These crimes ranged from stealing drugs and money from drug dealers to lying under oath about illegal searches. Moreover, drug-related police corruption was not found to be a systemic problem that infected entire departments or precincts. Our sources also identified differences between the pattern of drug-related police corruption and patterns of other types of police corruption. The commissions and academic experts reported that drug-related police corruption typically involved small groups of officers. Drug-related police corruption usually did not involve such non-drug-related patterns as (1) just a few isolated individuals within a department who engaged in illegal acts or (2) low-level corruption pervading entire departments or precincts. Some data on drug-related police corruption were available from federal agencies, such as the FBI, and local agencies. These data included public corruption cases involving illegal drug activities. However, he noted that drug-related corruption cases could not be identified for two reasons. These factors included (1) opportunities to commit illegal acts or crimes on the job—for example, the availability of large sums of money; (2) the maturity-level (age) and education-level of the officer; (3) inadequate training, particularly integrity training, in the police academies and on the job; (4) a police culture that supported or ignored corruption; (5) ineffective headquarters and field supervision; (6) management’s failure to enforce a code of integrity; (7) weaknesses in a police department’s internal investigative structure and practices; (8) involvement in police brutality; and (9) pressures arising from an officer’s personal neighborhood ties. In Chicago, for example, one researcher found that, while not all officers involved in police brutality were also engaged in drug-related police corruption, a number of police officers involved in drug-related corruption also had histories of the use of excessive force. Among the detection practices recommended and/or implemented were integrity testing, early warning systems to detect potential problem officers, and proactive investigations of individual officers or precincts with a high number of corruption-related complaints. In addition, we identified several federal initiatives that were directed toward assisting state and local governments in preventing police corruption. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Congressman Charles B. Rangel requested that we conduct a study on the impact of drug trafficking on the corruption of police in large cities having a high incidence of drug trafficking and abuse. Therefore, we agreed to provide descriptive information on the (1) nature and extent of drug-related police corruption in certain large cities, (2) factors associated with drug-related police corruption, and (3) practices that have been recommended or implemented to prevent or detect drug-related police corruption. The FBI was able to provide us with limited data on FBI-led drug-related law enforcement corruption cases. However, they do not reflect the overall extent of drug-related police corruption. Regarding our third objective, to determine some of the practices recommended or adopted by city police departments to prevent and/or detect drug-related police corruption, as well as police corruption in general, we reviewed and summarized the findings and recommendations of the Mollen Commission and Chicago Commission reports; observations from academic sources; and information provided by federal law enforcement officials, the NYPD’s IAB, and the New York City Commission to Combat Police Corruption. 5-11. 6-10. 13-21.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the impact of drug trafficking on the corruption of police in large cities that have a high incidence of drug trafficking and drug abuse, focusing on the: (1) nature and extent of known drug-related police corruption in certain large cities; (2) factors associated with known drug-related police corruption; and (3) practices that have been recommended or implemented to prevent or detect drug-related police corruption.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) drug-related police corruption differs in a variety of ways from other types of police corruption; (2) in addition to protecting criminals or ignoring their activities, officers involved in drug-related corruption were more likely to be actively involved in the commission of a variety of crimes, including stealing drugs and money from drug dealers, selling drugs, and lying under oath about illegal searches; (3) although profit was found to be a motive common to traditional and drug-related police corruption, New York City's Mollen Commission identified power and vigilante justice as two additional motives for drug-related police corruption; (4) the most commonly identified pattern of drug-related police corruption involved small groups of officers who protected and assisted each other in criminal activities, rather than the traditional patterns of non-drug-related police corruption that involved just a few isolated individuals or systemic corruption pervading an entire police department or precinct; (5) federal agencies either do not maintain data specifically on drug-related police corruption or maintain data only on cases in which the respective agency is involved; (6) the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided GAO with data on FBI-led drug-related corruption cases involving state and local law enforcement officers; (7) however, since the total number of drug-related police corruption cases at all levels of government is unknown, the proportion constituted by FBI cases also is unknown; (8) one commonly identified factor associated with drug-related corruption was a police culture that was characterized by a code of silence, unquestioned loyalty to other officers, and cynicism about the criminal justice system; (9) officers lacking in experience and some higher education were considered to be more susceptible to involvement in illicit drug-related activities; (10) GAO's sources also identified practices that they believed could prevent or detect drug-related police corruption; (11) these practices, although often directed toward combatting police corruption in general, also were viewed as effective steps toward specifically addressing drug-related police corruption; (12) the detection practices GAO's sources discussed included integrity testing, early warning systems to identify potential problem officers, and proactive investigations of individual officers or precincts with a high number of corruption complaints; and (13) lastly, GAO identified several federal initiatives that were directed toward assisting state and local governments in preventing and detecting police corruption.