113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

ILLEGAL DRUGS: THE CHALLENGE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT
Anthony Didrick Castberg*
I. INTRODUCTION
That illegal drugs are a major problem
in the US is not news, nor is the corruptive
influence of drugs on law enforcement
news. Nevertheless, few people reallygrasp the true impact of drugs on American
society, in part because there is a great
ambivalence, and even hypocrisy, about
drugs. Drug offences have frequently beencalled “crimes without victims,” and there
is an active movement in the US to legalize
drugs. It is argued that those who use
drugs harm only themselves, that somedrugs (primarily marijuana) havemedicinal benefits, that legalization would
reduce the cost of drugs and therefore thenecessity of committing other crimes tosupport a drug habit, and that a great dealof money is spent on detecting, prosecuting
and incarcerating drug offenders, moneythat could be better used for drug educationand for the reduction of violent offences.
They point to the widespread use and abuseof alcohol and tobacco, both legal drugs.
The argument against drug use is based
primarily on social, moral and medical
grounds. Many drugs, the opponents
argue, are harmful to the body. As a result,drug users are not productive members ofs o c i e t y, a r e p o o r p a r e n t s , r e q u i r e
disproportionate social services of thegovernment, and account for much of thecrime in society. There must, they say, besometing wrong with people who
constantly desire the kind of feeling
induced by drugs. They use the alcohol
argument as well, saying that whileprohibition was a failure, and the likelihood* Professor of Political Science, University of Hawaii
at Hilo, United States of America.

of banning it again is virtually impossible,
it nevertheless is responsible for may ills
in society, ills that would be compoundedwith the legalization of other drugs. And,the opponents say, drug use is largely
responsible for the spread of AIDS in theUS.
Despite the public support for keeping
drugs illegal, there is neverthelessambivalence among the public that freely
uses legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco andcaffeine) and considers illegal drug use acrime without a victim. Most citizens see
no inconsistency between an abstract moral
belief that drugs are harmful and should
therefore remain illegal, and their own useof legal drugs. So not only is there a great
demand for drugs by those who use them,
there is little public support for a criminal
justice system that places too muchemphasis on combating drugs. What the
public fears most is violent crime, and while
many understand that a great deal ofviolent crime is associated with drugs, few
fear that this crime will affect them, as they
are not involved with drugs. The public
perception is that violent drug-related
crime is primarily directed at those
involved in the illegal enterprise, not the
average citizen. At most, the average
citizen fears he or she will be a victim of aproperty crime committed by a drug addict
to support his or her addiction. So while
not entirely ‘victimless’, drug-related
violent crimes are primarily directed atthose involved in drug activity. Without
widespread and strong public support, it
is very difficult for criminal justiceprofessionals to make much headway
against well-organized and financed drugorganizations.

421

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Regardless of the arguments of the
proponents of drug decriminalization,
however, public policy in the US is clearlyand firmly against the legalization of drugs,
with the possible exception of marijuana
for medical use. There is currently a legal
debate between the State of California andthe US Government over this issue, with
California upholding an initiative approvedby voters that decriminalizes marijuana for
medical use, and the federal government
arguing that federal law on drugs prevails
over state law. This debate is currently inthe courts. California, however, is not
typical of the United States as a whole, andin most states marijuana remains illegal
for any use, a situation that is not likely tochange in the foreseeable future.
The opponents and the proponents ofdrug legalization, however, rarely point tothe corruptive influence of drugs on law
enforcement and how this corruption
affects society. Nor do they often discuss
the international implications of drug
abuse in the US. The Asian Wall Street
Journal recently (September 27) ran an
editorial entitled “The Cokeheads’
Country,” placing much of the blame forproblems in Columbia on the thirst forcocaine in the US : “If it weren’t for the factthat so many Americans working for
Fortune 1000 companies think the mostimportant thing in life is sucking cocaine
up their noses, the sovereign nation of
Columbia might not be on its way to
becoming the world’s first drug republic.”
The international implications of the US
drug problem will be explored in moredetail below, but it there is no question that
the Journal has raised an important point
in its editional.
II. EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
Louis J. Freeh, Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), addressed
the problem of drugs in the US at the 1996
Annual Meeting of the World Economic
422

Forum in Davos, Switzerland, by statingthat it was a global crime threat. In theUS, he said, it was both a social andeconomic problem:(i)

Law enforcement agencies in the US
spend approximately $25 billion
annually on drug control efforts.
(ii) Drugs cost an additional $67 billion
each year in terms of crime, medical,
and death-related expenses.
(iii) The annual costs of drug abuse tobusinesses in terms of absenteeism,
industrial accidents, insurance
premiums, and lack of productivity
was estimated at $60-$100 billion.
The GAO (Government Accounting
Office) has estimated that the total cost ofillegal drugs in the US amounts to $110
billion. Whether it is $60 billion or $110
billion, these amounts are greater than the
GNP of many countries in the world. The
figures listed below further illustrate theproblem:(i)

