Police Code of Silence

Variously referred to as “The Blue Wall, “The Blue Wall of Silence,” “The Blue Curtain,” “The Code of Silence,” or simply “The Code,” the concept refers to the informal prohibition in the occupational culture of policing that discourages the reporting of misconduct by fellow police officers. Exactly what behavior is covered by the Code varies enormously among police agencies. In some agencies, it may cover only relatively low-level misconduct; in others, it may cover corruption of even the most serious degree. Moreover, the Code differs not only in the type of behavior it covers but also with respect to the people to whom the benefits of its coverage are extended. In some agencies, the Code is largely limited to police partners who enjoy, vis-à-vis one another, a testimonial immunity that police liken to traditionally privileged relationships between husband and wife, physician and patient, or attorney and client. In other departments, the benefits of the Code may be extended to all police officers, even those employed by other agencies. Finally, both who and what the Code covers can vary substantially, not only between but also within police agencies. Particularly in large police agencies, the occupational culture of integrity can vary substantially between precincts, task forces, and work groups. Drug enforcement units can, for example, share a very different code from that of traffic, juvenile, or patrol units.

Some form of code of silence develops in virtually every group that finds itself vulnerable to [Page 335]discipline (e.g., criminals, students, soldiers, slaves, prisoners). The Code develops in every police agency at least in part as a response to the punitive orientation of the quasi-military police administrative system. Quasi-military police administration works, to the extent that it works, by creating hundreds and sometimes thousands of rules, and punishing deviations from those rules severely. It is a sociological inevitability that under such administrative and organizational conditions, some form of the Code will evolve as a mechanism of worker self-protection.

Because most police officers believe the Code protects them and serves as a basis of trust among them, most officers support it and regard obedience to it as a matter of professional honor and loyalty to one's colleagues. The officer who does not respect the provisions of the Code may earn a reputation as a “rat,” “snitch,” “informer,” “cheese eater,” or other name of disdain. At the same time, many police administrators realize that because the Code shields officer misconduct, permits it to flourish unreported, and allows offending officers to go unpunished, they are obliged to limit its influence.

The administrative technology of controlling the Code is composed of five steps. First, it must be a matter of policy that all officers have an affirmative obligation to come forward to report the misconduct of fellow police officers whenever they know about it. Many departments punish a failure to report as seriously as or more seriously than the offense itself. The second step is to reward officers who come forward to report misconduct. This may be a secret or public reward, as the situation requires. Third, the department must encourage anonymous and confidential reporting, making it possible for officers who wish to report misconduct to avoid the animosity that may be directed toward those who violate the Code. Fourth, the department must make lying in the course of an integrity investigation an offense that, if discovered, carries automatic dismissal. In departments in which this provision prevails, it severely limits officers’ willingness to conceal the misconduct of their fellow officers. It does so in two ways: (a) It gives enormous power to integrity investigators to extend the scope of an investigation, and (b) it also creates another powerful norm that can be juxtaposed to the norm that urges officers to protect their fellow officers’ welfare. That norm removes the right of any officer to demand that other officers risk their careers and livelihood by lying to cover the misconduct of a fellow officer.

...