IF YOU HAVE TO ASK… STOP
BY JOHN DALE HARTMAN, CHIEF OF POLICE (RET.), LPI, AAS, BA, MPPM
In this profession, we must regularly pause and reflect—not only on our caseloads but also on our conduct, choices, and professional judgment. Investigators are granted a rare privilege: We are trusted with often personal, pivotal, and legally significant matters. That trust is sacred. It must be earned and preserved through discipline, awareness, and an unwavering commitment to ethics.
Whether we’re working for a private client, a corporate entity, or a government agency, the expectation is the same: We must perform to the highest standards, and our work must stand up to scrutiny—legal, ethical, and professional. Our actions must not only be effective but also defensible. Professionalism is not optional in our field—it is survival.
By and large, I believe we meet those expectations. As investigators, we often work unsupervised, guided only by our sense of appropriateness and integrity. We must remain true to that responsibility. However, we are sometimes tempted to ignore warning signs and venture into untested waters. When questioning whether an action is appropriate, we may rationalize by saying, “I have done this before, and it was fine,” “Others have done it without incident,” or even “How would anyone know?” The dangers of these rationalizations could fill more than this article—they could fill an entire book or many books.
Throughout my career—culminating as Chief of Police for a regional police department serving ten communities across three counties, with prior investigative experience—I have had to address these ethical dilemmas multiple times. As a certified police academy instructor and a college and university lecturer, I was frequently asked such questions by aspiring officers eager to enter the storied field of law enforcement.
This article is provided to be more than a simple editorial of the problem. It offers certain recommendations to problems that create ethical dilemmas you may face on the job. But more than that, it offers a reflection, a reminder, and a roadmap. To those ends, for investigators at any stage of their career, I offer a central guiding principle for these somewhat critical issues in the practical application of investigations:
If you have to ask, stop.
KNOW THE RED FLAGS
To start our examination, we should begin at the beginning, namely, identify those indicators that very well may lead to an ethical dilemma. Investigators often work independently. There’s no one looking over your shoulder. That autonomy is both a strength and a trap. When you find yourself questioning whether something is acceptable, legal, or ethical, pause. That moment of hesitation is your warning sign.
Don’t brush it off with dangerous rationalizations:
- “I’ve done it before.”
- “Everyone else does it.”
- “No one will know.”
Those thoughts are not just red flags—they’re warning signs—your own personal red and blues. They signal that your judgment is about to go off-course. Ask yourself: Are ethics just about avoiding embarrassment in court? Or does it speak to something deeper, a commitment to do right, even when no one is watching? Remember: the court of public opinion, legal review, and personal conscience have long memories. Even if you avoid criminal or civil liability, reputational harm is irreversible. Don’t cross the line because you think you can. Step back and think.
CASE REFLECTION: EXPERIENCE IS NOT IMMUNITY
Throughout my law enforcement and investigative career, I’ve faced these very questions personally, with my officers, and with my students. Their questions were inevitably the same:
- “Can I do this?”
- “Should I do that?”
- “Where’s the line?”
The lesson I always offered was this: Just because you haven’t been caught, challenged, or exposed doesn’t make an action right—or safe. One misstep can shatter a career. Further, when basing your actions on whether your own experiences pass the test of challenge, ask yourself: Have you encountered this circumstance in the past? Under challenge, would your experience prevail under cross-examination? To be clear, what you feel may be proper in a given circumstance is not necessarily what a court or tribunal would find.
Therefore, ask yourself, “Would this stand up under cross-examination?” Better yet, ask, “Would I be comfortable explaining this on the stand?”
THE “INTERNAL” STANDARD
When addressing the appropriateness of your action, there is one standard that very well may trump all others. Simply ask yourself, “Would the person I respect the most support my actions?” Reach back and ask, “What would he or she say?” In many instances, this is not just someone on the “JOB.” It very well may be a loved one, a friend, or someone you know in another capacity. What would they say? What would they think? Would they be proud of your actions? Once exposed, would you be proud of your actions? I am serious here; check your actions against that gauge. This may be the toughest of all.