In FY 1996, US attorneys dealt with
30,227 suspects in drug cases, or
31.7% of all suspect in federal crimes.
(ii) In 1998, there were 1,559,600 stateand local arrests for drug crimes, afigure 1% higher than in 1997, 17%higher than in 1994, and 20% higher
than in 1989.
(iii) DEA drug arrests in 1998 increased
11% over the previous year, andnearly doubled since 1995. Most ofthese arrests, 45.5%, were for cocaine
offences, while 20.7% were formethamphetamine crimes. The rest
were for heroin, dangerous drugs,
and marijuana.
(iv) Slightly over 20% of state and local
drug arrests were for the sale or
manufacture of drugs, while theremaining arrests were forpossession.
(v) In 1997, 98% of the 1,451 illegal drug

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
laboratories seized by federal
authorities were used for the
manufacture of methamphetamine.
(vi) Also in 1997, the Drug Enforcement
Administration’s (DEA) program formarijuana eradication destroyed
241,000,000 plants in 69,665 plots,with 17,070 arrests, seizure of 4,713
weapons and $39.5 million in assets.
(vii) In 1998, the DEA seized 2,568.5
kilograms of methamphetamine,
70,440.9 kilograms of cocaine, 624.6
kilograms of heroin, and 364,081.1
kilograms of marijuana.
(viii) In 1996, 15.8% of all jail inmates said
they committed their offence to getmoney to buy drugs. In the same
year, 15,289 homicides, or 5.1% of all
murders, were drug-related.
(ix) In 1997, 33% of state prisoners and
22% of federal prisoners said they
had committed their current crime
while under the influence of drugs.
(x) In 1996, 82.4% of all state and local
jail inmates and 73% of federal
inmates said they had used drugs in
the past.
The figures listed above leave no doubtthat drugs are a major law enforcement
problem in the US. What they do not show
is the human misery caused by drug
addiction, nor do they show the strain on
law enforcement agencies, prosecutor’s
offices, the courts, and the correctional
system caused by efforts to contain the
problem. The drugs that cause the mostharm, both social and medical, are cocaine,
heroin and methamphetamines, all havelong been drugs of abuse in the US, butwhich are now appearing in new forms or
purity.
Cocaine is derived from the cocoa plant,
which is indigenous to the Andean
Mountain areas of South America. In thelate part of the 19th and early part of the20th centuries, cocaine was widely used asa local anesthetic, but development of more
effective anesthetics, as well as abuse of
the drug, led to its being made illegal.
While previously used primarily in its
powder form (cocaine hydrochloride) byinhaling, it is currently most often used inits crystalline form, usually called “crack”.
Crack cocaine is smoked using a pipe, andresults in an almost immediate intense,
euphoric feeling that soon passes. The
effect is very much like that ofmethamphetamine. Because of the shortduration of the feeling, users crave
additional doses frequently.
Heroin, derived from the opium poppy,
was also used as an anesthetic, and later
criminalized. It has traditionally been usedby subcutaneous injection, but recent
availability of very pure heroin, as well as
the fear of HIV/AIDS transmission via usedneedles, has led to smoking and snorting(direct inhalation of the powder). Whilemost heroin today comes from Southeast
Asia, an increasing amount of the Mexican“black tar” variety is being smuggled into
the US. Heroin, too, produces a feeling of
euphoria, and while it is not as intense, it
lasts longer than that of cocaine. It is acentral nervous system depressant, andtherefore overdose can be fatal.
Methamphetamine, derived fromamphetamine, a drug used as a nasal
decongestant, is a stimulant that produces
a “high” that lasts for up to 8 hours. It has
been used to treat attention deficit disorderand obesity, but has been supplanted bymore effective drugs, and currently has few
legitimate uses. In its pill form it is know
as “speed” or “meth”, while in its crystalline
form it is called “ice” or “crank”. In thislatter form it is particularly intense andaddictive and is ingested by smoking. It
has quickly become a drug of abuse inepidemic proportions in some parts of thecountry.

