integrity in law enforcement essay

Why individual integrity is a fundamental value in police leaders

As our nation struggles with the current uneasy state of police-community relations, police officers — and police leaders — who can instill community trust through their personal integrity are valuable assets.

The study of leadership — and the traits of a good leader — can be traced back thousands of years to the time of Aristotle (384-322 BC) who spoke to ethical practices in leadership. For example :

“[To] do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.” — Aristotle, Ethics II.9

In simpler, more modern terms, consider the words of a speaker — whose name is long lost to memory — I heard a few years ago addressing integrity in policing:

“You don’t lose your integrity, you give it away.”

There is great truth in this simple statement. Integrity seems to be lacking among many leaders today, yet, ironically, integrity and other moral standards are core themes among the various leadership styles currently promoted. Let’s examine how personal integrity is a fundamental value in police leaders.

From Theory to Practice Many of the leadership theories promoted today include words that directly or indirectly speak to ethical behavior as the core of the leadership philosophy, or other personal traits. Principle-centered, authentic, morals-based, values-based, adaptive, true north, transformative, and servant are all terms found in the lexicon of modern leadership thinking.

It might appear that all you have to do is embrace one of these leadership “styles” and viola, you are a leader. The study of leadership theory and practice should be embraced by those who seek to be effective leaders, but no single theory of leadership is perfect — which is why they are theories, not rules.

Leadership is practiced by individuals even when these individuals are part of a larger organization (which may have an articulated leadership style), a leadership team, or even when working in a collaborative (or peer) environment.

How we, as individuals, practice our leadership is where the rubber of leadership theory hits the hard road of reality. It is not citing the latest book on leadership that motivates others to accept our influence, it is how they view our actions — past and present — that gain their respect. This is where integrity comes into play.

Personal Integrity in Police Leaders Consider two examples of how personal integrity is intertwined with our practice of leadership in law enforcement. The first example illustrates the role of integrity in a group environment, while the second illustrates how integrity impacts the lowest common denominator in leadership — when one person in a leadership position holds power over another person.

When working as part of a collaborative group, our actions reflect not only on the organization we represent, they reflect upon us as individuals as well. In this type of environment, your integrity can be measured by others through simple actions such as your level of active engagement. For example, are you being open and honest about the intentions of your organization? Do you promptly follow through on actions you promise to take?

Seemingly simple actions can take on larger meanings. As a police officer working as part of a collaborative team your actions will likely be interpreted on three levels:

1. As “the police” in general 2. As the police department you represent 3. As an individual

It is worth keeping in mind how your simple actions — or inaction — speak to your level of integrity on each of these three levels. As our nation struggles with the current uneasy state of police-community relations police officers — and police leaders — who can instill community trust through their personal integrity are valuable assets. Those who cannot do so are liabilities.

For the second example, think of the traditional superior and subordinate relationship. In this example, the integrity practiced by the superior sets the standard (or, rather, should set the standard) for all subordinates.

At the most basic level, leadership requires a minimum of two people — one who “leads” and one who “follows.” The superior with poor integrity will likely never have the true trust and respect of their subordinates.

Most of us can recall instances where a superior reprimanded a subordinate for doing something while that same superior had, in the past, made a similar transgression. When this happens we talk about double-standards, hypocrisy, and ultimately, poor leadership. Those who desire leadership roles — or are currently in leadership roles — should keep this example in mind. How will others see you when it comes to your personal integrity?

Individual Interpretations of Integrity The cumbersome part of this discussion is that integrity — like all traits — is open to interpretation. What some might define as poor integrity others may view as non-issues. For example, should the way a person acts in their personal life have any bearing on their leadership role at work?

In the end, how we choose to lead our own lives — and interpret how others live their lives — is itself a question of integrity. Leaders must be willing to consider how they define integrity, and how they wish to have their own integrity measured. Practicing a life of integrity is challenging, but it is a critical trait of a noble, effective leader.