THE EVER PRESENT EYE
As many of us are aware in both the public and private sectors, with the advancement of technology, whether physical or virtual, there is little done that cannot be discovered in one way or another. Perhaps one of the most perilous of all assumptions is that our actions will go undiscovered. As investigators, we know too well that what seems hidden often comes to light—sometimes with surprising ease.
Whether it is going where you do not have a license to go, obtaining views which exceed anyone’s reasonable expectation of privacy, or accessing a device on the “down low,” many otherwise good investigators have faced sometimes devastating consequences for what they believed were innocuous actions. Many cases and equally many careers have come to a full stop after things were done, which the investigator thought was beyond the ever-present eye. In the simplest of terms, you can’t “sneak” your way through the process without running the risk of discovery and, ultimately, embarrassment.
PEER PRESSURE AND PROFESSIONALISM
One of the more intense pressures comes not from the public, clients, courts, or subjects we are investigating but from peers. Those whom you work with regularly or other professionals on whom you rely. You may hear:
- “You’re being too careful.”
- “You’re overthinking it.”
- “It’s not a big deal.”
Let me be perfectly clear: Your colleagues do not have to answer for your actions. Only you do. If you push a boundary and it backfires, you can’t shift the blame. You can’t explain it away. You own it. As a detective and later as Chief, I heard these arguments many times. My reply was always the same: You are free to implode your career, but that freedom does not extend to mine. There comes a time in all our lives when we must take responsibility and do what is right—regardless of external pressures. To do otherwise is to tarnish our reputation and the integrity of our profession. Whether working in the public or private sector, our integrity does matter.
To the seasoned professionals reading this: your experience is valuable, but it is not a license to operate unchecked. If you’ve developed habits that rely on loopholes, shortcuts, or “hope-it-works” methods, re-evaluate. Today’s standard of appropriateness may not protect you tomorrow. And to be sure, it likely did not protect you yesterday. It is more than likely that you may have simply benefited from the luck of the draw.
VALIDATE YOUR SOURCES
Investigators must be critical thinkers—you already know that. But don’t forget that critical thinking includes questioning not only your actions but also your information. Be wary of media portrayals, dramatizations, or “war stories” passed around the station, office, or at conferences. Hollywood is not a legal precedent. Even books, articles, or training sessions can contain outdated or inaccurate methods. In short, they too, can be off the mark. You maintained “redundancy” in actions, equipment, and procedures on the street and applied the same standard to sources. Double-check your procedures and have a “Plan B” ready at the instant moment. For those in the tactical arena, we all learned too well that the first casualty of any operation (and in this case procedure) is “the plan.”
Before adopting a new technique or applying a tactic, ask:
- Is this legally sound in my jurisdiction?
- Has it been tested in court?
- Do I have a source I can rely on—a statute, case law, or written policy?
- Is there some other resource that is available to me?
CLIENT PRESSURE
As we are all critically aware, from time to time, we are pressured by our clients to deliver quick results and in some cases, “push the limits.” That is not necessarily to say that there is some nefarious intention on their part; it may simply be that they, too, are under pressure for results. When this comes into play, there are several tactics you can employ to avoid crossing the line. These recommendations address possible steps on how to handle these problems:
- Know the law and stay well within the parameters. Stay current with local, state, and federal laws. If you are not sure, seek advice; don’t guess. As a police administrator and instructor, I recommended and continue to recommend that your best course is to establish where the line on proper activities exists. From there, take one step back into the safety zone. Don’t press the line, it is movable, as the appellate court has historically proven time after time. Not to be rude, but I always recommend to those in my sphere to let the next poor…..take the risk operating at the line, not you.
- Be the voice of reason. Explain the risks your client and you face and how they could compromise the entire case. Position yourself as the expert and explain the course you feel is more advisable.
- As difficult as it may be, in some cases, you must be prepared to walk away. This is particularly true if a client consistently pressures you to push the limits. Your license, reputation, and future are not worth it. Remember: reputation is everything. One unethical move can undo years of good work.
