Codes of conduct, oaths and professional standards

Every profession eventually writes down what it expects of its members. Physicians have had oaths since ancient Greece, lawyers have rules of professional conduct, and engineers wear an iron ring to remind them of their obligations. Police have codes too, and they come in several layers: a code of ethics adopted by the agency, state certification standards that apply to every officer, the department's own general orders and policies, and the oath each officer swears. Desjardins hands out copies of the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics and the Port Ardent general order on conduct and asks the class to read it twice: once for what it forbids and once for what it assumes about the kind of person an officer should be.

Why codes exist

Codes of conduct serve several purposes at once. They tell officers in advance what is expected, so that discipline is fair. They tell the public what it is entitled to expect, which supports trust and gives complainants a standard to point to. They express the profession's identity: what it means to be a police officer rather than simply someone with a uniform and a weapon. And they provide a common language for supervisors, oversight bodies and courts when conduct is reviewed. A code cannot anticipate every situation, so the best codes combine specific rules, such as a ban on accepting gifts above a certain value, with general principles, such as integrity and respect, that guide judgment where no rule applies.

Codes also protect officers. A clear rule about gratuities lets an officer decline a free meal without seeming rude: policy does not allow it. A clear rule about confidential information lets an officer refuse a friend's request to check a license plate. Desjardins says the most common use he saw of the code of conduct during his career was not discipline but cover: officers pointing to it when someone asked them for something improper.

Codes of ethics in American policing

In the United States there is no single national code. The most widely adopted statement is the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, first adopted in 1957 and revised in 1991. It begins: As a law enforcement officer, my fundamental duty is to serve the community; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the constitutional rights of all to liberty, equality and justice. The IACP also publishes a shorter Oath of Honor. Agencies adopt these statements in their own policies, and state certification bodies such as the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission set the standards officers must meet to be certified and to keep their certification.

Agencies also translate ethics into specific rules in their general orders: conduct unbecoming an officer, untruthfulness, neglect of duty, insubordination, misuse of authority, improper use of force, discrimination and harassment, and misuse of confidential information are common categories. Many agencies seek accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, known as CALEA, which requires written directives on conduct and discipline. In Ohio, the Ohio Collaborative Community-Police Advisory Board has set statewide standards, such as on the use of force and on recruitment and hiring, and certifies agencies that adopt them.

What codes typically require

Although wording varies, police codes across the United States cover remarkably similar ground. Officers must obey the law and use their authority only for lawful purposes. They must treat people with courtesy and without discrimination. They must use force only when necessary and in proportion to the threat. They must be honest in their statements, notes, reports and testimony. They must protect confidential information and not use it for personal benefit. They must avoid conflicts of interest and decline gifts that could create an obligation. They must obey lawful orders and perform their duties diligently. And they must behave off duty in ways that do not discredit the service. The table summarizes these common categories with examples from Port Ardent files.

On duty, off duty and online

Codes reach further than many recruits expect. Off-duty conduct matters when it reflects on an officer's fitness or on the service, which is why impaired driving, assault, harassment and dishonesty off duty can all lead to discipline and sometimes dismissal. Online conduct is an increasingly common source of complaints. Officers have been disciplined for social media posts that mocked victims, expressed contempt for groups they police, revealed confidential details of calls or posed with weapons in ways that frightened the public. Desjardins tells the class to assume that anything they post will eventually be read aloud in a disciplinary hearing or by a defense lawyer cross-examining them about bias. Freedom of expression applies to officers, but it is limited by duties of impartiality and confidentiality that come with the job.

Outside employment and business interests are also regulated. Most services require officers to get approval for secondary jobs and prohibit work that conflicts with policing, such as private investigation, debt collection or security work at bars the officer may have to police. Political activity is restricted in some jurisdictions so that officers are not seen to favor a party. These rules can feel intrusive, and officers sometimes resent them. The reasoning is that an officer is never entirely off duty in the public's eyes, and the authority of the uniform must not be lent to private causes.

From code to discipline

A code matters only if it is enforced fairly. When a complaint alleges a breach, it is assessed, investigated if warranted and, if the allegation is substantiated, dealt with through informal resolution, training, a reprimand, suspension, demotion or dismissal, depending on seriousness and the officer's record. Lesson 11 describes the process in detail. Here the important point is that the code connects ethics to consequences. Port Ardent's 2025 complaint figures, first seen in LES-101, show 64 complaints, of which 10 were sustained. The code below groups the allegations in those complaints by code category, which is the first thing internal affairs does when it prepares its annual report.