John Vanek is a leadership, collaboration, and anti-human trafficking consultant and speaker working with law enforcement agencies, non-governmental and community-based organizations, academic institutions and private sector companies. John served 25 years with the San Jose Police Department (retiring in the rank of lieutenant), holds a Master of Arts in Leadership, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Graduate School of International Policy and Management at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

Contact John Vanek

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Police Integrity and How to Improve It

A police force with integrity is one with little or no misconduct or corruption. In the past, most studies viewed the problem of misconduct as one of individual problem officers, the so-called bad apples on the force. More recent studies show that whites generally see misconduct as episodic and confined to individual officers, while blacks tend to see misconduct as a more entrenched aspect of policing. [1]

Management and Culture Affect Integrity

Current research finds that the management and culture of a department are the most important factors influencing police behavior. [2] How the department is managed will dramatically affect how officers behave toward citizens. And how officers behave toward citizens will affect whether citizens view law enforcement as an institution with integrity.

Organizations that place priorities in the following areas will do better at maintaining integrity [3] :

• Accountability of managers and supervisors
• Equal treatment for all members of the organization
• Citizen accessibility to the department
• Inspections and audits
• Quality education for employees

Defining values and principles and incorporating them into every facet of operations may be more important than hiring decisions. Diligence in detecting and addressing misconduct will show officers that managers practice what they preach.

How to Improve Integrity

Findings from a study of 3,235 officers from 30 mostly municipal law enforcement agencies reveal the following recommendations for police managers [4] :

• Address and discipline minor offenses so officers learn that major offenses will be disciplined too.
• Open the disciplinary process to public scrutiny.
• Rotate officer assignments to discourage the formation of bonds that lead officers to cover up the misconduct of others.

Many departments are improving integrity and raising the standards for officers by taking the following steps:

• Improving the way they hire and train officers in ethics and cultural awareness.
• Collecting data to track traffic stops and other encounters with citizens.
• Soliciting community input through citizen review boards, ombudsmen or community problem-solving initiatives.

Learn more from Enhancing Police Integrity (pdf, 16 pages) by Carl B. Klockers et al. 2005.

Learn more from Principles for Promoting Police Integrity (pdf, 45 pages) a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, 2001.

[note 1] Weitzer, Ronald, and Steven A. Tuch, “Race and Perceptions of Police Misconduct,” Social Problems 51 (August 2004): 305–325.

[note 2] Fridell, Lorie, Robert Lunney, Drew Diamond, and Bruce Kubu, Racially Biased Policing: A Principled Response, Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 2001.

[note 3] Gaffigan, Steven J., and Phyllis P. McDonald, eds., Police Integrity: Public Service With Honor (pdf, 103 pages) , Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1997, NCJ 163811.

[note 4] Klockars, Carl B., Sanja Kutnjak Ivkovich, and Maria R. Haberfeld, Enhancing Police Integrity (pdf, 16 pages) , NIJ Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, December 2005, NCJ 209269.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• Enhancing Police Integrity

Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing

This essay about the foundational ethical standards and codes of conduct in policing emphasizes the paramount importance of integrity, honesty, respect, and accountability within law enforcement. It outlines the critical role these principles play in guiding police behavior, ensuring that officers conduct their duties fairly, truthfully, and with dignity towards all individuals. The piece further explores the challenges of navigating ethical dilemmas, offering strategies such as ethics training, fostering a culture of integrity, and implementing transparency measures like body-worn cameras to maintain public trust. Highlighting the balance between law enforcement and ethical adherence, the essay underscores the necessity for police to act as guardians of public safety and trust, thereby reinforcing the badge as a symbol of honor and community guardianship. At PapersOwl, you’ll also come across free essay samples that pertain to Police Officer.