423

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Marijuana is the mostly widely abused
drug in the US today, but does not havethe severe effects, both personally andsocially, as those discussed above. It
produces psychoactive effects which peak
10 to 30 minutes after smoking, and which
may last hours. In low doses it gives theuser a relaxed, dreamy state of well being,
while in higher doses it heightens thesenses of sight, smell, taste and hearing.
It has, according to some proponents,
medical use in relieving nausea for thoseundergoing chemotherapy and inincreasing the appetite of AIDS patients.
It also has some negative effects in highdoses and/or long-term use.
There are, of course, a number of otherdrugs of abuse, and new or “designer,”drugs are being created ever year. Those
listed above are the most widely used and,with the exception of marijuana, create thegreatest damage to the individual and tosociety as a whole.
III. DRUG RELATED CORRUPTIONIN LAW ENFORCEMENT
Drug crimes are investigated by law
enforcement agencies at the local, state andfederal level. This amounts to over 700,000
sworn personnel at the state and local level,
and over 13,000 federal law enforcement
officials whose duties involve theinvestigation of drug offences (FBI and
DEA, amongst others). The 700,000 plus
sworn law enforcement officers at the stateand local level are employed byapproximately 19,000 different agencies.
In addition, there are 2,343 stateprosecutors’ offices, employing over 71,000
personnel and 93 US attorney’s offices in
the US. The large number of different
agencies and jurisdictions involved in theinvestigation and prosecution of drug
crimes creates logistical and coordination
problems, but this system of law
enforcement is well-established and not424

likely to change in the US. It also createsmany opportunities for corruption.
Corruption of criminal justice personnel,
by those involved in illegal drugs, primarily
takes the form of bribery. While the bribe
may be in the form of drugs themselves, it
is most often in the form of cash. With thevast amounts of cash available to drug
dealers and organizations, the money used
to bribe criminal justice personnel
constitutes petty cash. Yet that money may
be highly attractive to those whose annual
legitimate income is relatively small,
attractive enough that they will risk losing
their jobs, family, freedom, and perhaps
their lives, for the enrichment it provides.
What is given in return for bribe may takea number of forms. Among them are:(i)

Information on law enforcement
intelligence.
(ii) Overlooking drug possession, sale or
manufacture.
(iii) Protection of drug dealers.
(iv) Elimination through arrest of rival
dealers.
(v) Elimination through murder of rival
dealers.
(vi) O v e r l o o k i n g o r f a c i l i t a t i n g
smuggling.
In addition, criminal justice personnel may
be blackmailed in order to obtain the above
services or considerations.
The targets of corruption include all of
those working in the criminal justicesystem: local police and sheriffs; statenarcotics officers; federal Customs,
Immigration, and Coast Guard personnel;
FBI, DEA, BATF (Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms) personnel; local,
state and federal corrections personnel;
local, state and federal regulatory officials;
and prosecutors and judges at all levels.
While there is no agency that has the
responsibility of accumulating data on the

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
drug-related corruption of public officials,
the FBI does provide an annual report on
corruption cases opened and officers
convicted each year, and the GAO provides
studies for Congress and the public on theissue. A 1998 GAO report not only points
out the lack of any database from which todetermine the extent of drug-related
corruption among law enforcement, butalso states that drug-related corruption
cases may not always be identifiable assuch, since they may be listed as perjury,(for lying as a witness during a trial), or
theft (for stealing drugs from seized
evidence).
In FY 1997, for example, there were atotal of 190 cases of law enforcement
corruption opened by the FBI (often inparticipation with state and/or local
agencies), 48% of which were drug-related.
I n t h e s a m e f i s c a l y e a r, 1 5 0 l a w
enforcement officers were convicted ofcorruption-related offences, 53% of which
involved drugs. To put these figures inp e r s p e c t i v e h o w e v e r, t h o s e l a w
enforcement officers convicted of drugrelated corruption constitute .02% of all law
enforcement personnel.
While official corruption cases are
inherently difficult to investigate, those
involving drugs pose particular problems.
As Deputy US Attorney General, Eric H.
Holder, Jr., stated at an international
conference in February, 1999:(i)

Prosecutors are often reluctant toinvestigate and prosecute police
officers or other prosecutors withwhom they regularly associate.
(ii) Police agencies sometimes cannot be
trusted to investigate themselves.
(iii) Judicial corruption investigations cancause judges to distort their decision
making process in unrelated cases tocurry favor with their investigatorsor otherwise influence the outcome of

the investigation.
(iv) Aggressive investigative techniques
like undercover operations andelectronic surveillance are often
needed to make a provable case, butthese techniques can destroy themorale of honest judges, prosecutors
or police officers.
(v) A code of silence or a culture of noncooperation frequently keeps police
officers from coming forward withinformation or otherwise cooperatingwith investigations involving
corruption by fellow officers.
(vi) Decisions not to investigate orprosecute allegations of judicial orlaw enforcement corruption are often
difficult to justify publicly and can beperceived as efforts to cover up
enbarrassing misconduct.
Despite the difficulties cited above,
criminal justice personnel are investigated,
prosecuted and convicted. Here are somerecent examples:(i)

