Act Like The "Real Police" And That's How You'll Be Seen.

Campus police officers are "real police". So, why is there the stereotype and ridiculous notion floating around, that campus police officers are not the real police? Having worked in a major metropolitan police department, a county correctional facility, and college police departments, I have observed and experienced the public's differing views on different law enforcement professionals. I believe the misconceptions are due to a lack of the public's knowledge and a flawed self image portrayed by some campus police departments. I also fear departments failing to demonstrate competency, integrity, and consistency will lead to "a form of discrimination". According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary the definition of discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Note the definition says "especially" not "solely" on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines prejudice as injury or damage resulting from some judgement or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially detriment to one's legal rights or claims, a preconceived judgment or opinion, or an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge, or an instance of such judgment or opinion, an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics. In this definition consider "a group" to be defined as students versus non-students or paying customers versus non-paying customers.

While working as a police officer in Texas, I was a couple weeks into my Field Training and I answered a call for service. I walked to the complainant and introduced myself and inquired as to how I could help him. He looked at me and said, "I aint talkin to no rookie." He walked past me and began to address my Field Training Officer (FTO). My FTO redirected him to me and assured the man that I was capable of addressing his concerns and that the FTO was hear to monitor and train new officers. The man did address his issue with me and I was able to produce a satisfactory solution. My FTO educated the public in a manner that resulted in me being trained, me maintaining self respect, and it instilled faith in the complainant that I was qualified just like my FTO. After the call was handled, my FTO and I reviewed the call and he had some suggestions for me to apply in the future. He asked if I had any questions and I responded, "I know I am a rookie, but how did he know, and when do people stop treating you like a rookie?" My FTO laughed and said, "You look about 12 years old, your uniform has no wear and tear, and when you walk up to people, it sounds like you're speaking from a script. People will stop treating you like a rookie, when you stop acting like one."

Educating the public, especially in a small confined jurisdiction like a campus is relatively easy but it takes time and it requires a certain level of understanding on the part of institutional administration. Creating the correct self image of the department and the officers requires a great deal more work, dedication, and professionalism but is also dependent upon the understanding and cooperation of the institutional administration. This is where strong-minded, experienced, and knowledgeable supervisors play an essential role in campus police departments. These are the officers that will lead officers, create culture, train new officers, and liaison between the department and the academic community when officer's actions are questioned.

There will always be times when officers make mistakes or when multiple solutions can be applied to a situation. Officers will never be perfect. When supervisors are addressing issues they should bear in mind that their reactions to their subordinates form an image in the public's eye and also form a culture within the department. If officers handle a situation correctly or in an acceptable manner, then support it. You can suggest other options or if it is required, change policy for the future; but a difference in opinion is not grounds for disciplinary or adverse employment action. Do you want the image of your officers to be one of contention, incompetence, and unreasonableness? Do you want to create a culture of laziness, inattention, and unprofessionalism? Most supervisors and administrators would never want to portray their department in that type of negative light but because they serve a civilian, business minded, and money generating organization, they sacrifice consistency, integrity, and professionalism to appease paying clientele. That type of arrangement is suited for professional private security not police departments. Have consistent and professional standards where officers are free to do their jobs and receive the appropriate support and protection from those who are less concerned and knowledgable about doing law enforcement correctly.

Police officers have legal obligations and incur liabilities that private security professionals don't. Ultimately, individual officers will be held accountable for their decisions and actions. When questioned in court, about their enforcement actions, answering "The Vice-President of Student Affairs doesn't like seeing burglary on the campus crime report so we charged the suspect with theft instead," doesn't reflect positively on a department's or officer's level of integrity or professionalism. Similarly, when a student gets charged, administratively, with theft and a non-student gets charged, criminally, with the higher charge even having committed the same actions under otherwise identical circumstances is also a questionable practice. The expectations placed on private security professionals pale in comparison to those placed on police officers. These two distinctly different professions have some similarities but have significant differences that makes each better suited for different work environments. Placing one in the environment best suited for the other, puts the officers, departments, and the institution in a dangerous situation. An institution should decide between the two by defining what level of control over the security operations will be directed by the institutional administration verses the security operations professionals. If the institution is not comfortable taking direction from and supporting the security operations administrator (Chief of Police) then the institution needs to choose private security professionals and not a police department. If the institution is prepared to take direction from the law enforcement professional, then a police department is an appropriate choice.