How it works

Amidst a period characterized by heightened scrutiny of law enforcement actions, the moral compass guiding police officers assumes unprecedented significance. Policing is entrenched in a complex interplay of ethical norms and codes, serving as the bedrock of law enforcement agencies and the bedrock of public confidence and credibility. This discourse probes into the principles of integrity, veracity, deference, and answerability that constitute the ethical framework of the police profession, alongside tactics for navigating the ethically ambiguous terrain.

Integrity, denoting steadfast adherence to moral and ethical principles, stands as the linchpin of police ethics.

It necessitates officers’ unwavering dedication to impartiality, rejecting corruption and prejudice. Equally indispensable is veracity, mandating truthfulness across all spheres of their profession, from engagements with the populace to the precise and candid documentation of evidence. Respect for individuals, irrespective of their background or predicaments, underscores the humanistic aspect of policing, safeguarding dignity and entitlements. Accountability interlinks these ethical strands, compelling officers and their organizations to answer to the public they serve, ensuring that transgressions do not undermine the bedrock of trust indispensable for effective law enforcement.

Navigating ethical quandaries in policing is akin to traversing a tightrope, where decisions often carry profound repercussions for individuals and communities alike. These quandaries span from the discretion exercised in law enforcement endeavors to the intricacies of harmonizing the public’s safety needs with individual rights. Strategies for confronting these quandaries encompass comprehensive ethics instruction furnishing officers with frameworks for ethical decision-making, fostering a culture of integrity within police departments that prioritizes ethical conduct over convenience or expediency, and establishing lucid, transparent protocols for reporting and probing misconduct.

Sustaining public confidence presents an enduring challenge, one addressed through consistent, ethical conduct and transparent communication. Community policing initiatives fostering collaborations between law enforcement and the communities they serve can bridge comprehension gaps and nurture mutual esteem. Additionally, the adoption of body-worn cameras and other transparency measures can furnish an objective record of police interactions, elucidating contentious incidents and safeguarding both officers and citizens.

The role of police in society is multi-dimensional, requiring a delicate equilibrium between law enforcement and upholding the ethical standards governing their vocation. The principles of integrity, veracity, deference, and answerability are not mere aspirations but vital qualities for officers who assume the mantle of public safety guardianship and trust. As law enforcement agencies continue to evolve, the emphasis on ethical policing must evolve in tandem, ensuring that the badge remains emblematic of honor, service, and community stewardship.

Cite this page

Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing. (2024, Mar 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/

"Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing." PapersOwl.com , 1 Mar 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/ [Accessed: 24 Apr. 2024]

"Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing." PapersOwl.com, Mar 01, 2024. Accessed April 24, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/

"Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing," PapersOwl.com , 01-Mar-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/. [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Guardians of Integrity: Upholding Ethical Standards in Policing . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/guardians-of-integrity-upholding-ethical-standards-in-policing/ [Accessed: 24-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Human dignity and the police: ethics and integrity in police work, additional details.

2600 South First Street , Springfield , IL 62704 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Search Our Site

Integrity: The Key to Good Policing

By:  allen huggins.

Many men and women enter the law enforcement profession to serve and safeguard their communities, arrest the criminals, and solve crimes, such as the murder of Travis Alexander by Jodi Arias and the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son by Scott Peterson.  Yet, why do so many officers, at some point in their careers, have a lapse of integrity that causes their respective agencies embarrassment and the loss of their careers? This contemporary issue is worthy of discussion. What is the importance of the centerpiece of policing?

Integrity. It is the cornerstone of a successful law enforcement career. What is integrity? The dictionary defines it as the “adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.”  A more common definition as it relates to a law enforcement officer is the ability to write an accurate report that contains all relevant facts and answers all questions with complete factual honesty.  It seems pretty basic and should be easy, right? But judging by the lapses in character of those who draw negative attention to the profession, it sometimes isn’t. A multitude of causes could exist, but can be broken down into the following categories.