An Orange Country, California,
district attorney was arrested in Junefor being part of a major drug
distribution and money launderingring.
(ii) Thirteen corrections officers in
Miami, Florida, were charged, alongwith 30 others, with running a drugdealing operation in the Miami-Dade
County jails.
(iii) A county sheriff in Texas was arrested
for stealing almost $12,000 in seizeddrug money and trying to replace itby selling marijuana.
(iv) A veteran Chicago police officer wasamong 10 people charged withrunning a drug ring that transported
millions of dollars of cocaine andheroin between Chicago and Miami.
(v) T h r e e c o r r e c t i o n s o f f i c e r s i n
California were charged withsmuggling marijuana,

425

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
methamphetamine, cocaine andheroin into state prisons.
(vi) A Pennsylvania State trooper,
addicted to cocaine, was charged withstealing 2.5 kilograms of cocaine fromthe State Trooper evidence locker.
(vii) Tw o I N S ( I m m i g r a t i o n a n dNaturalization Service) inspectors
and one former inspector werecharged with taking bribes
amounting to hundreds of thousandsof dollars to allow Mexican drug
dealers to smuggle cocaine across theborder.
(viii) Six local sheriffs in Texas werecharged with helping to smuggle 800
kilograms of marijuana across theborder.
(ix) A former INS inspector in Arizona
admitted to accepting a $75,000 bribe
for allowing 585 kilos of cocaine tocross the border when he was on duty
in 1996. Another officer is charged
with attempting to import, possess,and distribute cocaine in return for
accepting bribes totaling $32,500.
The border between the US and Mexico
poses a particular problem. It stretchesfrom Brownsville, Texas, to Imperial
Beach, California, a total of 1,962 miles(3,157km). It is manned by approximately
1,300 INS and 2,000 Customs inspectors
at the numerous points of entry, andpatrolled by over 6,300 INS Border Patrol
agents at points in between. Even with allof these inspectors and agents, assisted byhigh-tech surveillance devices, it isvirtually impossible to prevent thesmuggling of drugs from taking place; and,it would seem, from preventing corruptionof these personnel.
A 1999 GAO report details the cases of
28 INS and Customs personnel convicted
for corrupt acts related to drugs between
1992 and 1999. Among the offences
committed were the allowing of drug-filled426

trucks to drive through ports of entry,
coordinating the movement of drugs acrossthe border, transporting drugs themselves
across the border, selling drugs, andproviding confidential information to drug
dealers. Of the 28 convicted, 19 were INS
employees and 9 were Customs employees,
and they were stationed in California,
Arizona and Texas.
IV. WHY DOES THIS CORRUPTIONTAKE PLACE?
The simple answer to this question ismoney. One might well ask, using theexamples cited above, whether the risktaken by these officials was worth $32,500,
or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
To the vast majority of criminal justiceofficials the answer is clearly “no”. But all
it takes is one corrupt officer to allow drug
smuggling and distribution to take place,and given the huge profits made by thesecriminals, money spent on corrupt officials
is an excellent investment. One can point
to low salaries, poor morale, inadequate
training, amongst other factors leading tocorruption, but it is often a complex seriesof factors in each event that leads to an
actual crime.
Law enforcement salaries in most police
and sheriffs offices is quite low-often lessthan $35,000 per year for experienced
personnel, while prosecutors rarely earnover $75,000 per year and judges $100,000.
Bribes equal to or several times thesesalaries are a small part of the operating
expenses of major drug operations. This
money can be very attractive, especially tothose who are in debt or already living
beyond their means. It is also difficult forlaw enforcement personnel when they
compare their lifestyle to that of those they
arrest-honesty and integrity don’t buy theluxuries that those in the drug businesshave in quantity. But there are many otherreasons as well.

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
A May 1998 study by the GAO identified
a number of factors that are correlated withdrug-related law enforcement corruption;and distinguishes this type of corruption
from other forms of police corruption.
Drug-related corruption, for example, often
involves protecting criminals or ignoring
their activities, as noted above, as well asactive involvement in the commission of anumber of crimes, including drug theft,robbery, selling of drugs and perjury. It also
has in common with other forms ofcorruption the police “code of silence” andcynicism about the criminal justice system.
The report lists a number of factors thatare associated with drug-related
corruption:(i) Opportunities.
(ii) Recruitment standards.
(iii) Training.
(iv) Police culture.
(v) Supervision.
(vi) Code of integrity.
(vii) Internal affairs.
(viii) Police brutality.
(ix) Family or neighborhood pressures.
And, I would add, the decentralized natureof law enforcement in the US.
A. Opportunities
The nature of law enforcement
necessarily involves many opportunities toengage in illigal acts, ranging fromaccepting $5 not to write a traffic citation,
through taking small amounts ofmerchandise from burglarized stores, toprotection of organized crime. With respect
to drugs, there are opportunities to keepsome of the drugs seized, or to keep someof the cash seized, during arrest. A recent
scandal in the Los Angeles Police
Department involved, among other things,
the theft of a substantial quantity of
cocaine from a police evidence locker. The
use of undercover officers in narcotics

