Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
In most jobs around the world organizations are tasked with using a reasonable level of
transparency when dealing with the public. Governmental organizations are generally expected
to use more transparency because of their ties the public and the powers granted to them. Law
enforcement organizations must find a unique balance in regards to how transparent they are
with the public. While investigating crimes transparency can be of great assistance, but also of
great danger. The same can be said of the many interactions that law enforcement has with the
public. Sometimes those interactions have the potential to end in violence. It is up to law
enforcement to find a balance between tainting a possible investigation, and keeping the public
informed about what they are doing to ensure no misconduct, in or out of the department is
occurring.
with the public in many different manners. Sometimes giving information about potential
dangers can help the public to avoid a dangerous situation. On the other hand giving too much
information can tip of a criminal that the police are looking for them. Law enforcement officers
must use their best judgment in each situation to determine where transparency is best used. If
done appropriately a good transparent investigation can allow the public to help police find new
leads and connect individuals or new evidence to a crime. That can be done by releasing
different reasons why it would be valuable for law enforcement to have the trust of the public. In
places where law enforcement have the support of the citizenry that they represent they are more
likely to report crimes and come forward as witnesses in crimes they see committed. The public
is more likely to support law enforcement causes on the ballot such as tax increases. According
to the National Research Council, "An effective police force in a democracy requires the consent
and cooperation of its citizenry." This cannot be emphasized enough with the modern society that
we now live in. Every encounter with the public can very easily be circulated around the internet
with ease. Sometimes the actions taken by law enforcement are correct and other times not so
much. The important part is that the agencies and officers involved responded appropriately and
transparently to the public in order to maintain a good working and trusting relationship.
In late 2014 the California Highway Patrol (CHP) learned the hard way that without
effective communication with the public dangerous tension can be built up. The stage was set
when Officer Daniel Andrew responded to a radio call of a female walking on the side of the
freeway. The female was 51 year old Marlene Pinnock, a mentally ill woman. At some point
during their encounter a physical altercation ensued. During the altercation Officer Andrew can
be sitting on top of Pinnock and punching her repeatedly in the head. An unrelated individual
driving by the incident began recording it on his cell phone, and the video was later posted to an
internet video sharing site. It quickly went viral and found its way to news outlets around the
country.
In this incident the CHP did a poor job of getting in front of the potential outcry. The
incident occurred on July 1, 2014. The first news reports of the incident began to surface in late
August of 2014. The CHP should have been better prepared after noticing the severity of the
injuries in this incident. Pinnock's attorney reported she had black eyes, a bloody nose, and
bruises on her back. There is at least one report from the USC Medical Center corroborating
those claims, and saying she has swelling of the face. CHP did not have a statement to issue until
over a month and a half after the incident had occurred. Their initial statement was extremely
bare, lacking facts about the issues surrounding the incident. It simply said that the officer
involved had his peace officer powers suspended, and that an investigation would be conducted.
That is an answer that many law enforcement agencies used for years, but it is not a very
transparent one.
The skating of the facts of the case did not sit well with many in the community and it
was not long before protests began to erupt Los Angeles. Finally in early September after a
significant uproar from the community the Agency Commissioner Joe Farrow got involved and
began to confront the issue head on. He promised an expedited investigation, and began to
actively meet with community leaders to attempt to rectify the situation. All of those actions
where a step in the right direction, but the preliminary issue with the way that CHP handled this
case was the amount of time it took for them to step up and take responsibility. It wasn't until two
months after this incident that transparency was restored and the public was keyed into what
progress was being made on an investigation. CHP leadership should have been prepared for that
the minute they realized closed fist strikes were used on a mentally ill woman who was simply
walking down the freeway. Preparation is half the battle, and CHP was not prepared when this
In addition once the video became public CHP simply laid down a blanket statement that
did little to inform or calm the public's reaction to the events that unfolded. In this situation
woman-punched/15493863/
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-leimert-park-rally-20140823-story.html
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/CHP-Officer-Seen-Camera-Beating-Woman-
Stripped-Peace-Officer-Duties-272055081.html
https://ole.sandiego.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-687750-dt-content-rid-
2371352_1/courses/LEPSL-510-MASTER/CommunicationAccoms.pdf