted in the candidate’s home, and also questioning a domestic partner and/or family “as appropriate” (Wetendorf 2003, 1).

Training comes up again, recommending the addition of victim advocates and including the potential for abusive officer’s ability to “misuse his...training and to manipulate responding officers...” (2). Training must cease aiding the abusive officer by teaching, albeit indirectly–via orientation for officers’ families, that an “intimate partner’s role is to cooperate...in protecting the officer’s career” as well as excusing domestic violence as caused by the stress of the job (2).

Additionally, the authors question the wisdom of a “zero-tolerance” policy which–knowing that if they report an incident the officer is likely to lose his job–may well discourage victims from reporting the officers’ actions (2). Additionally, anyone who is interviewed in regards to such a report may, if they corroborate the victim’s complaint, be subject to retaliation by the officer or even other officers; the victim may also be subject to retaliation based on other peoples’ statements (2).

The authors indicate that a policy may require any officers to inform the agency of any knowledge of an officer committing or being the victim of domestic violence; failure to report any known abuse may involve discipline for the non-reporting officer, but the unofficial code of silence may keep an officer from reporting an incident. This effectively removes one step from a victim’s support system; often the only person who can influence an abusive officer may be another officer (3). The victim may not tell an officer, even if (s)he is a personal friend, because the officer is then put in the position of breaking the code of silence and being retaliated against by fellow officers, or keeping quiet and trying to influence the abusive officer and being disciplined for not reporting the abuse–neither is a desirable situation.

This policy also essentially requires self-reporting by an abusive officer–highly unlikely–or if the officer is the victim reporting his/her victimisation–equally as unlikely. If the abuser and victim are both officers, then the victim is even further at risk by being required to cooperate in the investigation or face reprisal (3). This situation is essentially repeated if policy mandates an officer to report being the petitioner or respondent to a protective order. This may deter a victimised officer from seeking a protective order. In the same category is the administrative order of protection–commanding the officer to “refrain from certain activities”–which may be appealing to the victim, but agencies fear liability may still be an issue; issuing the order is admitting that the situation may be volatile (3).

Ultimately, the report emphasizes that “some solutions that are good from the department’s perspective make things even worse for the victim, and some solutions that are better for the victim leave the department open to liability” (1).

In another report, called “Police Perpetrated Domestic Violence” by one of the same authors, Diane Wetendorf, it is noted that victims of police-perpetrated abuse “scream at them like they talk to criminals on the street...they use filthy street language; they tell the woman she is ‘just like the scumbags he deals with every day’;” they also comment that they fear “he has forgotten who she is while he is in this rage” (Wetendorf 1998, 2).

Additionally she notes, “The accounts of physical abuse these victims have described to me are far and away the most brutal I have ever heard” (2). To make matters even worse, she is told that there is no escape; if she calls the police they are likely to believe him, not her (2). If she runs–to family, friends, or a shelter–she can be found, and if she does press charges, she may not have the evidence–or credibility–to make them stick (3).

Police perpetrated domestic violence can pose special problems for all involved parties. Victims have a difficult decision to make, whether or not to risk reporting the incident to officer who may not believe her, and risk retaliation in the process; responding officers risk mis-managing the situation and making things worse for the victim, or becoming secondary victims; anyone questioned that corroborates the victim’s story risks retaliation, or making things worse for the victim; the officer involved knows he may lose his job and go to jail; and the administrator must try to prevent abuse, and decide how best to handle it when it does occur–if handled poorly more than one life is at stake.

Administrators need to do a lot of research before setting policies, because, as the articles have pointed out, a policy that seems like a good idea can actually make things much worse.