operations is especially troublesome, as it
not only exposes the officers to seamy, but
often exciting, drug culture. It may, undersome circumstances, require that theofficer actually use drugs as part of theundercover operation. That, in turn, may
lead to addiction.
B. Recruitment Standards
The large number of law enforcement
agencies in the US is due to historical andtraditional decentralization of thatfunction. That in turn means that each
local agency enjoys a great deal ofindependence from both the state andfederal government. While there are state
standards for police training in most states,
and minimum requirements forrecruitment in some, there is no national
standard for either. Nor is there any widely
accepted accreditation process for law
enforcement agencies. So recruitment
standards vary widely. As a result,departments may hire those totally
unsuitable for police work. Few law
enforcement agencies at the state or local
level require either a community or fouryear college degree, although some arestarting to require “some college
education”. Some agencies give preference
to veterans, but few, if any, require priormilitary service for hiring. Psychologicaltesting varies greatly, from none toextensive background investigations.
Federal agencies, such as the FBI and the
DEA, have higher standards, requiring aminimum of a bachelor’s degree as well as
passing an extensive background check,
psychological testing, and a polygraph (“liedetector”) examination.
C. Training
As noted above, training standards varyfrom state to state and from department
to department. Some departments,
especially the larger ones, do their own
training, training which may be quite
comprehensive and last for one year or

427

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
more. Smaller departments may pay fortraining at a regional academy, frequently
run by a university or community college.
Other may essentially use on-the-job
training, putting virtually all of theemphasis on learning through experience.
Regardless of which method of training isused, police departments or regional
academies tend to place more emphasis ontechniques of arrest, firearms training,crime scene investigation, routine patrol,
etc, than on moral and ethical issues.
D. Police Culture
The GAO report listed the following
characteristics of a police culture that
supports corruption :(1) A c o d e o f s i l e n c e w i t h g r a v econsequences for those who violate it;these cosequences may include thefailure to “back up” an officer indangerous situations if that officer isperceived of as having violated thecode of silence, even if that silence
covers up serious crimes.
(2) Loyalty to other officers above all
else-your life may depend on it.
(3) Cynicism about the criminal justicesystem and public support for law
enforcement - a common
characteristic of veteran police
officers, especially those in large,
urban, high-crime areas.
(4) Indoctrination on the job as to whatis acceptable behavior - “forget what
you learned in the academy - this is
how it is really done”. In general,police officers feel that only otherofficers can understand their job andthat they can only trust other officers;
all other citizens are by definition“suspects”.
E. Supervision
Although police departments virtually
all have military-like command and rank
structures, they are very unlike the428military in several important aspects. Most
importantly, perhaps, is that police officers
tend to either work alone or with a partner,
rather than in squads or platoons as in the
military. This means that they often workwithout direct supervision. Supervisors
respond only when needed, and rarely havethe opportunity to directly observe theirsubordinates carrying out their normal
functions. They most often rate theirsubordinates on the basis of written
reports, number of arrests made, numberof citizen complaints, and other such
numerical criteria. The higher in rank one
rises, the less that person is aware of or
primarily concerned with the day-to-day
aspects of policing. Instead they must deal
with budgets, purchasing and political
functions.
F. Code of Integrity
There are a number of codes of conduct
or codes of integrity in law enforcement.
What is lacking, however, are effective
methods and efforts to teach and enforce
them. Most professional law enforcement
agencies teach ethics in their academies,
but they rarely have in-service training of
ethics and integrity, nor do they use
integrity as a criteria for promotion.
Integrity training is especially importantfor officers assigned to units responsible fordrug enforcement.
G. Internal Affairs
Most law enforcement agencies haveinternal mechanisms for dealing withviolations of procedures, as well as
violations of the law. These internal affairs
units, as they are called, are tasked withinvestigating citizen complaints about
officers, as well as taking proactive means
to ensure adherence to procedures and thelaw. This duty is, however, generally
distasteful, and officers assigned tointernal affairs units are frequently
referred to as “headhunters”. They cannot
adhere to the code of silence, nor can they

