Serpico resurrects his decades-old criticism of NYPD In this story: $27 million paid in brutality cases The 'blue wall of silence' September 23, 1997 Web posted at: 8:25 p.m. EDT (2025 GMT) NEW YORK (CNN) -- Frank Serpico, the former New York City cop who became a symbol for police honesty, lashed out at society's leaders Tuesday, saying "We need good role models, and they have to start at the top." Twenty-six years after testifying at hearings on police corruption in New York City, the 61-year-old Serpico told a city council hearing on police misconduct that much of the problem lay with America's leaders. In a 15-minute statement, Serpico cited examples of what he considers poor behavior by those leaders -- from President Clinton's refusal to take his suggestion that he reward an honest police officer, to an incident in which New York Police Commisioner Howard Safir ate in a restaurant that is off-limits to officers because of its alleged links to organized crime. Tanned and lean, wearing a white beard and his long gray hair tied neatly in a ponytail, Serpico said after each example, "What kind of a message does this send out to the honest cop?" The City Council is considering legislation to establish an independent commission to monitor police conduct in the wake of the August 9 beating and sexual torture accusations leveled by Haitian immigrant Abner Louima. Also appearing at the hearing was Milton Mollen, whose 1993 commission linked police corruption to brutality and warned that the NYPD's internal affairs division had broken down. $27 million paid in brutality cases Mollen made the point again Tuesday. "What we did find shocking was a total ineptitude of police fighting corruption," he said. "They are superb in fighting crime -- except among themselves." The city has paid $27 million to settle civil claims against the police in recent years. And yet when the city council passed a resolution for an independent police monitor, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani successfully challenged the reform in court. The irony of Serpico's appearance was lost on no one. A police officer for 15 years, Serpico repeatedly turned down payoffs and turned in corrupt fellow officers. Labeled a "rat" by colleagues, he was shot in a drug raid in 1971 that he says was set up by corrupt officers. He testified in 1971 at hearings held by the Knapp Commission to investigate charges of corruption in the NYPD. He later quit the force and became a celebrity with the publication of his autobiography in 1973 and the release of a film based on the book, starring Al Pacino. Financially secure, Serpico lived in Europe until 1980, but now dabbles in art and divides his time between a country cabin and a Brooklyn apartment. He identified himself at the hearing Tuesday as "Citizen Serpico." The 'blue wall of silence' Critics of Giuliani and his aggressive, crime-fighting strategy say the attack on Louima took place in an atmosphere in which abuses by police officers are increasing and punishment of officers is rare. Investigators believe that more officers have information about the Louima incident, but none have come forward. Serpico urged the council to pierce the "blue wall of silence" by rewarding honest officers. "I said this to the Knapp Commission over 25 years ago," Serpico said. "We must create an atmosphere where the crooked cop fears the honest cop, and not the other way around." Correspondent Peg Tyre and Reuters contributed to this report.

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. "Color of law" simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal). Criminal acts under color of law include acts not only done by local, state, or federal officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered under color of law, if the perpetrator asserted their official status in some manner. Color of law may include public officials who are not law enforcement officers, for example, judges and prosecutors, as well as, in some circumstances, non governmental employees who are asserting state authority, such as private security guards. While the federal authority to investigate color of law type violations extends to any official acting under "color of law", the vast majority of the allegations are against the law enforcement community. The average number of all federal civil rights cases initiated by the FBI from 1997 -2000 was 3513. Of those cases initiated, about 73% were allegations of color of law violations. Within the color of law allegations, about 82% were allegations of abuse of force with violence (59% of the total number of civil rights cases initiated).

The Supreme Court has had to interpret the United States Constitution to construct law regulating the actions of those in the law enforcement community. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed.

Investigative Areas

Most of the FBI's color of law investigations would fall into five broad areas:

In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to utilize whatever force is "reasonably" necessary. The breath and scope of the use of force is vast. The spectrum begins with the physical presence of the official through the utilization of deadly force. While some types of force used by law enforcement may be violent by their very nature, they may be considered "reasonable," based upon the circumstances. However, violations of federal law occur where it can be shown that the force used was willfully "unreasonable" or "excessive" against individuals.

Sexual assaults by officials acting under "color of law" could happen in a variety of venues. They could occur in court scenarios, jails, and/or traffic stops to name just a few of the settings where an official might use their position of authority to coerce another individual into sexual compliance. The compliance is generally gained because of a threat of an official action against the other if they do not comply.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using his authority provided under the "color of law" is allowed to stop individuals and even if necessary to search them and retain their property under certain circumstances. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power that a violation of a person's civil rights might occur. An unlawful detention or an illegal confiscation of property would be examples of such an abuse of power.

An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated. In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of saw statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property of another. In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process and the Eighth Amendment also prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. In an arrest or detention context, these rights would prohibit the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The idea being that a person accused of a crime is to be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.

The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

Filing a Complaint

In order to file a complaint alleging a violation of the criminal laws discussed above, you may contact your local FBI office by telephone, in writing, or in person. The following information should be provided:

You may also contact the United States Attorney's Office in your district, or send a written complaint to:

Criminal Section
Civil Rights Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66018
Washington, D.C. 20035-6018

Investigations vary in length and although there are internal limitations, the investigation will proceed to its logical conclusion. The FBI is the investigative component of the Department of Justice. It is, therefore, not responsible for the prosecution of a case. That is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., and the United States Attorney's Office within the local jurisdiction. After the FBI has completed its investigation, it forwards its findings to the United States Attorney's Office and to the Department of Justice. They then make the determination as to whether to proceed toward prosecution or not.

Civil Applications

Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141, makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This law is commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute. This law gives DOJ the authority to seek civil remedies in cases where it is determined that law enforcement agencies have policies or practices which foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers. The types of issues which may initiate a Pattern and Practice investigation include:

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, DOJ has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities, when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.