Constantly I hear reports from persons who have been questioned by police that the police blatantly lied to them.  This is often done to coerce a confession from an accused person, to obtain entry to someone’s property without obtaining a search warrant, or for the police to accomplish a myriad of otherwise illegal advantages over the citizens.  To facilitate the further erosion of civil rights—our police lie. 

Complaints about police lying result in their overseers justifying their chicanery under the guise of “necessary to fight crime” or now “terrorism.”  When defendants bring this up in our courts of law, at least in Shasta County California, even the judges will defend police lying when they sanctify this deceit by calling it things such as “creative police tactics.”  In one recent case, Judge Richard McEachen interrupted proceedings when a Redding police officer was caught in a lie made in earlier testimony.  The judge then justified this police lie by making a sue sponte instant instruction to the jury telling them this was called a “ruse” and was acceptable.  This sort of justification of police lying when done on the record shows just how widespread and pervasive this type of corruption has become.  And how apparently it is acceptable to the justice system. 

Is it any wonder that police officers caught on video tape beating suspects then later lie about the incident, and that their peers also lie on their supplemental official reports.  After all, lying is now sanctioned as creative police tactics.  Had these incidents not been captured on video tape and brought to the public’s attention, this lying would have been perfectly acceptable within the justice system; just as lying when called a “ruse” or “creative police tactics” is acceptable in Shasta County Courts.  Even when the lying is not done under oath in court, it is often done to bring otherwise inadmissible evidence into court. 

Lying is lying no matter the situation or what label it is given.  “Creative Police Tactics” is the most popular current locution.  It is the last thing we expect sanctioned in our justice system, a system supposedly based on truth.  One of the basic values parents wish to teach their children is truth and honesty.  This is true in all cultures.  No wonder the younger generations have little respect for the police.  Respect must be earned, and lying will not earn that respect.  So why is lying tolerated of our police, those who are expected to set examples for others? Moreover, why is lying sanctioned and espoused by the supposed overseers of our justice system—the judges? 

What about ethics?  A core value of our justice system, at least in principle, is based on ethical behavior.  Lying has never before been considered ethical.  In October of 1998, Congress passed a law named after its sponsor, Pennsylvania Republican Joseph McDade, himself the victim of an eight year ethically corrupt investigation by the U.S. Justice Department.  The McDade Law requires federal prosecutors to comply with state ethics laws.  It was an attempt to force federal law enforcement away from their “Big Brother” tactics; to instead follow the ethical standards expected within a fair and impartial justice system. 

In August of 2000, the Oregon Supreme Court forbade all lawyers in the state to lie, to encourage others to lie, cheat, or misrepresent themselves.  This ruling has since been interpreted to include investigators, agents, police, and even undercover informants.  The McDade Law extends this to their federal counterparts.  After all, why should the prosecution be exempt from rules that apply to all others. 

California has similar ethics laws and rules.  The guidelines for Jailhouse informants, for instance, are set forth in California Penal Code §1127a and §4001.1, but they are largely ignored.  The rules for attorneys are at Business and Professions Code §6060, et. seq., particularly §6068, where among other provisions their methods must be consistent with truth.  The State Bar of California has adopted their Rules of Professional Conduct, several of which require truthfulness, particularly Rule 5-200.  It seems that rules requiring ethical behavior through truthfulness are in place in most if not all jurisdictions. 

In late 2000, prosecutors complained to Congress that the McDade law had them hamstrung.  But U.S. News reported House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde of Illinois saying he is not inclined to repeal McDade.  “That doesn’t mean I’m for crooks,” Hyde said.  “I’m for ethical behavior by both law enforcement and by defense counsel.”  Joe McDade said of prosecutorial zealotry, “The effort is not justice.  The effort is to break a citizen.”1 

These are not new ethical standards.  They are eons old, and form the basis of a fair and equitable justice system.  Yet in their overzealous quest for conviction statistics, law enforcement and prosecutors are being allowed by judges to circumvent basic ethics, and the honesty demanded therefrom, by changing the name of lying to “creative police tactics” or “ruse.”  How much deeper does this dishonesty go within our justice system?  Honest citizens who tolerate government lying through acquiescence should be ashamed of themselves.  For one only maintains his or her own civil rights through ensuring those same civil rights for all others. 

1.  U.S. News Online, by Chitra Ragavan, 10/16/00, "Federally speaking a fine kettle of fish."