CONFIDENTIALITY
A simple rule, maintain strict confidentiality of your operations even after the investigation ends. This is often infringed upon for any number of reasons, including self-aggrandizement. Never fail to remember that the integrity of your investigation and the safety of your investigators, as well as the interests of you, your client, and the subject themselves, demands confidentiality. If someone needs to know something, they are already in a position to receive that information and will. If someone does not maintain a need to know, then quite simply—they don’t need to know. That applies both internally on a specific case and outside the agency. Something extremely difficult to some of us in the profession: learn to keep quiet. If you have served in any undercover capacity, you are well aware of this tenet. And it is extremely important that we not divulge means, methods, and sources to others who do not have a legal right to know.
USE AND HANDLING OF EVIDENCE AND PROPORTIONALITY OF TACTICS
Under no circumstances should you tamper with evidence. I think that is a no-brainer in our profession. But going one step further, do not embellish your evidence. Present your evidence as it factually exists, absent any enhancement. Not only will this mislead, which in and of itself is bad, but it will only serve to further dilute your efforts in areas where the sincere impact of your findings speak for themselves. It is what it is—work from there. To that end, actions taken should be proportional to the objective. Ensure your efforts align with the objective and do not go outside the bounds of good investigative protocol. We never want to “shock the conscience of the court (Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).” Old law is often good law.
FIELD PRACTICE: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU’RE UNSURE
Having said all that, “clear as mud,” I am sure we are led back to a very simple question: What should you do when in doubt? Here’s a three-step field guide
- Stop. If a decision feels ethically off, don’t act on impulse.
- Research. Consult laws, professional standards, and verified training materials. Seek out current, jurisdiction-specific information.
- Ask. Get a second opinion from a supervisor, trusted colleague, legal advisor, or mentor.
There’s no shame in asking for guidance. It shows wisdom and foresight. To be sure, there are painfully few instances where action, absent thoughtful introspection, is necessary in the instant moment. And, in those moments where immediacy is a factor, always remember, it is impossible to “call back that round.” Where possible, control the action; don’t let the action control you.
ONE ANSWER: MY FATHER’S RULE
So what do you do? My father was a police officer who served and retired from the public sector after over 30 years of service. He was a veteran of many police actions, ultimately serving as the reason I entered law enforcement and did not go on to law school. At the beginning of my career, I asked him how he knew whether what he was doing was right, how he knew whether his actions were proper and lawful. He gave me this uncomplicated and profound advice:
“If you have to ask, stop.
If your heart tells you it’s right, do it.
If your guts tell you you’re just trying to be ‘cute,’ don’t.”
Simple. Honest. Timeless. Straightforward. Uncomplicated advice—naturally open to debate—but at its core, it is sound. Don’t do something you know is wrong. Don’t attempt to be clever and push boundaries just because you think you can get away with it. If you find yourself asking, “Should I do this? Can I do this? Is it right to do this?”—stop. Do the research, seek advice, and proceed accordingly.
This rule has kept me well-grounded across decades of investigative work. It’s helped me navigate internal conflicts, peer pressure, and moral ambiguity. It helped me survive at every level of my career. I pass it on to you not just as a saying but as a standard, maybe the standard.
A FINAL WORD
For whatever it is worth, you didn’t enter this profession to get away with things. At least, I don’t think you did. You entered it to do the right thing. That is why I entered this field: to have the courage to go where others feared, stand where others refused, and see what others ignored. In short, I wanted to make some difference in my small way and to bring meaning to the description “a good cop.” My friends, that is one of the last things my father said to me before he passed away from cancer. “John, you’re a good cop.” That meant more to me than I would ever know. Stay sharp. Stay ethical. Stay safe out there. You and, most importantly, your family deserve that!
If you have to ask… STOP.
About the Author:
John Dale Hartman is a Licensed Private Investigator in Pennsylvania and a retired Chief of Police who helped establish a regional police department. He served as a detective and team leader for a multijurisdictional special response unit. He holds a Master’s in Public Policy and Management, a B.A. in Administration of Justice, and an A.A.S. in Cyber Security. His master’s research focused on police regionalization, a topic on which he has instructed local officials. A published author and expert witness, he is also a municipal consultant and educator. He has developed and taught law enforcement curricula at the academy, college, and university levels.