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
cover up for officers guilty of violations. But
in practice in many departments, internalaffairs units are less than effective. Manyof the police departments of the larger cities
in the US, such as Los Angeles, Chicago
and New York, have failed over the pastten years to effectively deal with corruption
and brutality, among other offences. Dueto the nature of their work, officers
assigned to drug enforcement often tend
to be immune from internal affairs
investigations.
H. Police Brutality
Police brutality is one of the mostfrequent complaints investigated byinternal affarirs units, and one of the mostwidely publicized by the media. The
Rodney King incident in Los Angeles took
years, and a violent riot, before it was
finally resolved. Similarly, the recent
brutalizing of an African immigrant by
New York City police officers madeheadlines worldwide. Several studies havefound that officers involved in drug-related
corruption also have histories of complaints
made against them for the use of excessive
force.
I. Family or Neighborhood
Pressures
Although many law enforcement
agencies have policies that effectively place
their officers on duty 24 hours per day, by
requiring them to take action in any serious
crime, even when off-duty, the practicalreality is that police officers are citizens
like everybody else. They have families andthey live in neighborhoods. But sometimes
families and neighborhoods create conflictwith their duties to enforce the law. In
several of the cases cited above, law
enforcement personnel were enticed into
corruption by family members. In othercases, neighborhood norms may put theofficer in conflict with the norms of law
enforcement. This is especially a problem
in those cities which require their officers

to live in that city.
J. Decentralized Law Enforcement
The very nature of law enforcement in
the US lends itself to inefficiency and lackof oversight. State and local law
enforcement agencies in the US are
essentially self-governing and are rarely
subject to the oversight of a higher
authority. There is tension between local/
state agencies and federal agencies that islong-standing, and while the FBI, forexample, has statutory authority toinvestigate corruption in state and local
law enforcement agencies, it is frequently
difficult to carry out that authority due topolitical pressures and lack of cooperation
among local or state officials. Stateagencies, such as the Office of the Attorney
General, rarely investigate local law
enforcement agencies and rarely prosecutelocal law enforcement officials who aresuspected of being corrupt. Drug
enforcement units within police
departments tend to be isolated andinsulated from the rest of the department,in large part for the purpose ofconfidentiality. Therefore, corruption inthese units it rarely detected.
V. INTERNATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted above, the sources of the mostabused and dangerous illegal drugs in the
US are primarily foreign. Columbia is thesource of most of the cocaine used in theUS, while heroin comes from Southeast
Asia and Mexico, the latter also being thesource of much of the methamphetamine
consumed in the US. Mexico, in addition
to being a source of many of the drugs in
the US, is also a major transit area as well
- just last week 1,290 people were arrested
in Jamaica, the Dominican Republic andHaiti, for drug trafficking. In the same
week, 30 drug traffickers, including a
number of major figures in Columbia’s drug
cartels, were arrested. The Colombian429

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
operation is said to have been shipping 30
tons of cocaine into the US each month, orabout $60 billion a year worth of cocaine.
The Colombian cartel used sophisticatedcommunications equipment withencryption devices, but authorities wereable to intercept the messages and breakthe encryption. Whether the Colombians
will be extradited to the US, however, is
not clear, even though they were arrested
based on indictments handed down in
Miami. Columbia restored extradition with
the US in late 1997, which means that even
if the drug traffickers are extradited theycannot be tired in the US for crimes
committed prior to December 17, 1997. It
should be noted that the penalties for drugs
in the US are much more severe than thosein Colombia.
As The Asian Wall Street Journal
editorial cited above indicates, however, thereal problem lies in the US. The US is
giving Colombia $289 million in antinarcotics aid this year, but Columbia claims
that this figure is not enough and has
recently asked for $1.5 billion over the next
three years. Much of this money is foreradication of cocoa plants and payments
to farmers for alternatives to this form of
agriculture, as well as for equipment
ranging from high-tech surveillance
devices to helicopters. It is also safe to saythat some of that money will be used tofight left-wing guerilla groups that support
the drug traffickers.
The situation in Mexico is no better.
Mexico is rife with drug-related corruption,
corruption that has reached to thepresidency of that nation. It is estimatedthat about 60% of the cocaine in the US
comes across the US -Mexico border, withmuch of the rest coming through the
Caribbean. As noted above, Mexico is alsoa major source of methamphetamine,heroin and marijuana. This has resulted
in very large drug cartels in Mexico and430

the resultant corruption of police,prosecutors and judges.
Columbia and Mexico are poor countries,
and the amount of money available throughdrug manufacture and trafficking isenormous. Neither nation has industries
or government jobs that can offer salaries
that pay a fraction of what one can earnfrom illegal drugs. Who can blame poor
farmers for growing cocoa or marijuana, or
peasants for making methamphetamine,when other jobs are virtually non-existent?
Similarly, who can blame poorly paid
criminal justice personnel from taking
bribes, when obeying the law andmaintaing one’s integrity does not put foodon the table? The real dilemma is thatjust as citizens of these countries are
seduced by drug money, high officials are
seduced by US aid or by drug money, orboth. All because of the enormous appetite
for illegal drugs in the US.
This drug appetite has created aninternational disaster - politically, socially,
and morally. The US should be working
with its Latin and South Americanneighbors to achieve economic and politicalstability for the welfare of all its citizens,but instead all three nations findthemselves working to stamp out drug
manufacture and trafficking, neither ofwhich results in much stability. It isthought by many that US efforts against
Colombian drug traffickers have helped therise of the leftist guerilla movement in thatcountry, and of large organized crimegroups in Mexico. While both countries
have historically suffered from corrupt
public officials, money associated with thedrug trade has increased corruption
significantly.
The huge appetite for drugs in the US,
therefore, has created significant
international problems for all of theAmericas. Issues of sovereignty are raised