Background Investigations – Complete and Thorough at all Levels

A thorough and competent background investigation is extremely important in preventing those with integrity issues from ever entering the law enforcement profession. People entering the law enforcement profession should have an established history of character traits, both good and bad. A background investigation should carefully scrutinize any lapses of integrity to help identify future indicators. Those with past integrity issues may live up to that reputation in the future. This can cause a blight on the law enforcement profession.

The background investigations should not stop at entry-level officers. A thorough background investigation should be completed for all new hires, from the Chief of Police on down the ranks. Spending a few thousand dollars on a thorough background can save the agency money by identifying candidates who might subject the agency to costly lawsuits and embarrassing litigation in the future. Examples of this are unfortunately plentiful, from the Rampart debacle in Los Angeles to Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona being convicted and sent to prison for witness tampering.  Care should be taken to not add to these headlines by keeping a finger on the pulse of new hires’ previous experiences.

Probation – Take the Time to Evaluate the Employee Accurately

Even with a thorough and competent background investigation, not all issues are identified. Probationary periods are the last chance to identify character problems and either correct them, or remove the employee with minimal risk of successful litigation.

The Field Training Officer program is a key element in the probationary process.  Ensuring the FTOs are free from outside influences and character flaws is critically important.  The FTO should have the autonomy to fairly review the performance of a trainee without the worry of repercussions. They also need the support of management to be effective in their respective role in ensuring quality employees are retained.

Supervisors, especially first-line supervisors, should adequately review the performance of the probationary employee and carefully scrutinize their work for any issues of concern, particularly for integrity-related issues. Consultants sometimes find that problematic employees were problematic probationary employees.  Most of the character issues that cause problems later in careers were in fact, evident during the probationary period.  The concerns were just not effectively managed at the time. I suggest that probationary employees who show any issues related to integrity will too often create costly issues later in their careers and should not be retained.

Supervision – Be Proactive and Intolerant of Integrity Concerns

A supervisor, at any level, has a responsibility to properly manage their employees. They should have a good idea what each employee is doing throughout a shift.  Yet, of the many integrity issues I have reviewed as a consultant, inadequate supervision was almost always a contributing factor that allowed the integrity issue to get to the point where the employee’s career was jeopardized.

Integrity issues flourish where supervisors neglect their responsibility to provide the oversight necessary. This pertains to all levels in the organization. Proactive supervision, including reviewing work product and knowing what employees are doing, can mitigate integrity issues and identify issues that cannot be mitigated. A supervisor should never “overlook” or “excuse away” integrity issues once identified, and the employee should know that integrity lapses are not going to be tolerated, no matter the rank.  Having high-character supervisors, which begins with hiring high-character officers, is critical, as every department needs those willing to stand up and indentify integrity issues, regardless whether it is a subordinate or a supervisor.

The Community We Serve – They Deserve Ethical Policing

Nothing causes friction between law enforcement and the community it services more than the perception of a lack of integrity within the department. If the community can’t trust those charged with providing public safety, where do they turn?  Why should the public trust the department spokesperson if the department hasn’t done its part to ensure the officers are trustworthy?

In my experience, ten to fifteen percent of the public will never trust the police, and ten to fifteen percent will most always respect and trust the officers. It’s that middle seventy- to eighty- percent of the community that will evaluate a department based on what they read, hear, and experience and are critical to maintaining the public’s trust.  While it is true that the press will publish what sells, the police departments can offset this by “pushing-out” positive articles to help educate the public on how they are serving the community. The department can also make sure their personnel are treating the public professionally and with respect.

The public can be forgiving of mistakes and errors made by law enforcement personnel if they trust the overall integrity of the department. After all, they too make mistakes.  But when a mistake involves a lack of integrity, the public is not so forgiving, nor should they be.  So, where issues of integrity are concerned, once trust is lost it is difficult to get back.

Integrity issues and concerns not addressed are integrity issues and concerns condoned. If you doubt that, ask yourself this: “why can two neighboring departments have such disparate reputations, even though they serve the same or similar communities?” Odds are, one department has shown a history of integrity issues and the other has not.

