This paper reports an Australian study of public attitudes to police gratuities. Police ethics have become a major public concern in Australia following corruption scandals in the 1970s and 1980s. Elsewhere, studies of police ethics have associated serious corruption, such as protection rackets, with the apparently serious issue of the acceptance of gratuities. Much of the writing on police gratuities involves philosophical analysis with some speculation about public views - usually favoring the author's opinion. in response to the absence of empirical data on public attitudes to the issue, a survey was conducted covering a range of questions about perceptions of the standing of gifts to police.(1) The results of the survey support the claim of many theorists that acceptance of gratuities undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the police and is incompatible with the concept of democratic policing. The literature indicates that although official police guidelines reflect public opinion, police attitudes and practices frequently do not. Police administrators need to find more effective means of fulfilling community expectations in this area. Police Attitudes to the Acceptance of Gratuities Most police departments now explicitly prohibit gratuities in statements of ethics. The peak body, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, has completely rejected gratuities in its Law Enforcement Code of Ethics. The Code states, in part, that, will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.(2) The main rationale for this position is that gratuities threaten the impartiality of police operations. This is elaborated in the Canon of Ethics for Police Officers. Article 9, Gifts and Favors, states that The law enforcement officer, representing government, bears the heavy responsibility of maintaining, in his own conduct, the honour and integrity of all governmental institutions. He shall, therefore, guard against placing himself in a position which any person can reasonably assume that special consideration is being given. Thus, he should be firm in refusing gifts, favors, or gratuities, large or small, which can, in the public mind, be interpreted as capable of influencing his judgment in the discharge of his duties.(3) In opposition to the official view, the feeling on the part of many police is that gratuities are an acceptable part of the job. An advocate of police discretion in the area of gratuities, former police officer Kania, illustrates the situation from his experience: Like most police officers who have completed a modern, progressive police academy program I knew the conventional standard obliged me to forgo taking any gratuities. When I arrived on the street, paired with a veteran officer, I was quickly shown that the supposed unethical behavior was the social norm for the police and the merchants alike.(4) In a recent study by Barker, a majority of police expressed willingness to report serious misconduct by fellow officers, but very few were willing to report the receipt of gratuities, even though involved violation of department regulations.(5) A similar result was found by Miller and Braswell, who classified recruit views on accepting free coffee and meals at restaurants as less ethical on an continuum, with a slight deterioration in standards on the part of serving officers.(6) Felkenes' study of police ethics produced a different result. Only 17% of police agreed that it is not wrong for an officer to accept small gifts from the public. Twenty-one percent were neutral and 62% disagreed.(7) Hyams found that 45% of officers believed gratuities were acceptable compared to 21% of recruits.(8) This is in accord with the commonly observed reduction in the initially high public service ideals of recruits, a change which begins in training and continues into service. …