Security officers can overlook what their client instructs them to overlook and are less likely to incur liability. Police officers, while they have discretion, they also have obligations to report and address certain offenses. Police officers are in place to protect the public not just protect the interests of a client. Their higher level of training and capabilities to address offenses comes with a responsibility and accountability. This is important to understand because this is most often where the campus police officers are not the real police idea comes from. Putting a badge on and calling yourself the police does not make you the police in the eyes of the public. How you act and how you conduct your day-to-day operations defines you in the eyes of the community you serve.

While on patrol, I conducted a traffic stop. I was positioned in a four-way stop-sign controlled intersection monitoring traffic with an Automatic License Plate Reader and checking for seatbelt law compliance. I observed a driver not wearing a seatbelt and instructed him to pull over. I issued him a citation and released him from the stop. This young man, a tuition paying student, complained to the Dean of the college, President of college, Police Chief, and my supervisor. He demanded I should be given a citation for being in the street obstructing the flow of traffic, that I violated his personal property by placing his driver's license on the bed of his truck because I didn't have his permission to touch his vehicle, and that I should only be giving warnings to students who are driving without seat belts, on the street, to get from building to building. He also threatened to call several other Georgia officials and pursue charges against the department if his citation was not reduced to a warning. An investigation was conducted and found that the complaint was frivolous and without merit due to the following facts.

1. The offender admitted to not wearing a seatbelt while operating a motor vehicle on the roadways in the State of Georgia.
2. I was legally conducting traffic enforcement.
3. I observed the offense being committed.
4. I was within my discretion as an officer.
5. I was not in violation of the law.
6. I was not in violation of any policies.
7. I was not in violation of any standing orders.

My supervisor met with me and despite these findings, he informed me that he was told the police department chain of command couldn't order me to change the citation to a warning, but he was instructed to strongly suggest I change the citation to a warning or the university administration would call for me to be strictly disciplined and possibly terminated; but if I complied with this suggestion the matter would be closed and only result in a written documentation that I had acted unreasonably and after counseling, the citation was changed to a warning. This is an example of when a Police Chief should know enough to stand up for his officers and inform the university that they are essentially obstructing justice, retaliating against an officer, coercing a public official, and possibly other offenses as well. Plus this severely undermines the officer, sets a precedent, and sends a dangerous message to the community that the officers are either incompetent or that the administration won't support them if you threaten to complain even when you are 100% wrong and the officer is 100% correct.

One night, around 3AM, while on patrol, I observed a vehicle drifting from curb to curb and screeching its wheels. I stopped the vehicle and contacted the driver. The young lady was under 21 and she was found to be intoxicated. This is by definition a case of an underaged person driving under the Influence of alcohol. When I requested a check of her name and driving history, I got a phone call from the Chief of Police. He instructs me to write her a Consumption of Alcohol by a Minor citation and take her to her dorm. I immediately pointed out that when that went to court for future DUI cases, I could be asked about my level of proficiency and experience with similar cases. My consistency of action and level of knowledge are always subject to review. I could be asked why I chose to deviate from the obvious course of action that I had taken dozens upon dozens of times in the past by not filing the appropriate charge and arresting her. This line of questioning would serve to paint me as a less than professional officer with an integrity issue when it comes to college girls with wealthy parents. The Chief told me that she was the daughter of a University Trustee and that I was not going to arrest her and that if I did there might be consequences to that decision that impacted both our jobs.

These two instances occurred in different departments but are common place especially in academic communities that choose to have police departments because it looks good for them to have police departments rather than security officers. The problem comes in when the academic community doesn't fully understand or particularly care about the dangerous and unethical ground they force those officers to tread upon in the name of appeasing donors and paying students. Failing to demonstrate competency, integrity, and consistency could easily develop into "discrimination" cases, if the connection is made that a college department is discriminating against someone or a group of people because they are not paying the institution. If officers are disciplined and forced to change decisions made in the field, it implies they were wrong and lack competency. If department administrations lack the integrity to stand up to coercion and unethical pressure placed on officers for money-driven reasons that shows a lack of integrity. Filing charges on someone that commits a crime within your jurisdiction and not charging another person based solely on the fact that one is paying you isn't ethical and if the right lawyer chooses to fight this battle in the right court, they could show a malicious intent by the consistency in that behavior.

Increase your skills, knowledge, and professionalism and the community will take notice and you will notice a difference in how you are perceived by others. Act with competence, integrity, and consistency. Through interacting and educating the communities we serve, we can introduce the idea that small community, campus, police officers are "real police." However, nothing will go further to end the negative stereotyping of smaller police departments then being supported by civilian administrators that have decided to hire and trust strong-minded, experienced, and knowledgable supervisors to staff, train, and manage departments professionally. To put it bluntly, the public will start treating you like the "real police" when you start acting like the real police.