The Court of Appeals said that it is not “discretionary” for government officials to abdicate their responsibility to pursue wrongdoing if that decision is being made to benefit someone personally.
The court explained that “... a public servant’s knowing refusal to perform a mandatory action coupled with an intent to obtain a benefit constitutes nonfeasance,” in upholding the police official’s conviction. In the words of the court, “... when a public servant, with the intent to obtain a benefit, knowingly refuses to perform a discretionary duty, the performance of which is so obviously fundamental to accomplishing the goals of the public servant’s office, that refusal cannot legitimately be understood to be an exercise of discretion; rather, it constitutes an abuse of discretion, which equates to nonfeasance.”
Other such transgressions include misfeasance in office, acting unlawfully, and malfeasance in office, performing official acts badly.