# Port Ardent 2025 complaints: allegations grouped by code-of-conduct category
from collections import Counter
allegations = [
    "courtesy", "courtesy", "authority", "force", "courtesy", "diligence", "force", "authority",
    "courtesy", "honesty", "diligence", "force", "courtesy", "confidentiality", "authority", "courtesy",
    "diligence", "force", "courtesy", "equality", "authority", "diligence", "courtesy", "force",
    "courtesy", "honesty", "authority", "diligence", "courtesy", "equality", "force", "courtesy",
]
substantiated = {"courtesy": 4, "diligence": 3, "honesty": 1, "confidentiality": 1, "force": 1}
counts = Counter(allegations)
print("category        alleged  substantiated  rate")
for cat, n in counts.most_common():
    s = substantiated.get(cat, 0)
    print(f"{cat:15s} {n:7d} {s:14d}  {s / n:.2f}")
print("total allegations:", sum(counts.values()))

category        alleged  substantiated  rate
courtesy             11              4  0.36
force                 6              1  0.17
authority             5              0  0.00
diligence             5              3  0.60
honesty               2              1  0.50
equality              2              0  0.00
confidentiality       1              1  1.00
total allegations: 32

Courtesy is by far the most common allegation, which matches research elsewhere: most complaints are about how people were spoken to and treated, not about force or corruption. The rate column also shows something worth discussing. Honesty and confidentiality allegations are rare, but when they are made they are sustained at a higher rate, partly because they often involve records that can be checked. Courtesy allegations are hard to prove without video, which is one reason body cameras have changed complaint outcomes in both directions: some complaints are confirmed and many are shown to be unfounded.

Orders, obedience and the limits of authority

Codes require officers to obey lawful orders, and insubordination is a disciplinary offense in every service. Police organizations are hierarchical for good reasons: emergencies require clear command, and officers must be able to rely on each other to follow a plan. But the duty is to obey lawful orders. An order to do something unlawful, such as to arrest someone without grounds, to use force that is not justified, to falsify a record or to ignore a crime committed by a friend of the service, is not binding, and following it is no defense to criminal charges or discipline. The principle that superior orders do not excuse wrongdoing was set out in international law after the Second World War and is reflected in police law and policy in the United States.

In practice the line is rarely so stark. More often an officer receives an order that is lawful but unwise, or one whose lawfulness is unclear. The usual professional approach is to raise the concern respectfully at the time if it is safe to do so, to comply with orders that are lawful even if disagreeable, to refuse orders that are clearly unlawful, and to document the exchange. Desjardins tells the class about a sergeant who once ordered him to move a group of young people out of a park simply because a resident had complained about their appearance. He asked what offense they were committing. The sergeant thought about it, admitted there was none, and changed the instruction to a friendly conversation about noise. Asking the question respectfully, he says, is how most unlawful orders are corrected before anyone has to refuse them.

Codes also guard against abuse in the other direction. Supervisors who use their rank to harass, bully or retaliate against subordinates breach the code themselves, and most services have policies and procedures that allow officers to raise workplace harassment outside the chain of command. Healthy obedience depends on supervisors who give lawful, explained orders and who treat disagreement as information rather than disloyalty.

Professional standards beyond the code

A code of conduct describes the floor. Professional standards describe what good practice looks like above it. Training standards, set by state certification commissions such as the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, require a basic program and, increasingly, continuing education. Accreditation bodies such as CALEA review whether agencies meet written standards. Professional bodies publish model policies on issues from vehicle pursuits to mental health calls. And individual officers hold themselves to standards that no document requires: preparing carefully for court, following up with a victim, explaining a decision to someone who disagreed with it. Desjardins calls this the difference between staying out of trouble and being good at the job.

Jesse asks whether codes written by governments and police leaders reflect the values of the communities being policed. Desjardins thinks the question is fair. Tribal police departments write their own codes, and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe's department has added tribal values and a commitment to respect tribal culture to its general orders. Many services now consult community advisory committees when they revise conduct policies. Codes work best when the people who are policed can recognize their own expectations in them.