About the Author:  Captain Huggins retired from the Costa Mesa Police Department after 28 years of service.  He has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.  Captain Huggins is currently on staff at the North Idaho College Police Academy, where he instructs on Police Ethics, Patrol Procedures and Community Policing.  He just completed an assignment as a Special Consultant with the California State University system for personnel matters.  Captain Huggins also owns Paragon Investigative Services, which specializes in personnel issues and organizational reviews for governmental agencies.  He can be reached at [email protected] .

Related Recent News

18th WLF, Sept 25-26, 2024

Barcelona, Europe

19th WLF, Jan 2025  Dubai

• Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring Integrity in Law Enforcement Practices

• Editorial Team
• June 23, 2023

Transparency and accountability are fundamental pillars in maintaining public trust and upholding the integrity of law enforcement agencies . The effective functioning of a just and fair society relies heavily on law enforcement’s commitment to transparency in their actions, decision-making processes, and interactions with the public. This article explores the significance of transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices, their benefits, and the strategies that can be implemented to ensure their consistent application.

• The Importance of Transparency in Law Enforcement:

Transparency serves as a crucial mechanism to foster public trust and confidence in law enforcement agencies. When law enforcement operates in a transparent manner, it allows the public to understand and evaluate their actions. Transparent practices contribute to accountability, enable effective oversight, and act as a deterrent against abuse of power or misconduct within the ranks.

• Accountability: Holding Law Enforcement Responsible:

Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency, as it ensures that law enforcement agencies and individual officers are held responsible for their actions. Accountability mechanisms help address instances of misconduct, provide remedies for victims, and create a culture of responsibility within the law enforcement community. It establishes clear expectations for ethical behavior and ensures that those who deviate from these standards face appropriate consequences.

• Strategies for Ensuring Transparency and Accountability:

a. Enhanced Reporting and Documentation: Law enforcement agencies should adopt comprehensive reporting and documentation protocols to maintain records of incidents, arrests, and use of force. This enables thorough review and analysis, promoting transparency and accountability.

b. External Oversight and Independent Investigations: Independent oversight bodies play a vital role in ensuring transparency and accountability. These bodies, separate from law enforcement agencies , should have the authority to investigate complaints against officers, review internal investigations, and provide impartial recommendations.

c. Body Cameras and Technology: The use of body-worn cameras and other technological tools can provide objective evidence, promote transparency, and hold both officers and the public accountable for their actions. Proper policies and guidelines for camera usage and data management are essential.

d. Training and Education: Regular and comprehensive training programs on ethics, human rights, and community relations are critical for law enforcement personnel. Training should emphasize the importance of transparency, accountability, and the fair treatment of all individuals.

• Building Community Trust through Transparency:

Transparency not only enhances accountability within law enforcement but also fosters positive relationships between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. By actively engaging with the public, sharing information, and involving community members in decision-making processes, law enforcement can build trust and gain valuable insights, leading to more effective and community-oriented policing.

Conclusion:

Transparency and accountability are indispensable elements for upholding the integrity of law enforcement practices. By prioritizing transparency, implementing robust accountability mechanisms, and actively engaging with communities, law enforcement agencies can foster public trust, improve their effectiveness, and ensure the fair and just treatment of all individuals. It is through these efforts that law enforcement can continue to evolve and adapt to the changing needs of society while maintaining the highest standards of integrity.

Share this:

Most popular.