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
by the presence of US drug agents
operating on foreign soil and flying inforeign skies. Economic development ofthese countries suffer because of the energy
and money that goes toward fighting drugs.
There is no question that fighting drugtraffickers is an international problem that
requires international efforts, nor is there
any question that this effort is necessary the US cannot adequately guard its
coastlines and borders against smugglers,so it must try to reduce or stop the flow ofdrugs from the countries of origin. But theprice is high and there is no light at theend of the tunnel.
VI. SOLUTIONSSolutions to the problems discussed
above can be divided into two categories:
law enforcement and the rest of society.
The first category is perhaps the easiest to
solve, but only in comparison to the second.
Despite the decentralized nature of law
enforcement in the US, it is possible tosignificantly reduce corruption in thoseagencies, whether drug-related or not. So
the question is not whether it is possible,
but rather when there is enough publicpressure and official commitment to seethat it happens. Let us, then, examine theproblems listed above and seek solutions
to each of them.
A. Opportunities
The nature of police work will always
involve opportunities to engage in corrupt
activities. But that is true of otherprofessions and occupations as well. Bank
tellers work with large sums of money
daily, physicians have access to many
drugs, and office workers have access to
office materials. So there is always thetemptation to embezzle, use drugs andsteal. Opportunities can be reduced
through effective supervision, andtemptations reduced through effective
recruitment and training.

B. Recruitment Standards
The President’s Commission on Law
Enforcement and the Administration of
Justice in 1967 issued a massive reportwhich, amongst many other issues,
addressed the recruitment issue. It
suggested that all law enforcement
agencies in the US start phasing inincreased educational requirements forrecruitment, eventually requiring aminimum of a bachelor’s degree for hiring.
This has not happened. The debate stillrages over whether a college education
makes a person a better police officer. At
the same time, however, it is widely
recognized that the federal agencies,
especially the FBI, have far less corruption
and are better trained than the vast
majority of state and local departments. In
large part this is due to higher recruitment
standards, which not only include a college
degree, but a comprehensive selection
process as discussed above.
C. Training
It used to be thought that the emphasison training prospective law enforcement
officers should be in the areas of the use offorce - how to subdue an opponent and how
to shoot accurately - as well as otheroperational requirements. Thinking has
gradually shifted, however, so that moreemphasis is placed on interpersonalcommunication, psychology, sociology andother “academic” subjects. What is lacking,however, is extensive and ongoing integrity
training and the use of integrity measuresfor promotion. It is essential that thistraining takes place, and that it besupported by appropriate operational
policies and by all supervisors. In addition,
law enforcement officers should be required
to make full and complete disclosure of all
income, assets and debts. Departments
should consider integrity testing, although
it is recognized that this is controversial
and may well be opposed by law
enforcement unions.

431

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
D. Police CulutureThis is one of the most significant
problems facing those those who are trying
to reduce or eliminate corruption in law
enforcement. It is even more of a problem
among narcotics officers, as narcotics units
are cultures within a culture. Narcotics
officers tend to associate only amongst eachother, and are generally under much lesssupervision than patrol officers or
detectives. While some separation from therank and file may be necessary for reasonsof confidentiality, too much separation is
not healthy. Nor is long-term assignment
to undercover narcotics work. It is truethat major drug investigations may takeyears, and undercover officers may haveto maintain that status for years, but assoon as arrests have been made and theofficer’s identity known, the officer shouldbe transferred to another division or unit.
Rotation of personnel, then, is importantin general in law enforcement, andespecially important in drug units, as ameans of reducing corruption.
E. Supervision
As noted above, police supervisors(generally, sergeants and above) actuallyengage in very little direct supervision.
The vast majority of supervision is doneon paper, and subordinates are evaluatedby paper (reports, arrests, traffic tickets,etc). Corruption in US law enforcement
is, for the most part, at the lower levels ofpolice departments. The higher up in the
chain of command one gets, the less likelythat person will be corrupted for the simple
reason that those administrators are notin a position to make decisions that will
benefit drug dealers. In very small
departments, of course, this is not the case,but most of the corruption in the US isfound in larger departments. Therefore,
supervision of those in the lower echelons
is vital to effective law enforcement and theelimination of corruption. Many of thefunctions of higher ranking police

