Police Misconduct of officer Julien Steele

Police Misconduct of Officer Julien Steele

Laura Mathieson

American InterContinential University

Police Misconduct of Officer Julien Steele

Officer Julien Steele of the Cincinnati police department was charged with abduction and

intimidation in 2013 by the Ohio Supreme Court.  This case involves many ethical dilemmas created by the officer.  

Overview of the Case

        In 2009 there was a series of robberies taken place in a Cincinnati neighborhood.  During one of the robberies one of the residents took down         the license plate number of a car that appeared to be driving suspiciously.  The car turned out to be registered to Alicia Maxton.  Officer Julien Steele was working on the case, and when he found out Alicia Maxton had children and where the children went to school, Officer Steele went to the school and detained all three of the children as he searched their lockers. (Whalen, 2013.)  Steele released two of the children, but kept one child, RM handcuffed and escorted him to the police station. Steele proceeded to advise the school not to inform Ms. Maxton of the situation.  

Steele then proceeded to interrogate RM at the police station.  RM denied any involvement in the robberies.  Steele did not believe that RM actually played any part in the robberies, however he continued to coerce RM into a confession.  Steele told RM that if he did not confess to the robberies that Ms. Maxton would be imprisoned and lose custody of the children.  This frightened RM into confessing to the robberies. (Lynch, 2013.)  Steele then filed a criminal complaint and RM was charged and placed in juvenile detention.  

Steele continued by arranging several meetings with Ms. Maxton under the guise that they were going to discuss RMs case.  (Lynch, 2013.)  Steele proceeded to tell Ms. Maxton that he could get RM out of juvenile detention, but it would be a process.  He told Ms. Maxton that he wanted to help because he did not believe that RM had any involvement in the robberies.  Steele then coerces Ms. Maxton into participating in sexual acts. Ms. Maxton participated because she believed that Officer Steele was the only one who could get her son released.  

A few days later, a prosecutor who knew about RMs arrest but thought he had been released after the booking process, discovered that RM had been in custody for 9 days.  The prosecutor immediately released RM and dropped all charges.  This led to the investigation of Officer Julien Steele’s actions.  Steele argued that the arrest of RM would give him leverage as he continued the investigation such as getting Ms. Maxton’s cooperation if she was guilty of the robberies.  (Lynch, 2013.)  

Steele was charged with abduction, extortion, rape, and intimidation.  The Jury however only convicted Steele of the abduction and intimidation of RM.  Steele’s attorneys argued that “the crime of intimidation does not apply to an officer’s conduct during an interrogation, because that’s what police do.” (Lynch, 2013.)  The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that yes, police officers do have some leeway to use deceptive tactics to obtain a confession, but they have to remain within the legal limits.  Officers are not permitted to use physical force or unlawful threats of harm.  The court found that Steele had knowingly coerced a confession from RM, then proceeded to file a criminal complaint using a false confession. (Whalen, 2013.) Steele’s actions went well beyond the legal means of interrogation.  

Attorneys for Steele also tried to argue the abduction conviction.  They argued that the jury was not properly informed about a police officer’s “privilege” to arrest a person based on the good faith belief that they committed a crime, even if the officer turns out to be wrong.  The court rejected this argument on 2 points.  First, Steele’s attorneys agreed to all jury instructions in the original trial.  Second, the court pointed out the same points as in the intimidation argument.  Steele knowingly coerced a confession from RM, and filed a criminal complaint using a knowingly false confession.  The legal “privilege” does not apply in this case.