AI Skills Shortage: A Growing Concern for Business Growth

Consilio Unveils AI Suite for Simplified E-Discovery and Legal Investigations

Manchester Law Firm Represents 1,000 Claimants in South Staffs Water Data Breach Case

Lawmatics Unveils Custom Dashboards Feature: Enhancing Legal Practice Management

Fisher Phillips Acquires Tech Company: Navigating the Buy vs. Build Dilemma

Al Zak Hakeem Law Firm Pioneers Legal Tech Transformation in the UAE

About Us      Contact  Us          Blog         Past Events          Upcoming Events          Testimonials         Policies         FAQs

Price Increasing in

Discover more from world litigation forum.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Access Schedule - WLF Dubai

• Name * First Last
• Mobile Phone Number * ✓ Valid number ✕ Invalid number
• Hidden Lead Type
• Hidden Website
• Hidden Events or Services
• Hidden Account of
• Hidden Title

Buy WLF Dubai Delegate Ticket

• Name First Last
• Your Email *
• Phone * ✓ Valid number ✕ Invalid number
• Hidden Leads Type
• Hidden Accounts Of
• Hidden Company
• Hidden Mailing City
• Hidden Mailing Country
• Hidden Mailing State
• Hidden Mailing Street
• Hidden Mailing Zip
• I consent to World Litigation Forum sending me emails and targeting advertising so I can stay updated on price changes, early bird discounts, speaker announcements and networking event updates.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Why Is the Supreme Court Making an Easy Case Related to Jan. 6 Rioters Hard?

By Randall D. Eliason

Mr. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Imagine that during a Supreme Court argument, protesters angry about the case storm the court building. The mob breaks doors and windows and assaults security officers while forcing its way into the chamber. Some shout that they want to hang the chief justice. The justices and attorneys are forced to flee for their lives. It’s several hours before law enforcement secures the building and the argument can resume.

Has the court proceeding been obstructed or impeded? That doesn’t seem like a difficult question. But that’s essentially what the Supreme Court heard debated in arguments last week in Fischer v. United States , a case challenging a law being used to prosecute hundreds of people, including Donald Trump, for the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

Joseph Fischer is charged with being part of the mob that rioted at the Capitol, forcing members of Congress to flee and disrupting the electoral vote count. Along with assaulting police officers and other charges, he is charged under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c), which provides:

(c) Whoever corruptly — (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Prosecutors charge that by participating in the Capitol riot, Mr. Fischer corruptly obstructed and impeded the joint congressional proceeding to certify the election, in violation of 1512(c)(2). More than 300 other Jan. 6 rioters have faced the same charge. In the D.C. federal indictment of Mr. Trump, two of the four counts also rely on this statute, alleging that through his actions leading up to and on Jan. 6, he conspired to and did obstruct the congressional proceeding.

Jan. 6 defendants have repeatedly challenged the use of 1512(c) in their prosecutions. More than a dozen federal judges in Washington have rejected those challenges. But in Mr. Fischer’s case, a Trump-appointed judge, Carl Nichols, concluded the statute must be limited to obstructive acts involving documents, records or other objects. Because Mr. Fischer wasn’t charged with impairing the availability or integrity of any physical evidence, Judge Nichols dismissed the charge.

Prosecutors appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and reinstated the charge, with one judge — also a Trump appointee — dissenting. The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.

The language of the statute seems clear. Subsection 1 prohibits obstructing a proceeding by tampering with physical evidence, and Subsection 2 is a catchall, backstop provision that prohibits “otherwise” obstructing a proceeding by means not encompassed by Subsection 1. Connected by the word “or,” they define alternative ways to violate the statute. You have to struggle pretty hard to find any ambiguity here.

As the majority in the D.C. Circuit held, that should be the end of the matter. In describing the D.C. Circuit dissent, Judge Florence Pan borrowed a line from an earlier Supreme Court case to say that it seemed like “elaborate efforts to avoid the most natural reading of the text.” After all, textualism — relying on the plain text of a statute and the common understanding of its terms — is the favored method of statutory interpretation today, especially among conservatives.

Despite the plain language of the law, Mr. Fischer and his supporters argue it should be limited based on the reason behind its passage. During the Enron scandal in the early 2000s, the prosecution of the accounting giant Arthur Andersen for shredding an enormous number of documents was hamstrung by weaknesses in the existing obstruction laws. Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, which included section 1512(c), in response to that scandal. Mr. Fischer claims the statute must therefore be limited based on Congress’s intent to respond to crimes involving evidence impairment.