432

supervisors can be handled by civilian
personnel. Ranking police administrators
belong where they can effectively supervise
those under them. Police supervisiors mustbe held strictly accountable for the actionsof those they supervise.
F. Code of Integrity
As noted above, there are numerous
codes of law enforcement integrity, but they
are meaningless unless they are effectively
inculcated into the agency itself. Integrity
training must be a continuous process,taking place both in the classroom and thefield. It should be one of the criteria forevaluation and promotion, andadministrative practices must make it
clear to all officers that the agency does nottolerate breaches of integrity. Whether alaw enforcement agency has an internalaffairs unit responsible for maintaining
integrity, or depends on an external unit,
is not as important as the effectiveness of
the unit itself. There has been a great dealof controversy over civilian review boardsin the US. These boards have been
established to serve as a watchdog agency
over law enforcement, which would reduceor eliminate police brutality andcorruption. But they have not been very
effective, primarily because they rarely getmuch cooperation from the agency they aresupposed to be monitoring. This is anotherexample of the police culture, which saysthat “only a police officer can understandthe actions of another police officer”. So
internal affairs units are more likely to beeffective, but only with the total support ofsupervisory personnel.
G. Police Brutality
This problem has been addressed above,
to some extent, but the problem is a serious
one. Police are faced with many dangerous
and volatile situations where their lives
and those of innocent civilians may be atrisk. The majority of uniformed police
patrol officers and detectives in the US

113TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
routinely wear body armour because thethreat of being shot is very real. Given thisperceived constant threat that can comefrom anybody - male or female, young or
old - police are justifiably apprehensive,
especially when involved in a situation that
could result in violence. Just where to draw
the line with respect to the use of force may
be clear in academy training and generalorders, but on the streets in the fastmoving, confusing situations that officers
in many cities face every day, it is not thatclear. Police officers are usually taught touse an escalation of force which isnecessary to control the situation - use
pepper spray to control a violent, unarmed
person; use a baton to control a violent
person who is not affected by the spray; usea firearm only when necessary to protect
your own life or that of an innocent civilian,etc.
In theory this is a good policy, but inpractice it is not always so easy to adhere
to. It is quite difficult, for example, tohandcuff a suspect who resists. Even two
officers may not be able to cuff a resisting
suspect. If more than one officer isinvolved, it may well seem to a civilian
bystander that police are acting in a brutal
manner. The suspect himself may sustain
injuries in the process, which he will later
claim were caused by police brutality.
There is no easy answer to this problem,
but it is clear that with good supervision
police brutality will be minimized. The
Rodney King incident in Los Angeles is an
excellent example of this - Sgt. Stacey Koon
did not exercise good leadership and as aresult, Rodney King was treated in a brutal
m a n n e r b y o f f i c e r s u n d e r K o o n ’s
“supervision”. So we come back to thesupervision issue, which is of primary
importance in law enforcement.
H. Family or Neighborhood
Pressures
The solution to this problem is quite

staightforward: when one pins on thebadge, one’s primary loyalities shift to thecitizens he or she serves. A police officer
may well find that his or her pre-police
friends and social groups are no longer
appropriate. An old friend may drink too
much and then drive home, or somebody
may take out a marijuana cigarette in asocial setting. What is the off-duty police
officer supposed to do under thesecircumstances? This, unfortunately, gives
rise to the police culture, but as noted
above, there are ways that this problem canbe minimized. It must be clearly
understood when one applies to become apolice officer that certain sacrifices must
be made, and that may include somealienation from family and friends in thehigher interest of protecting society as awhole, protection that cannot occur if a
police officer gives his or her primary
loyalty to family and friends.
I. Decentralized Law Enforcementin the US
This is the one problem that does notseem to have a solution. The historical andpolitical roots of this form of law
enforcement are so firmly embedded thatchange is virtually impossible. Therefore
the inefficiencies caused by it must be madeup for through better communication andcoordination.
VII. CONCLUSION
It is realized that even though solutions
are suggested, there are no easy answers
to any of the problems enumerated above,and implementaion is never easy because
there are always economic and politicalconsiderations. Nor will the same problems
and solutions be applicable to law
enforcement agencies in all nations. The
principles involved, however - integrity,honesty, ethics, morality, and lawfulness apply to all cultures, even though they may
not present in all cultures. These solutions

433

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
cannot work without the support of thesociety as a whole. From the highest
elected officials to the lowliest voter, there
must be support for a corruption freesociety, and with it, corruption-free law
enforcement. A good place to start is tohave no tolerance for drug use, for as longas the great thirst for drugs remains, there
will be people willing to pay large sums ofmoney to obtain those drugs, and that willin turn create a ruthless and well-financed
group of people who supply the drugs to
those who demand them. Bribing law
enforcement officers or anybody else in thecriminal justice system becomes part of thecost doing business, and creates problems
that are international in scope. Until every
society rejects this vicious cycle, until drug
use becomes unacceptable, there will be
police corruption. And as long there ispolice corruption, we will all suffer.

434