But as Justice Elena Kagan noted during oral arguments, that’s not what the statute says. As she also pointed out, Congress easily could have written the statute that way if that was what it meant.

Limiting the statute as Mr. Fischer proposes would lead to absurd outcomes. Members of a violent mob who shut down a proceeding would not be guilty of obstructing that proceeding. But if in the process they happened to damage an exhibit, the statute would apply. Filing a false affidavit in a proceeding would be covered, even if it had no effect at all; violently halting the entire proceeding would not.

There’s no reason Congress would pass a law that makes such irrational distinctions. Congress might have been motivated by document shredding during the Enron scandal, but it sensibly responded by passing a statute that bars all obstruction, not one that prohibits certain types of obstruction while condoning others.

Nevertheless, Jan. 6 defendants maintain the court must disregard the statute’s clear language based on fears about how it might be applied. They argue that if the law is not limited to evidence impairment, prosecutors might target trivial offenses or otherwise protected activities, like lobbying or peaceful protests.

Several of the conservative justices seemed sympathetic to this argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for example, questioned whether a sit-in that disrupts a trial or heckler at the State of the Union address would violate the law. Pointing to such supposed dangers, Fischer’s counsel, Jeffrey Green, urged the court not to unleash this sweeping new prosecutorial power.

Except it’s not new. Section 1512(c) has been on the books for more than 20 years. Another federal statute that prohibits the corrupt obstruction of congressional proceedings has been around since the 1940s. If prosecutors were itching to prosecute peaceful protesters and legitimate lobbyists for felony obstruction, they’ve had the tools for decades. And yet we haven’t seen those cases.

As Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out, that’s because “inherent constraints” built into the statute — chiefly the requirement of corrupt intent — limit its reach. It’s true there are many nonviolent and lawful ways to influence a proceeding. But only those for which prosecutors can prove corrupt intent beyond a reasonable doubt risk running afoul of the law. That’s why, as General Prelogar noted, out of more than 1,300 Capitol rioters prosecuted so far, only about one-fourth — generally the most violent, egregious offenders — have been charged under 1512(c).

Mr. Fischer also argues that Section 1512(c) has never been used in a similar case and that this proves the statute does not apply to the events of Jan. 6. But all this really demonstrates is that unprecedented crimes lead to unprecedented prosecutions. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed, because we’ve never had an event like Jan. 6 before, “I’m not sure what a lack of history proves.”

The use of a relevant, clearly applicable obstruction law to prosecute the unique events of Jan. 6 does not mean prosecutors will suddenly abandon the discretion and judgment they’ve used for decades when applying the law to more routine cases, any more than prosecuting Mr. Trump for those events means that criminal prosecutions of former presidents will become routine.

It would be foolish to ignore the plain language of the statute to excuse the Capitol rioters based on feared abuses that live only in the imaginations of those seeking to avoid liability.

Even if the Supreme Court agrees that 1512(c) is limited to obstruction involving evidence impairment, the charges against Mr. Trump will probably survive. Prosecutors can argue that attempting to submit slates of phony electors and efforts to have the real ballots discarded constituted evidence-based obstruction. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson both raised that possibility during the argument, although without referring to Mr. Trump’s case.

But a ruling for Mr. Fischer would call into question the convictions, guilty pleas and prosecutions of scores of other Jan. 6 defendants. And it would provide an unjustified rallying cry for those who protest that the Justice Department has overreached when prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants.

Such a disruptive ruling is possible only if the court goes out of its way to disregard the statutory language and create ambiguity where none exists. If the Supreme Court stays true to its textualist principles, this is an easy case.

Randall D. Eliason is a former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School. He blogs at Sidebars .

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .