Community-oriented policing (COPS), problem-oriented policing (POPs), and the zero-tolerance policing concepts are three criminal justice policy initiatives that were a major change from the tradition

2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 1/29 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 2/29

10

The Polic e

Chapt er Outline

Introduction ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c1 #ch 10le v 1 se c1 )

The Natur e of Policing ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c2 #ch 10le v 1 se c2 )

Policing in a Democr atic Society ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c2 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 )

Polic e as Street-Le vel Bur eaucr ats ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c2 #ch 10le v 2 se c2 )

Policing as an “Impossible Job ” ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c2 #ch 10le v 2 se c3 )

Hist ory of Policing ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10le v 1 se c3 )

Political Er a ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10le v 2 se c4 )

Reform Er a ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10le v 2 se c5 )

Community Er a ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10le v 2 se c6 )

Homeland Security Er a? ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10le v 2 se c7 )

Cont empor ary Polic e ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 1 se c4 )

Feder al Law Enfor cement ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 2 se c8 )

Stat e Polic e and Stat e Highw ay P atr ols ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 1)

Sheriffs Departments ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 2)

Municipal P olic e Departments ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 3)

Special P olic e ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 4)

Int ergo vernmental R elationships ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c5 #ch 10le v 1 se c5 )

Feder al Support ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c5 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 5)

Stat e Support ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c5 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 6) 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 3/29

Local Support ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c5 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 7)

P olic e and Policy Issues ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c6 #ch 10le v 1 se c6 )

Polic e as Policymak ers ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c6 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 8)

P olic e Issues ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c6 #ch 10le v 2 se c1 9)

Deplo yment of the Polic e ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c6 #ch 10le v 2 se c2 0)

C onclusion ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10le v 1 se c7 ) 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 4/29

10.1 INTRODUCTION

Police agencies ar e those go vernment agencies that ha ve some r esponsibility for enf orcing the la w and/or pr oviding pr otection to our local communities. Ther e

are appr oximat ely 18,000 such agencies in the Unit ed States toda y, including o ver 50 f eder al law enf orcement agencies, 49 stat e police agencies, over 12,000

municipal agencies, 3,067 sheriff s departments, and nearly 1,500 special police f or ces. These agencies ar e an important part of society , as they help ensur e that

society functions smoothl y, thus allo wing its citizens to lead stable and pr oducti ve li ves. These agencies ar e consider ed the irst component in the criminal

justice syst em, but the y are also an int egral part of the executi ve br anch of go vernment . As a result of their administr ative (and bur eaucr atic) natur e, they are a

political entity that is aff ected by politics and that at the same time aff ects politics. This chapt er looks at the role of policing in society , its history and

cont empor ary status, its role in int ergo vernmental r elationships, the v arious types of policing, and ho w policing its int o the policy process. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 5/29

10.2 THE NATURE OF P OLICING

The Unit ed States was founded on the principle of democr acy. One aspect of creating a trul y democr atic society is to ensur e that government does not usurp the

po wers of the people. To this end, Founding F athers, aft er the creation of the U.S. Constitution, cr eat ed the Bill of Rig hts—the irst ten amendments to the

Constitution—that established the rig hts and protections of American citizens ag ainst their go vernment . And the most likely element of go vernment that

citizens will need t o in vok e these pr otections will oft en come at the hands of the police.

Policing in a Democr atic Society

Citizens ha ve rig hts and protections ag ainst police oficers since the y act as an agent of the government . Deinitivel y, one of the most important of these

pr otections is the Fourth Amendment , the right against unr easonable sear ches and seizur es. Citizens cannot be arbitr arily stopped and sear ched, nor can they be

arrested on simple suspicion. The Constitution provides these pr otections to pr ev ent the police fr om taking po wer aw ay fr om the people. Ho wev er , the delicat e

balance here must be underst ood. In many instances, it is police who pr otect people’s rig hts by ensuring that others’ rig hts are not violat ed and, when violat ed,

that order is rest ored. In other w ords, the same agency of go vernment that stands in the gr eat est position to tak e aw ay y our rig hts is also the same agency that is

established to pr otect your rig hts. This is the dilemma of policing in a democr atic society. 1

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 1)

The true dilemma that is addr essed here is the balancing of indi vidual rights, those afforded to all citizens b y the Constitution versus the maint enance of public

order . On the one hand, we must ensur e that individuals are aff orded their rig hts, that the y recei ve due pr ocess, and that the y are not unf airly bur dened by the

sy st em. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the police to maintain or der for all citizens, w hich ma y very w ell necessitat e the violation, prefer abl y leg al

violation, of indi vidual rights. A simple example ma y sufice. If a group of juveniles hang out on a particular str eet corner , since it is a public street, the y have that

rig ht. Yet , if the residents w ho live on the str eet corner feel thr eatened and passersb y do not feel comf ortable moving throug h the group on the sidew alk, this

disrupts public order . A police oficer comes along and is requir ed to “do something” about the pr oblem, as he or she is vest ed with the authority of government

to r esol ve the situation. If the oficer mo ves the ju veniles along, he or she ma y very w ell be violating their rig ht to peacefull y assemble. If the oficer arrests them

for v agr ancy , he or she may very w ell violat e their rights against unr easonable seizur es (arrests). If the oficer does nothing, then the public order remains

violat ed, and people living and w alking in the ar ea remain in fear . The oficer must ind a way t o a void violating the ju veniles’ indi vidual rights while at the same

time rest oring public order to ensur e that both individual rights and public order are maintained.

In or der to ensur e that police oficers balance these rights, the y are also given a number of t ools that oft en seem to be as widel y diverse. P olice oficers ar e given

an enormous amount of discr etion in the performance of their job in order to allo w them the ability to achie ve this balance. P olice can choose to do nothing, gi ve

a v er bal w arning, issue a writt en warning, deli ver an arr est summons, or physicall y make an arrest. Ther e are some constr aints, howev er , that ar e oft en dictat ed

by the natur e of the crime. If a police oficer catches a mur derer, it is unlik ely he or she will let the mur derer go or mer ely gi ve a v er bal w arning, but as the types

of crimes become mor e like the scenario described previousl y, an oficer is gi ven a wider latitude of discr etion.

Police oficer discr etion is also restr ained by a number of diff erent sour ces. The law clear ly places par amet ers on what police can and cannot do, as U.S. Supr eme

Court and circuit court decisions dictat e police behavior. One only has to think of se ver al landmar k cases to r ecognize these limitations, such as Mir anda v.

Ariz ona (1966) reg arding the famous Mir anda warning or Tenne ssee v. Garner (1985) reg arding police use of deadl y for ce. In addition, police oficers ar e also

restrict ed in their behavior throug h various policies, pr ocedur es, rules, and regulations as delineat ed by either the agency the y work for , the jurisdiction the y

wor k for , or the stat e. Finall y, police oficers ar e supervised to some degr ee, and management can place more restr aints on an oficer’s use of discr etion beyond

the mor e formal policies found in departmental manuals.

P olic e as Street-Le vel Bur eaucr ats

One more aspect of discr etion has to do with its location within the police hier arch y. Wilson has not ed that in policing, “discr etion increases as one moves do wn

the organizational hier arch y.” 2 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 2) Con versel y, the hig her one rises in the

police department’s chain of command, the less discr etion one has. Because police oficers on the street (and at the bott om of the hierarch y) ha ve f ar mor e

discr etion than those at the top, police oficers ha ve been called “str eet-le vel bur eaucr ats.” 3

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 3) Michael Lipsky , in his study of street-le vel bur eaucr acies—those public

service agencies that interact dir ectl y with citizens in the perf ormance of their duties—f ound that the nature of these agencies creat es lar ge conlicts betw een

labor and management . This is because the police actually determine what the police departments do, wher eas in most bur eaucr acies, decisions are made at the

top and pushed do wn to the bott om. In other words, those at the bott om of the hierarch y tend to det ermine what those at the top do. This can cr eat e conlict

within the agency primaril y based on the oficer’s actions and his or her use of discretion.

Another aspect of policing that tends to mak e the role of the police a dificult one in a democr atic society is based on the idea that government should r elect the

will of the people. Mor e speciicall y, go vernment should r elect the v alues and norms of the society and community the y serv e. Extending this even further , it is

argued that the police should relect these same v alues and norms and that as these values and norms change o ver time, the police should change t oo. This

expectation has been t ermed as the “impossible mandat e” by Manning and V an Maanen 4

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 4) and serv es to further describe the man y roles that the police must serv e

in toda y’s society .

Wilson, in his famous stud y, The V arietie s of Polic e Behavior ,5 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 5) found that

police do r elect the community ’s values and norms and that the y tend to police in thr ee diff erent sty les, depending on what the community desir es. The irst is

the watchman sty le, which is mor e in line with maintaining public order with the most minimal amount of police int ervention possible. The second sty le is the

enforcer , which is the type of policing that strictl y enforces an y violation of the law. The thir d style is the service style, which att empts to perf orm its duties by

pr oviding a wide v ariety of services to bett er serv e the public. That Wilson ’s study found diff erent sty les of policing raises questions as to w hether these sty les

wer e reall y relecti ve of the community or the police or ganization; if the y are trul y relecti ve of the community , what happens when the community changes? Do

the police change their sty le in accor dance?

Taking this e ven further , the role of the police is so ill deined in society that the reality of the “impossible mandat e” should be quite evident . The media (see

chapter 1 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 01#ch 01) ) con vey a message of the police as being crime ig hters, yet the reality of

policing is that the crime-ig hting role is onl y a fraction of this (usuall y cited as 20% of an oficer’s time). Police oficers eng age in civic pr ogr ams and random

patr ols, and they appear in court , enforce tr afic la ws, respond to those in need of assistance, gi ve dir ections to lost dri vers, perf orm emer gency medical services, 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 6/29

answer leg al questions, respond to ci vil disput es, serve papers, and write reports. The roles that typical police oficers perf orm in one day are so diverse that

the y are trul y the “jack -of-all-tr ades” and “master-of-none. ” Because of this, one author, Mark H. Moor e, has called policing the “impossible job.” 6

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 6)

P olicing as an “Impossible Job ”

Like the “impossible mandat e,” the “impossible job ” focuses on the man y roles that police pla y in society . The “impossible job” concept focuses hea vily on the fact

that the police, unlik e other organizations, do not ha ve one all-encompassing policy goal or objecti ve. In pri vat e businesses, the primary goal is to mak e mone y.

In or ganizations such as the En vironmental Pr otection Agency , the overriding goal is t o clean up the en vironment , and in ire departments acr oss the country , it

is to put out ir es. In policing, as previousl y described, the goals and objecti ves ar e so numer ous that the ability to perf orm the policing function is essentiall y

impossible. There are tensions betw een the cost of policing and its outputs. Policing can become very expensi ve, and ther e is no real need to be hig hly eficient .

The product that policing deli vers is so v aried that it is har d to r eall y kno w what policing’s “bott om line” is. In addition, the proper use of authority is oft en

debat ed; what ev er action a police oficer in the pr eviousl y mentioned street-corner scenario select ed, the actions of the oficer could be easily debat ed. Finally,

the uncertain goals—ig hting crime (which crimes?), law enf orcement versus peacek eeping, crime control versus crime pr ev ention, and r educing crime or

reducing f ear—all contribut e to the comple xities of policing.

Policing in a democr atic society is a dificult task and one that appears to be getting mor e comple x, not less. The implications for public policy should not be lost

on the r eader . What police oficers do at the bottom can shape public policy . What police chiefs do at the top can shape public policy . And assuredly, ho w citizens

per ceive and r eact to the police can and will shape public policy . While the public policy that is being craft ed at this level oft en applies primaril y to the local

pr ocess, these things ha ve a w ay of rising much hig her (e.g., police oficer’s actions resulting in a Supr eme Court’s decision affecting all police), and ideas at the

top can oft en ind their way do wn to the bott om (e.g., the passage of the Violent Crime Contr ol and Law Enf orcement Act of 1994 and its allocation of near ly $9

billion fr om the feder al government t o local police departments). Thus, police ar e not onl y an important actor within the criminal justice syst em but also an

important pla yer in the policy pr ocess. To understand this, it helps to look at ho w policing has become an important policy act or over time. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 7/29

10.3 HISTOR Y OF POLICING

The hist ory of policing is important to pr ovide a mor e accur ate pictur e of wher e we ha ve been and w her e we should go in terms of ensuring a saf e society . Police,

police administr ators, academics, and citizens should understand the str ategies and police methods tried in the past to g ain a bett er knowledge of w hat should

be done in the futur e to help contr ol criminal behavior. 7 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 7)

P olicing t oda y has its roots in the Eng lish syst em of policing. Dating back to the colonial er a of America, when America was a part of Eng land, as the new land

became settled ther e was at least some need for a s yst em of pr otection. As the majority of colonists during the 1600s tended to be Eng lish, they broug ht with

them the syst em that the y were familiar with fr om the old country . The syst em with w hich these Eng lish colonists were familiar consist ed of the sheriffs,

constables, and both the watch and the w ard. Althoug h all of these were common pr actices in Eng land, with the colonists it reall y depended on wher e in America

they settled that each of these was emplo yed. Colonists settling in the southern colonies (e.g., Vir ginia and North Car olina) tended to fav or the use of the sheriff.

Those colonists settling in the northern colonies (e.g., New Y or k and New Jerse y) opted mor e for the constables. And w her e the larger urban areas beg an to gr ow ,

these cities and towns opt ed for either the w atch or the w ard, or both.

The sheriff w as appoint ed by the colonial go vernor and serv ed as the chief local government oficial. 8

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 8) His r esponsibilities included collecting tax es, conducting elections,

maintaining bridges and roads, and v arious other duties. The constable also had some responsibility for enf orcing the la w and maintaining or der but lik e the

sheriff oft en had man y duties that fell outside of w hat we toda y would consider policing. The watch consist ed of men patrolling the city to guar d against ir e,

crime, and disor der and occasionall y checking taverns f or drunk s. At irst , cities and towns emplo yed onl y a night watch, but as these cities and towns gr ew

lar ger , man y were for ced to cr eat e the day watch. As in Eng land, these positions often start ed as volunt eer positions. When that failed, it w as made mandat ory

duty for all adult males. As e ven that t ended to fail (f or man y purposefull y failed t o sho w and willing ly paid the ine r ather than serv e), eventuall y the watch

de veloped int o paid positions, albeit poor ly paid ones.

Colonial la w enf orcement w as ineficient , often corrupt , and subject to political inluence. The sheriff, constable, and the w atch and the w ard had little capacity to

either pr ev ent crime or appr ehend offenders. The sheriff and constable were onl y reacti ve, r esponding to complaints br oug ht to them. The y did not engage in

prev enti ve patr ol. Ther e were too few w atch members to det er crime. In addition, since the positions were paid so poor ly , onl y the poor est members of society

tended t o serv e on the watch. Victims had no con venient w ay t o r eport crimes. If people w ant ed to eng age in mor al criminal offenses (e.g., gambling, drinking, or

se xual beha viors), they simpl y had to bribe la w enf orcement oficials to “look the other w ay.” Thus, oficial la w enf orcement agencies pla yed a r elati vel y small

role in maintaining la w and or der . 9 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 9)

During the R ev olutionary W ar, peace w as maintained by tr oops. Aft er the war, peacek eeping rev ert ed back to ci vilian contr ol. Althoug h the sheriffs, constables,

and the watch and the w ard continued in man y jurisdictions, they were not hig hly fav or ed because the y were remnants of the King of Eng land’s rule. Citizens in

the new Unit ed States began to r eject man y of England’s former pr actices and ad vocat ed for indi vidual rights as encapsulat ed in the passage of the Bill of Rights

in 1791. The sheriff s and constables were thus minimized in importance because the y posed a danger to indi vidual rights and freedoms and the people w ant ed

to limit police authority . As a result , the method of policing at the time was left in the hands of the local go vernments r ather than b y cr eating a national (or stat e-

level) police f or ce. This w as done to ensur e that local communities, rather than a national or stat e government distantl y remo ved fr om them, could assert gr eat er

contr ol over la w enf orcement and to pr omot e the local police to r elect those communities. The resulting eff ect was a continuation of past Eng lish practices but

with far less po wers then the y had previousl y held.

This method did not work w ell as America continued to gr ow fr om within and thr oug h mass immigr ation to this new and fr ee country . In fact , as the cities grew ,

so too did the crime pr oblem, and the old means of inf ormal social contr ol mechanisms, such as every one kno wing each other in the community , families

asserting contr ol over their childr en, and the church asserting its moral authority , began to fail. Crime and disor der were on the rise, and as crime, disor der, and

riots broke out , ther e was no entity available t o eff ecti vel y respond to these pr oblems. Per haps the best example is in Bost on, Massachusetts, for betw een 1834

and 1838, there were thr ee major riots that ran rampant o ver the entir e city, lasting for man y days, killing and w ounding numer ous people, and causing

enormous amounts of damage. As there was no one to st op the riot ers, the riots ran their course. The people demanded something be done, and the ans wer la y

acr oss the Atlantic Ocean in London, Eng land. Ther e, Robert Peel had cr eat ed the London Metr opolitan Police Department , the irst bona ide police department

in the world. The solution to the pr oblem in Bost on was evident , and in 1838, Boston creat ed the irst police department in the Unit ed States. New Yor k w ould

follo w in 1845 with the creation of its irst police department .

Although these departments were modeled aft er the London Metr opolitan Police Department , American police departments looked very diff erent . While London

start ed with a for ce of over 1,000 police oficers, w earing unif orms and badges and under strict supervision, the American experiment with police departments

tended t o start with few er than 100 oficers, with no unif orms and under little supervision. The reason had much to do with the pr eviousl y cited desir es for a

very limit ed government pr esence. Ov er 1,000 police oficers wearing unif orms was thoug ht to be too str ong a government pr esence, and people fear ed that

their rig hts would be lost . As a result , early American policing w as hig hly ineff ective, and because of a lack of supervision and the political climat e of the time,

they became hig hly corrupt and oft en brutal.

Political Er a

Kelling and Moor e have r ecognized thr ee speciic eras in the hist ory of policing. 10

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 10) The irst , known as the political era, beg an around 1840 and last ed

until around 1900. During this time, man y people from diff erent back grounds and cultur es were coming int o the country . In some communities, there was a

break down in law and or der that sometimes culminat ed in riots because of these social, economic, and political differences. 11

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 11) F or e xample, as pr eviousl y described, Boston, betw een 1834 and 1838,

endur ed three major riots, and New Yor k, in the lead-up to its cr eation of a police department , had similar experiences that destr oyed lar ge sections of the city ,

damaged numer ous storefr onts, injur ed hundr eds of people, and killed dozens. People recognized the need for a police for ce but w ere unsur e what it should be.

The idea of an or ganized police f or ce w as a radical idea to man y at the time, but the alternati ve w as further widespr ead rioting.

What developed w as a policing syst em that w as closel y linked to local politicians and inher ently corrupt but at the same time extr emel y helpful to new

immigr ants. When many of these immigr ants arrived in the Unit ed States, they were unf amiliar with the language, cust oms, and cultur e. Politicians helped them

ind jobs and homes or helped with tr oubled childr en. Sometimes they would pr ovide mone y to bu y medicine for a sick f amil y member . The politicians, in return,

expect ed (and recei ved) support fr om these immigr ants during elections. 12

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 12) 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 8/29

At the same time, the police also helped the immigr ants. Police task s included some crime prev ention but also included a wide r ange of useful social services,

such as assisting immigr ants in establishing themsel ves in communities and inding jobs, housing the homeless during cold wint er nights, and feeding the poor

in soup kit chens. Because the police relect ed some of the ethnic makeup of the area in which the y lived and w orked, the y had positi ve r elationships with those

of the same ethnic gr oups. The police were familiar with their neig hbor hoods and maintained order in them. Policing w as done mostl y by foot patr ol, which

helped the oficers come to kno w and understand the people they policed. Police w ere int egrated int o neig hbor hoods and enjo yed the support of man y of its

citizens.

Howev er , politicians had inluence over the police. A t that time, politicians could hir e police oficers. Thus, local politicians could rew ard their friends with jobs, a

major form of patr onage. Ther e were no personnel standar ds for serving as an oficer , and there was no job security —the police who were appoint ed by

politicians could also be ir ed on a whim by politicians. The police w ere oblig ated to politicians for their job and their job security . Thus, policing during the

political era became closel y linked to or e ven contr olled by local politicians. The police and politicians w orked t ogether , but politics, throug h these political

machines, inluenced every aspect of American policing.

The closeness of police t o political leaders and the lack of supervision of oficers g av e rise t o widespr ead political corruption. Men with no education, bad health,

and criminal recor ds were hir ed as oficers. The y were vulner able to being bribed in r eturn for nonenf orcement or lax enf orcement of la ws on drinking,

gambling, or pr ostitution. Ther e was very little in the w ay of f ormal tr aining. In most places, new oficers w ere handed a badge, a bat on, and a cop y of the

department rules and sent out on patr ol. Ther e was a lack of communication, especiall y between police oficers and a centr alized headquart ers, that made it

impossible to r espond to crimes. Supervision w as also very w eak. Oficers could go week s without seeing a supervisor , as they often went on and off duty from

their homes. Even in those departments that r equir ed oficers to serv e their duty from the station house, much lik e ireig hters do toda y, oficers still w ould oft en

not see their supervisors for da ys at a time. Thus, oficers e vaded duty and spent much of their time in saloons and bar ber shops. The y had to pa y bribes for

pr omotion. Det ectives w ere oft en used by politicians to obtain inf ormation for political purposes. On the w hole, ineficiency , corruption, brutality, and a lack of

professionalism w ere the chief results of this er a of policing.

Reform Er a

The period from 1900 to the 1970s is called the “r eform er a.” 13 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 13) Change

in policing came with an or ganized mo vement f or police pr ofessionalism and att empts to fr ee policing from the contr ol of politicians. The ref ormers w ant ed to

eliminat e politics from policing and to hir e qualiied leaders and oficers. Change also came from the civil rig hts mo vement’s demands f or equal justice as w ell as

the de velopment of ad vanced communications t echnology .

Most departments implement ed civil service testing in an att empt to eliminat e political patronage in the hiring and iring of oficers. Oficers were hir ed on the

basis of their qualiications for the job and their ability t o perf orm rather than their political connections. Departments emphasized their la w enf orcement roles

over their social service r ole, w hich was no w seen as the responsibility of social service agencies. P ersonnel standar ds were raised to include minimum

recruitment r equir ements for int elligence, health, and mor al char acter. Some departments cr eat ed a formal tr aining academ y. Ther e were calls for centr alizing

command and contr ol within police departments. The departments became more military -like, with discipline and a chain of command.

New technology , such as two-w ay r adios, telephones, and 911 emer gency syst ems, helped police become mor e professional. Some communities decr eased foot

patr ols and relied inst ead on patr ol cars that allowed police to r espond mor e quickl y to calls for help. The police w ere concerned with reacting to crime and

pr oviding r apid r esponse to all calls r eg ardless of their ur gency . Eventuall y, r eliance on technology w as view ed as a negative ad vancement . The police were

spending less time on in vestig ations and less time on the street, resulting in a loss of police relations with citizens. Citizens w ere not supporti ve of police and not

pr oviding them with inf ormation on crimes that police need.

Despit e large incr eases in the size of police departments and in expenditur es for new t echnology and new forms of equipment , police were not able to contr ol

crime or prev ent its incr ease. Crime rose signiicantl y during the 1960s, as did the public’s fear of crime. Man y minority citizens, especiall y African-Americans,

did not perceive police tr eatment as fair or adequat e. They protest ed not onl y police mistr eatment but also lack of attention.

Both the civil rig hts mo vement and the anti war mo vement br oug ht new challenges to the police. The legitimacy of police and their r ole w as br oug ht into

question. Students resist ed police, minorities rioted against them, and the public, observing police beha viors and reactions on li ve t ele vision for the irst time,

questioned their tactics. T ensions betw een the police and the African- American community exploded in a series of riots acr oss the nation from 1964 to 1968.

C ommunity Er a

Thus beg an the thir d era of policing, called the “community era.” 14 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 14) The

community er a had its roots in a conf erence at Michig an State University in 1955 discussing the pr oblems of police–community relations and ho w best to ix

them. Ther e was little political desir e to ix an y of the problems at the time, ho wev er , because lif e in America was rather tr anquil. Ho wev er , in the w ak e of the

crime rat e spiking up war d, riots in the str eets, demonstr ations over ci vil rig hts and the Vietnam War, and campus unr est, police reactions br oug ht to the

for efr ont the political issues of the da y and the weakness of police–community relations. Hence, with the pr oblem being evident and a solution alr ead y existing,

the mo vement t ow ar d impr oving police–community r elations became political policy .

This policy was part of the Johnson administr ation’s success in passing the Omnibus Crime Contr ol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, w hich cr eat ed the Law

Enf orcement Assistance Administr ation under the Department of Justice, part of the role of w hich was to funnel feder al grants for police t o stat e and local

agencies. Man y of these grants were focused on implementing the t enets of police–community r elations. P olice w ere oft en provided tr aining reg arding the

various cultur es they policed as well as special gr oups, such as juveniles, the elder ly , and the handicapped. In addition, pr ogr ams called “team policing” w ere

begun in man y cities during the early 1970s that consist ed of special groups of oficers working with the community to alle viate some of the problems particular

to their neig hbor hoods. In concert with these progr ams, Neig hborhood Watch pr ogr ams were start ed all over America in an att empt to ha ve citizens r eport mor e

crimes and suspicious activities to the local police. Althoug h many of these progr ams were aimed at impr oving police–community r elations, the reality is that

the y had a neg ligible impact .

The reason for their lack of success had much t o do with the w ay in w hich these pr ogr ams were run. Team policing used special teams to w ork with the

neig hbor hoods, while the rest of the police department continued their past pr actices. Hence, one small group of oficers spok e of working with the community ,

while the rest seeming ly w orked ag ainst the community . In the Neighborhood Watch pr ogr ams, police helped start these progr ams but abandoned them after the

initial implementation. Without the guidance of the one entity these progr ams were supposed to help, the y lounder ed until they were eventuall y abandoned and

only the signs on the str eet corners remained. This w as also combined with other pr oblems; for e xample, the police t ended to emphasize r andom patr ols to

pr ev ent crime, r apid r esponse to sol ve crimes f ast er, and mor e and better detectives t o sol ve crimes. R esear ch in the 1970s demonstr ated that none of these 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch1 … 9/29

long-held assumptions were valid. Finall y, taking int o consider ation that with the implementation of the 911 syst em police w ere fast becoming tied t o calls for

service, policing w as at a br eaking point , and nothing seemed to w ork.

These fact ors caused man y to consider w hat does work in policing, and the mo vement t ow ar d community policing in the ear ly 1980s w as seeming ly the ans wer .

Community policing is a shift fr om tr aditional, reacti ve policing t o one that pr omot es working with the community to sol ve pr oblems bef ore crimes occur . 15

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 15) The police become partners with the community t o cr eat e str ategies to

addr ess the causes and reduce the fear of crime b y incr easing the interaction and cooper ation between local police and the citizens. The goals are to r educe and

pr ev ent crime and t o incr ease feelings of saf ety among residents and reduce fears of crime, t o help de velop closer ties t o the community , and to eng age residents

in a joint eff ort to pr ev ent crime.

Community policing r ef ers to a number of diff erent str ategies, but the y rev ol ve primaril y around getting the police on the str eet to int eract mor e with the

people. 16 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 16) Some departments ha ve incr eased foot patr ols to get oficers

out of their cars and ont o the street. Some have cr eat ed storefr ont police stations to mak e the police more accessible to the public. Others ha ve distribut ed

community survey s in an eff ort to deine the public’s per ception of community problems so the y can deal with those problems bett er. Some departments ha ve

sponsor ed youth acti vities to impr ove r elations betw een youth and police and also to help det er juvenile crime. Finall y, some departments ha ve institut ed more

modern Neig hborhood Watch pr ogr ams wher e the police meet with citizens on a regular basis, usuall y monthl y, t o updat e the community on the information

that the police have r eg arding crime and disor der in their neighbor hoods and to gi ve the community a chance t o v oice their perspecti ves on w hat pr oblems exist .

Then, working together to addr ess these problems, the police and community de velop a method f or addr essing these problems that shar es the resour ces of the

police with the resour ces of the community .

The ideas of community policing can be traced to Wilson and K elling, 17 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 17)

w ho ackno wledged the importance of the community in crime contr ol. They said that neig hbor hood disor der creat es fear . In other words, neig hbor hood areas

that are illed with str eet people, youth g angs, pr ostitut es, and the mentall y disturbed are the ones most lik ely to maintain a hig h degr ee of crime. Some

neighbor hoods, particular ly those in distr ess, give out crime-pr omoting signals. A neighbor hood illed with deterior ating housing, unrepair ed broken windo ws,

and unt ended disor derly beha vior gives out those crime-pr omoting signals. Honest citizens live in f ear in these ar eas, and pr edat ory criminals are attr acted to

them. T o reduce crime and the fear of crime, accor ding to Wilson and K elling, police need citizens’ cooper ation, support , and assistance. To do this, police need to

ha ve mor e close contact with the people they serv e and rel y less on police cars that serv e only to r emo ve an oficer fr om the community and alienat e people.

These citizens are pot ential sour ces of information to help police.

The mo ve t ow ar d community policing quickl y gained momentum, and it is no w being used by lar ge metr opolitan police for ces as w ell as small, rur al

departments. As mor e and more departments experienced success and sa w public satisf action with the police increase, community policing began to spr ead

ev en further . Howev er , the biggest impetus for the implementation of community policing in the 1990s came with the passage of the Violent Crime Contr ol and

Law Enf orcement Act of 1994, w hich br oug ht feder al support for implementing community policing pr ogr ams (see Chapt er 1

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 01#ch 01) ). The cr eation of the Ofice of Community Orient ed Policing Services (C OPS) under

the Department of Justice beg an issuing grants to stat e and local agencies to hir e additional police oficers, pur chase equipment , and provide tr aining under the

concepts of community policing and caused the number of agencies eng aging in community policing to pr olif erate substantiall y. As a r esult , going into the

twenty -irst century , community policing has been the overriding police policy f or most departments in the Unit ed States.

Homeland Security Er a?

With the Sept ember 11, 2001, terr orist attack s on American soil, some have ar gued that we ar e no w seeing the end of the era of community policing and the

beginning of the homeland security era. 18 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 18) As America r esponded

quickl y to the attack s by educating themsel ves on t err orism and demanding action from go vernment , the president and the U.S. Congr ess quickl y began a

process of restructuring go vernment t o focus on antit errorism (pr ev ention t echniques) and count erterr orism (ho w to acti vel y respond to terr orists) measur es in

order to meet these new demands. The cr eation of the Ofice of Homeland Security and its subsequent passage as a cabinet-le vel department as w ell as the

passage of the US A PATRIO T Act ar e both inclinations that the national go vernment is mo ving in this direction. In addition, man y of the grants for local agencies

ha ve become cent ered on homeland security , and perhaps most telling w as the fact that the Ofice of Community Orient ed Policing Services (C OPS) had its

budget slashed by the Bush administr ation, but the Department of Homeland Security saw its budget allocations incr ease substantiall y. F unding for the C OPS

ofice w as reinstat ed under President Obama (see Chapt er 1 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 01#ch 01) ), but onl y time will

tell if American la w enf orcement has trul y entered int o a new era of policing.

Understanding the hist ory of policing in America is important for gr asping ho w police came to be an act or in the public policy process. Ho wev er , also

understanding the curr ent status of policing in America helps us understand the comple xities that this particular component of the criminal justice syst em

brings to the table. It is eas y to talk of the “police, ” but when we deine w hat we mean, we begin to understand that police oper ate at man y different le vels and

that acr oss each level ther e are man y different agencies. It is to understanding the cont empor ary status of policing that we no w turn.

Bo x 10.1:

Agencies That Transferr ed into the Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Agricultur e

– Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Progr am

– Plum Island Animal Disease Cent er

• Department of Commer ce

– Critical Infrastructur e Assurance Ofice

• Department of Defense

– Chemical and Biological Defense progr ams, including the National Bio weapons Def ense Anal ysis Cent er (Biowat ch) 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 10/29

– National Communications Syst em

• Department of Ener gy

– Defense Nuclear Non-Pr oliferation

– Ener gy Security and Assur ance Center

• Department of Health and Human Services

– Strategic National St ock pile

• Department of Justice

– National Infr astructur e Protection Cent er

– Immigr ation and Cust oms Enf orcement

– Ofice of Domestic Pr epar edness

– Unit ed States Citizenship and Immigr ation Services

• Department of Transportation

– T ransportation Security A dministr ation

– United States Coast Guar d

• Department of the Treasury

– F eder al Law Enf orcement Training Cent er

– United States Cust oms Service

– Unit ed States Secr et Service

• Feder al Emer gency Management Agency

• Gener al Services Administr ation

– Feder al Comput er Incident Response 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 11/29

10.4 C ONTEMP ORARY POLICE

Ther e are over 18,000 la w enf orcement agencies in the Unit ed States, all having diff erent jurisdictions and ther efor e diff erent responsibilities and po wers. This

means that no one agency has unlimit ed power . Most la w enf orcement agencies ar e found on the local le vel, with some at the stat e level and f ar less at the feder al

level. Althoug h there are feder al law enf orcement agencies, ther e is no national police for ce in the Unit ed States, and feder al law enf orcement mak es up less than

10 percent of all law enf orcement agencies in the nation. Each agency , whether feder al, state, or local, has a different jurisdiction and w as cr eat ed to enf orce

speciic la ws or help with particular situations. The role of each feder al agency is speciied by feder al statut e. The different agencies ar e described in the

follo wing sections.

Feder al Law Enfor cement

The feder al law enf orcement agencies ar e designed to pr otect the rig hts and pri vileges of U.S. citizens thr oug hout the nation. Althoug h there is no feder al police

for ce, ther e are over ifty f eder al law enf orcement agencies that deal with feder al offenses. The irst feder al law enf orcement agency w as the U.S. Marshals

Service, cr eat ed by Congr ess on September 24, 1789, throug h the passage of the Judiciary Act. 19

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 19) The U .S. Marshal Service is gi ven the r esponsibility of judicial security ,

provides services for the feder al courts (such as serving writs), and is in char ge of fugiti ve in vestig ations. The most recent change came in the w ak e of the

terr orist attack s on September 11, 2001, when Congr essional legislation creat ed the Department of Homeland Security . This newly f ormed agency beg an

oper ations on January 24, 2003. See Box 10.1 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c3 #ch 10sb 01) .

As a r esult of the cr eation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a number of feder al law enf orcement agencies fell under its or ganizational chart . The

DHS has the follo wing agencies that report to it: U .S. Cust oms and Bor der Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigr ation and Cust oms Enf orcement (ICE), the Unit ed States

Secret Service (USSS), the Unit ed States Coast Guar d (USC G), and the Transportation Security A dministr ation (TSA). The Department of Justice, howev er , still

remains as the lar gest law enf orcement umbr ella organization, w hich has under its contr ol the Feder al Bureau of Investig ation (FBI), Drug Enforcement

Administr ation (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Fir earms (ATF), and the Unit ed States Marshal Service (USMS).

As of Sept ember 2004, feder al agencies emplo yed o ver 100,000 full-time personnel. 2 0

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 20) This w as an incr ease of about 10 percent over 2002. Their duties

include criminal in vestig ation/enf orcement (42%), police response/patr ol (19%), corrections (18%), noncriminal investig ations/enf orcement (14%), court

oper ations (3%), and security/pr otection (3%). 21 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 21) Thr ee-ifths of

feder al oficers were emplo yed b y the U .S. Cust oms and Bor der Protection (27,705), the Feder al Bureau of Prisons (15,214), the Feder al Bureau of Investig ation

(12,424), and the U.S. Immigr ation and Cust oms Enf orcement (10,399). 22

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 22) In addition t o the hig h number of emplo yees in these agencies, ther e

are also a number of very small and little-kno wn feder al law enf orcement agencies, including those for Amtr ak (317), the Tennessee V alle y Authority (168), the

National Marine Fisheries Service (141), and the Libr ary of Congr ess (116). 23

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 23) W omen account ed for appr oximat ely 15 per cent of feder al oficers in

2004, about the same as in 2002. 24 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 24) Minority r epr esentation was

appr oximat ely 30 per cent in 2004, very similar to the y ears 1998 and 2002. 25

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 25)

K ey Department of Justic e Law Enfor cement Agencies

FEDERAL BURE AU OF INVES TIGATION

The F eder al Bureau of Investig ation (FBI) is housed within the Department of Justice and headquart ered in W ashingt on, D.C. 26

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 26) It is the principal in vestig ative arm of the f eder al government . It is

charged with gathering and reporting facts, locating witnesses, and compiling e vidence in cases in vol ving violations of feder al law, including all feder al statut es

not speciicall y assigned to other agencies. This includes the in vestig ation of espionage, sabotage, treason, sub versi ve acti vities, and other actions relat ed to

national security; ci vil rig hts violations; mur der and assault of feder al oficers; mail fraud; robbery and bur glary of f eder ally insur ed banks; kidnapping;

interstat e transportation of st olen vehicles; or ganized crime and drug tr aficking; terr orism; and whit e-collar crime. The mission of the FBI is “to uphold the la w

thr oug h the investig ation of violations of feder al criminal statut es; to pr otect the Unit ed States from hostile int elligence efforts; to pr ovide assistance t o other

feder al, state, and local law enf orcement agencies; and to perf orm these responsibilities in a manner that is faithful t o the Constitution and the la ws of the Unit ed

States.” 27 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 27) Mor e recentl y, because of the t err orist attack s of September

11, FBI Director Robert Mueller has explained that “w hile we remain committ ed to our other important national security and la w enf orcement responsibilities,

the pr ev ention of t err orism tak es precedence in our thinking and planning; in our hiring and stafing; in our training and technologies; and, most importantl y, in

our in vestig ations. ” 28 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 28) The FBI’s jurisdiction includes a wide r ange of

responsibilities that is e ver changing in the criminal, ci vil, and security ields, but it has ive ar eas that ha ve been gi ven priority . These are the areas that aff ect

society the most: organized crime/drugs, t err orism, whit e-collar crime, for eign count erintelligence, and violent crime. See Box 10.2

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10sb 02) .

Bo x 10.2:

Dir ectors of the Feder al Bureau of Investig ation a (http://c ontent.thuzelearning .com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10le v1sec4#ch10tn1)

Director Assumed Ofic e

Stanle y W. Finch Jul y 26, 1908 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 12/29

Director Assumed Ofic e

A. Bruce Bielaski April 30, 1912

William E. Allen, act. February 10, 1919

William J. Fl ynn Jul y 1, 1919

William J. Burns August 22, 1921

J. E dg ar Hoo ver , act . May 10, 1924

J. Edg ar Hoo ver December 10, 1924

L. P atrick Gr ay, act . May 3, 1972

William D. Ruck elshaus, act . April 27, 1973

Clar ence M. Kelle y July 9, 1973

William H. Webst er February 23, 1978

John E. Ott o, act. May 26, 1987

William S. Sessions November 2, 1987

Flo yd I. Clar ke, act . July 19, 1993

Louis J. Freeh Sept ember 1, 1993

Thomas J. Pick ard, act . June 25, 2001

Robert S. Mueller III Sept ember 4, 2001

aThe Feder al Bureau of Investig ation was cr eat ed Jul y 26, 1908, and was ref err ed to as Ofice of Chief Ex aminer . It became the Bureau of Investig ation (Mar ch 16, 1909),

United Stat es Bureau of Investig ation (Jul y 1, 1932), Di vision of Investig ation (August 10, 1933), and Feder al Bureau of Investig ation (Jul y 1, 1935).

Sour ce: F eder al Bureau of Investig ation home page (2010), available online at www .bi.go v/libref/dir ectors/dir ectmain.htm

(h ttp ://www .b i.go v/l ib re f/d ir e ct ors/d ir e ct m ain .h tm ) .

The FBI also off ers important services to stat e and local law enf orcement agencies. The FBI will help other agencies with things such as ingerprint identiication,

labor atory examination, and police tr aining. The FBI Identiication Di vision, established in 1924, collects and maintains a vast ingerprint ile (o ver 181 million

sets of ingerprints) that can be used b y local police departments. It also acts as a national clearing house for criminal identiication data and missing persons

data. The FBI e xchanges identiication data with la w enf orcement agencies in mor e than 80 for eign countries. The FBI’s crime labor atory , creat ed in 1932,

provides ballistic t esting and hand writing analysis f or local police and also helps them t est and identify e vidence such as hairs, ibers, blood, tir e track s, DN A,

drugs, and other evidence. It has ad vanced f or ensic resear ch capabilities as well. The FBI also allo ws stat es to use its National Crime Inf ormation Cent er, w hich is

a database of inf ormation on stolen vehicles, st olen guns, stolen pr operty , want ed persons with outstanding warr ants, sexual pr edat ors, and so on. It also collects

and disseminat es crime statistics throug h its annual Unif orm Crime Report .

The FBI has 56 ield ofices throug hout the country to in vestig ate feder al offenses and assist stat e and local oficials. Training f or FBI agents is held at the FBI

National A cadem y in Quantico, Virginia. Speciall y selected local law enf orcement personnel ma y also recei ve tr aining ther e.

The FBI, as part of the Department of Justice, is overseen b y the att orne y gener al of the United States. At this time, the FBI emplo ys appr oximat ely 24,000 people,

with 12,424 special agents acr oss the nation and in for eign countries. In the w ak e of the terr orist attack s of September 11, the FBI order ed a major restructuring

aimed at pr oviding impr oved inf ormation sharing for the tar geting of terr orists.

U. S. MAR SHAL S SERVICE

The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation ’s oldest feder al law enf orcement agency . 29

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 29) It w as cr eat ed by the First Congr ess in the Judiciary Act of 1789, eig hty-

one years bef ore the cr eation of the Department of Justice. Geor ge Washingt on appoint ed the irst thirteen U.S. marshals, w ho were gi ven the authority t o

support and pr otect the feder al courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all la wful or ders issued by judges, Congr ess, or the president . This included

serving subpoenas, summonses, writs, and warr ants; making arr ests; handling prisoners; and other orders issued by the courts. Marshals also perf ormed

administr ative w ork for the courts: the y handled all the mone y; paid fees for the att orne ys, jur ors, and witnesses; rent ed courtr ooms and jail space; and hired

bailiff s and janitors. They serv ed as a link betw een the executi ve and judicial br anches of go vernment . Marshals were nominat ed by the pr esident and appr oved

b y the Senat e to four-y ear terms. A t this time, the marshals w ere the major repr esentati ves of f eder al law enf orcement . They perf ormed most feder al law

enf orcement functions until the formation of the Department of Justice. The marshals conduct ed the national census for 80 y ears (fr om 1790 to 1870),

regist ered aliens, exchanged fugiti ves, and r ent ed space from local authorities for feder al courtr ooms. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 13/29

During this time, the marshals had considerable independence. They recei ved no salary but w ere paid by various fees for services r ender ed. But much of that

changed when the marshals recei ved agency status in 1969. T oda y, the marshals ar e invol ved in a wide v ariety of feder al law enf orcement duties with

appr oximat ely 3,233 deputy marshals to perf orm these duties. Marshals continue to perf orm judicial security . Protection of feder al judicial oficials, including

judges, attorne ys, and jur ors, holds a hig h priority with the Marshals Service. Deputy marshals use the latest security techniques and de vices at hig hly sensiti ve

trials. The Marshals Service pr otects mor e than 2,000 sitting judges and countless other court oficials at more than 400 court facilities thr oug hout the nation.

The Marshals Service also oversees each aspect of courthouse construction pr ojects, from design thr oug h completion, to ensur e the safety of feder al judges,

court personnel, and the public.

The Marshals Service is also invol ved in fugiti ve in vestig ations, the one duty that has made it famous with the mo vie and tele vision series The Fugiti ve . In 2003,

the Marshals Service appr ehended 55 percent of all feder al fugiti ves. The agency e xecut es mor e arrest warr ants than all other feder al law enf orcement agencies

combined reg arding this duty . The marshals work with other la w enf orcement agencies at the feder al, state, and local levels as w ell as with int ernational

agencies in the pursuit of fugiti ves.

In addition t o these duties, the Marshals Service ensur es the safety of witnesses who risk their lives t estifying for the go vernment in cases in vol ving or ganized

crime and other signiicant criminal acti vity. Since 1970, the Marshals Service has protect ed, relocat ed, and given new identities t o o ver 7,500 witnesses. The

marshals ar e also responsible for housing o ver 47,000 f eder al unsent enced prisoners each day in feder al, state, and local jails. Appr oximat ely 75 per cent of

Marshals Service prisoners are housed in 1,300 stat e, local, and privat e jails. Thirty per cent are housed in Feder al Bureau of Prisons facilities. In ar eas wher e

detention space is scar ce, the Marshals Service uses Cooper ative Agr eement Progr am funds to impr ove local jail conditions and e xpand jail capacities in return

for guar anteed space for feder al prisoners. Finall y, one other k ey duty of the Marshals Service r emains the hist orical duties of serving the feder al courts in the

criminal process.

The dir ector of the Marshals Service is appoint ed by the pr esident and supervises the oper ations of the service throug hout the Unit ed States and its territ ories,

assist ed by the deputy dir ector, eig ht assistant directors, and a gener al counsel. The director ans wers to the att orne y gener al. There are 94 marshals and

appr oximat ely 3,233 deputy marshals and administr ative personnel w ho oper ate fr om 427 ofice locations in all 94 feder al judicial districts in the Unit ed States,

from Guam, the Vir gin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puert o Rico and from Alask a to Florida. The Marshals Service is headquart ered in McLean,

Vir ginia.

DR UG ENF ORCEMENT ADMINIS TRATION

The Drug Enforcement Administr ation (DEA) was cr eat ed in 1973 under the Nix on administr ation. Although it was a new agency , the DEA was actuall y derived

fr om a number of other go vernment agencies that had de veloped and changed o ver much of the tw entieth century . It began with the passage of the Harrison Act

in 1914, w hich established feder al jurisdiction over the suppl y and use of narcotics. The act was primaril y a tax law, but one section made it unla wful for an y

“unr egist ered” person to possess her oin, cocaine, opium, morphine, or any of their products. In 1919, the Volst ead Act passed, ensuring the enf orcement of

Pr ohibition. The Pr ohibition Unit of the Rev enue Bur eau had a small unit called the Nar cotics Division. When the Nar cotics Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922

was passed, it strictl y prohibit ed the importation of narcotic drugs for an ything other than medicinal purposes. 30

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 30)

In 1930, the Nar cotics Division became the Feder al Bureau of Nar cotics. It grew quickl y under the leadership of Harry Anslinger , especially when he identiied

marijuana as a serious drug pr oblem. As a result , Congr ess passed the Marijuana Tax A ct in 1937. The Boggs Act of 1956 follo wed, w hich made an y use of her oin

illeg al. In the 1960s, the quantity of drugs seized in the Unit ed States and overseas incr eased dramaticall y. So, in 1963, the Pr esident’s Advisory Commission on

Nar cotic and Drug Abuse recommended numer ous revisions t o feder al drug enforcement eff orts. That result ed in the creation of the Bur eau of Nar cotics and

Danger ous Drugs in 1968. Two years lat er, in 1970, Congr ess passed the Compr ehensive Drug A buse Pr ev ention and Contr ol Act. This established ive schedules

of drugs that classiied contr olled substances accor ding to their abuse pot ential. 31

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 31)

In 1973, during the Nix on administr ation, all drug-related agencies were combined to form the DE A under feder al Reor ganization Plan Number 2. 3 2

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 32) The DE A became the primary feder al agency responsible for the

enf orcement of feder al laws concerning the use, sale, and distribution of nar cotics and other contr olled substances in the United States. It is also responsible for

the in vestig ation of drug seizur es by U .S. Cust oms agents at bor der points and the regulation of the distribution of leg al nar cotics and drugs.

The DEA curr ently has appr oximat ely 10,000 staff members, about half of w hom ar e special agents. It has headquart ers in New Yor k with agents thr oug hout the

country . There are 237 domestic ofices and 80 for eign ofices in 58 countries. The DE A helps local and stat e law enf orcement in in vestig ating illegal drug use

and carrying out independent surv eillance and enforcement acti vities to contr ol the import of narcotics. It works with for eign go vernments in cooper ative

eff orts aimed at destr oying opium and marijuana cr ops and reducing the a vailability of nar cotics. It tries to iniltr ate drug rings and simulat es buying nar cotics in

order to arr est drug dealers. It maintains regional labor atories to test seized drugs so that accur ate recor ds and measur es can be present ed at trials. The DEA’s

Ofice of Int elligence helps coor dinat e information and enf orcement acti vities with local, stat e, and for eign go vernments. It also has a nar cotics intelligence

sy st em that collects, anal yzes, and disseminat es data. It recentl y began sharing information with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in reg ard to

the connection betw een terr orists using the illeg al drug trade to fund its acti vities.

The DEA investig ates major nar cotic violat ors who oper ate at int erstat e and international levels. It is r esponsible for the seizur e and forf eitur e of assets derived

fr om, tr aceable to, or int ended to be used for illicit drug tr aficking; enf orcement of regulations go verning the leg al manuf acture, distribution, or dispensing of

contr olled substances; management of a national narcotics intelligence syst em; coor dination with feder al, state, and local law enf orcement; cooper ation with

counterpart agencies abroad; and training, scientiic resear ch, and information exchange in support of drug tr afic pr ev ention and contr ol.

BURE AU OF AL COHOL, T OB ACCO , FIRE ARMS AND EXPL OSIVES

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fir earms and Explosi ves (A TF) was originall y part of the Internal Rev enue Service but is no w part of the Department of the

Treasury . 33 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 33) It w as originall y creat ed to enf orce the ban on alcohol

mandat ed under the Volst ead Act and the Eig hteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and it is most w ell kno wn for battling bootleggers and g amblers during

Pr ohibition. When Pr ohibition was repealed b y the T wenty -First Amendment in 1933, the suppr ession of the illegal manuf acture and sale of alcoholic bever ages

was less important . President Franklin D . Roose velt f olded man y of these duties under the Alcohol Tax Unit within the Int ernal Rev enue Service in 1933. The

ne xt year , with the passage of the irst feder al irearms laws, the Alcohol Tax Unit pick ed up the duty of enforcing these la ws. This w ould remain the case until

1968, w hen duties would be shift ed to the Alcohol, T obacco, and Fir earms Division, which would become an independent bur eau under the Department of the

Treasury in 1972. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 14/29

Effecti ve January 24, 2003, the A TF w as transf erred under the Homeland Security Act to the Department of Justice. The la w enf orcement functions of ATF under

the Department of the Treasury w ere tr ansf erred to the Department of Justice. The tax and tr ade functions of ATF will remain in the T reasury Department with

the new Alcohol and T obacco T ax and T rade Bur eau. In addition, the agency ’s name was changed to the Bur eau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fir earms and Explosi ves t o

relect its new mission in the Department of Justice. 3 4 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 34) The A TF

curr ently has near ly 2,400 agents and helps contr ol the sales of untax ed liquor and cigarett es. To the surprise of man y, the agency still does seize illeg al stills on

occasion. The primary focus of the A TF , ho wev er , is on enf orcing feder al irearms laws. It has jurisdiction over the illeg al sales, importation, and criminal misuse

of irearms and explosi ves. It cr eat ed the National Fir earms Tracing Cent er, w hich pr ocesses hundr eds of thousands of trace requests annuall y. The A TF issues

feder al irearm licenses and permits for the import and e xport of ir earms.

Key Department of Homeland S ecurity La w Enfor cement Agencies

U . S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRA TION SERVICES

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigr ation Service (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security was former ly kno wn as the Immigr ation and Naturalization

Service (INS). 35 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 35) With the cr eation of the Department of Homeland

Security , the INS, which included the Bor der Patr ol, was di vided int o two parts. The irst part , under the USCIS, is responsible for o verseeing the admission and

natur alization process of aliens. The second part , the enforcement elements of the INS and speciicall y the Border Patr ol, was mer ged with the responsibilities of

the U .S. Cust oms Service and also placed under the Department of Homeland Security . As a result , one element handles the processing of aliens, wher eas the

other element (see the next section) handles the enf orcement . The USCIS has approximat ely 18,000 emplo yees.

U . S. CUS TOMS AND BORDER PR OTE CTION

The U.S. Cust oms and Bor der Protection is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for guar ding points of entry into the Unit ed States

and prev enting the smugg ling of contraband into (or out of) the country . 36

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 36) It ensur es that taxes and tariff s are paid on import ed goods and helps

control the low of nar cotics into the country . It is also authorized to conduct in vestig ations of aliens who ar e residing illeg ally in the Unit ed States or who ha ve

eng aged in acti vities prohibit ed by la w and to in vestig ate people w ho att empt to illeg ally import aliens int o the country . The U.S. Cust oms was originall y part of

the Department of the Treasury , but after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security , it was mo ved under this new agency and r enamed U .S. Cust oms

and Bor der Protection. The other agency with w hich it was combined was the Bor der Patr ol, a unif ormed enforcement di vision that was originall y established in

1924 and served as part of the INS. It too w as mo ved under the Department of Homeland Security and int egrated with U .S. Cust oms. Bor der Patr ol agents, no w

wor king together with members of C ust oms, are responsible for patr olling over 8,000 miles of int ernational bor ders to pr ev ent illeg al entry of aliens into the

Unit ed Stat es. Ther e are appr oximat ely 18,000 agents w orking this speciic duty , and they mak e appr oximat ely 1.5 million arr ests each year along the bor der

with Mexico.

U. S. IMMIGRA TION AND CUSTOMS ENF ORCEMENT

The U.S. Immigr ation and Cust oms Enf orcement (ICE) agency is the lar gest investig ative agency in the U .S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with over

19,000 emplo yees. F ormed in 2003 as part of the feder al government’s r esponse to the 9/11 attack s, ICE’s mission is to enf orce immigr ation and customs laws.

The agencies that w ere either mo ved entir ely or mer ged in part into ICE included the investig ative and int elligence resour ces of the United States Cust oms

Service, the criminal investig ation resour ces of the Immigr ation and Naturalization Service, and the United States Feder al Protecti ve Service. The F eder al

Protecti ve Service w as transf erred from ICE to the National Pr otection and Pr ogr ams Dir ectorate eff ecti ve Oct ober 28, 2009.

U. S. SE CRET SER VICE

The U.S. Secr et Service was originall y creat ed by Congr ess in 1865 to in vestig ate and enf orce the la ws ag ainst count erfeiting. Ho wev er , aft er President McKinle y

was assassinat ed in 1901, protecting the saf ety of the president became its primary purpose. Because it was originall y creat ed to in vestig ate count erfeiting, it

was placed under the Department of the T reasury , wher e it had remained for o ver 125 y ears. Lik e man y other agencies, it too w as mo ved under the Department

of Homeland Security with the r eor ganization of man y government agencies. 3 7

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 37) Despit e these changes, howev er , its duties and functions ha ve r emained

the same. The Secr et Service is mandat ed by statut e and executi ve or der to carry out tw o signiicant missions: protection and criminal in vestig ations. The Secr et

Service protects the pr esident and vice president , their families, heads of stat e, and other designat ed individuals; investig ates thr eats against these indi viduals;

protects the Whit e House, the vice president’s residence, for eign missions, and other buildings within W ashingt on, D.C.; and plans and implements security

designs for designat ed “national special security events. ” The Secr et Service also investig ates violations of la ws relating t o count erfeiting of oblig ations and

securities of the United States; inancial crimes that include but are not limit ed to access de vice fraud, inancial institution fraud, identity theft , and comput er

fraud; and comput er-based attacks on the nation ’s inancial, banking, and telecommunications infr astructur e.

State Polic e and Stat e Highw ay P atr ols

In addition to feder al agencies, ther e are man y kinds of state law enf orcement agencies that ha ve been established o ver time. Each has its o wn jurisdiction and

own r esponsibilities. Since each stat e can establish its own la w enf orcement agencies, these vary fr om stat e to stat e. Stat e law enf orcement agencies can be stat e

police, highw ay patr ols, and state investig ative agencies. Stat e police are agencies that ha ve stat ewide power over both tr afic regulation and criminal

in vestig ation. Highw ay patr ols have stat ewide authority to enf orce tr afic regulations and arr est nontr afic violat ors. They provide a v ariety of diff erent la w

enf orcement services. Some shar e responsibilities with local police agencies. The y can enforce tr afic la ws on the main hig hw ay s. Their r esponsibilities v ary

concerning in vestig ative po wers. Some pr ovide crime lab services for local police departments.

Stat e police or highw ay patr ols were cr eat ed by stat e legislatur es to deal with crime in nonur ban areas. Most stat es found that the in vention of aut omobiles

made it impossible for the local sheriff s departments to deal with hig hly mobile off enders, so stat e governors and legislatur es creat ed plans for police agencies

that w ould be responsible to the stat e inst ead of being tied to local politics and the possible corruption found ther e. Althoug h many states did develop stat e

police agencies, others developed stat e highw ay patr ols. Some states, such as Calif ornia, actuall y developed both and still maintain these tw o distinct agencies.

One of the irst stat e-level agencies f ormed w as the Texas R angers in 1835 (bef ore Texas became a stat e). The Texas R angers originall y patrolled the Mexican

border to pr otect it ag ainst bandits crossing over fr om Me xico as well as to pr otect settlers ag ainst Indian attack s. Other states follo wed suit with similar

or ganizations; the Massachusetts Stat e Constables was cr eat ed in 1865 and the Arizona Rangers in 1901. These, ho wev er , w ere very narr ow ly deined stat e-level

agencies and did not full y relect the modern concept of stat e police. The irst bona ide state police agency was the Penns ylv ania Stat e Constabulary , creat ed in

1905 in response to the anthr acite coal strik es and the often blood y conlicts between labor and management . This was a hig hly centr alized organization with 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 15/29

statewide police powers and br oadl y deined duties and a quasi-military style of leadership. It became the model for man y state police for ces, most of w hich

wer e cr eat ed over the ne xt 20 years. 38 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 38)

C urr entl y, e very stat e but Hawaii has its own police for ce. Ther e are appr oximat ely 80,000 stat e police emplo yees acr oss the nation. 39

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 39) The y have jurisdiction o ver hig hw ay s and enf orce the tr afic la ws of

their stat es. In some states, including New Yor k and Penns ylv ania, the stat e police are also ir e, ish, and game w ardens. In other stat es, such as Texas and W est

Vir ginia, ther e are special stat e police agencies that deal with these types of law violations. In Michig an, state police may be requir ed to e xecut e civil pr ocess in

leg al actions to w hich the stat e is a party . In Connecticut and Penns ylv ania, stat e police conduct driver’s licensing r oad tests. Some also carry out tr aining

academies for all la w enf orcement in the stat e, such as West Vir ginia, and others provide emer gency medical services. Tables 10.1

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 1) –10. 3

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 3) gi ve mor e information

about local law enf orcement agencies. Table 10.1

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 1) sho ws inf ormation on

the number of stat e and local law enf orcement agencies; Table 10.2 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 2)

pr ovides inf ormation on the educational requir ements for those emplo yed in local police departments; and T able 10.3

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 3) is an anal ysis of

tr aining requir ements for new police r ecruits.

Table 10.1 Stat e and local law enfor cement agencies and emplo yees (b y type of agency , United States, 2004)

Number of emplo yee s

Full time P art time

T ype of agency

Number of agencies Total Sw orn Nons worn Total Sw orn Nons worn

Total 17,876 1,076,897 731,903 344,994 105,252 45,982 59,270

Local police 12,766 573,152 446,974 126,178 62,693 28,712 33,981

Sheriff 3,067 326,531 175,018 151,513 27,004 11,784 15,220

Primary stat e 49 89,265 58,190 31,075 708 31 677

Special jurisdiction 1,481 85,126 49,398 35,728 14,342 5,063 9,279

Texas constable 513 2,823 2,323 500 505 392 113

Sour ce: U .S. Department of Justice, Bur eau of Justice Statistics, Census of S tat e and Loc al Law Enfor cement A gencie s, 2004 , Bulletin NCJ 212749 (Washingt on, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, June 2007), p. 2.

Most stat e police crime labor atories aid local police departments in in vestig ating crime scenes and analyzing evidence. Special services and technical

expertise in such ar eas as bomb-sit e analysis and homicide in vestig ations may be provided. The y can provide accident in vestig ations, conduct public information

campaigns about trafic saf ety, and manage accident scenes invol ving hazar dous material. Sometimes, state agencies will help local agencies conduct criminal

investig ations and mak e arrests or even in vestig ate or ganized crime, fr aud, nar cotics violations, violent crime, arson, and mot or vehicle theft .

Table 10.2 Minimum education r equir ements for new ofic er recruits in local polic e departments (by size of population serv ed, United

States, 2003)

Per centage of agencies r equiring a minimum of

Population

serv ed

Total with

requir ements

High school

diploma

Some c ollege a

(h ttp :/ /co n te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/ M ario n .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ ch 10le v 1 se c4 # ch 10tn 2)

T w o-y ear

college degr ee

Four-y ear

college degr ee

All sizes 98% 81 8 9 1

1,000,000 or

more

98 72 18 7 1

500,000 to

999,999

99 72 13 9 5

250,000 to

499,999

99 84 8 4 3

100,000 to

249,999

98 81 13 3 2 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 16/29

Per centage of agencies r equiring a minimum of

Population

serv ed

Total with

requir ements

High school

diploma

Some c ollege a

(h ttp :/ /co n te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/ M ario n .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ ch 10le v 1 se c4 # ch 10tn 2)

T w o-y ear

college degr ee

Four-y ear

college degr ee

50,000 to

99,999

100 76 17 6 1

25,000 to

49,999

99 77 10 11 1

10,000 to

24,999

99 82 7 9 1

2,500 to 9,999 99 83 7 9 <0.5

Less than

2,500

97 82 6 9 0

aNondegr ee requir ements.

Source: A dapt ed from Sour ce book of C riminal Justic e Statistics , a vailable online at www .alban y.edu/sour cebook/ ( h ttp ://www .alb an y.e du/so urc e b ook /) .

Table 10.3 T raining r equir ements for new ofic er recruits in local polic e departments (by size of population serv ed, United States, 2003)

Aver age number of hours requir ed a ( h ttp :/ /co n te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/ M ario n .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ ch 10le v 1 se c4 # ch 10tn 3)

A cadem y Field

Population serv ed Total Stat e mandat ed Other requir ed Total Stat e mandat ed Other Requir ed

All sizes 628 588 40 326 147 179

1,000,000 or more 1,016 689 327 513 153 360

500,000 to 999,999 920 588 332 561 104 456

250,000 to 499,999 950 620 330 652 200 452

100,000 to 249,999 815 642 173 624 253 371

50,000 to 99,999 721 657 64 598 268 330

25,000 to 49,999 702 657 46 527 210 317

10,000 to 24,999 672 642 30 442 164 279

2,500 to 9,999 630 597 32 314 151 162

Less than 2,500 577 542 35 199 106 93

aComputations of a ver age number of tr aining hours requir ed exclude departments not r equiring tr aining.

Sour ce: Sour ce book of C riminal Justic e Statistics , a vailable online at www .alban y.edu/sour cebook/ ( h ttp ://www .alb an y.e du/so urc e b ook /) .

Sheriffs Departments

Sheriff s departments are an int eresting agency because of the go vernment structur e of counties. Counties exist b y decr ee of the state and have no so ver eignty .

Therefor e, county sheriff s ofices exist thr oug h stat e authorization, but they work for the county commissions, w hich ar e an ext ension of stat e government . Some

sheriffs departments are lar ge, such as that of Los Angeles County , the largest in the nation, with over 8,000 sheriff s deputies, wher eas some rur al departments

have no full-time oficers, r el ying on either part-time oficers or a mixtur e of part-time oficers and the state police. 40

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 40) As of 2004, sheriff s departments had an estimat ed 175,018 sw orn

personnel serving in 3,067 departments (the same number of counties in the Unit ed States). 41

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 41)

The sheriff is usuall y an elected position. This syst em exists in e very stat e except Rhode Island and Ha waii, w her e sheriff s are appoint ed. This means that they

must be aw ar e of the public’s per ceptions of them, the agency , and crime in their jurisdiction because of their concern reg arding reelection. Because the y are

elect ed oficials, they are dir ectl y invol ved in partisan politics in w ay s that municipal police chief s are not . 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 17/29

Years ago, the sheriff w as oft en the onl y legal authority in the territ ories. Toda y, the r esponsibilities of the sheriff depend lar gely on the size of the agency and the

jurisdiction. Sheriff s can perform law enf orcement duties, including serving civil pr ocess papers (summonses and court orders), patr ol, trafic enf orcement , and

both accident and criminal investig ations. The sheriff has ext ensi ve ci vil la w authority and can mak e civil arr ests (can detain people who ha ve not committ ed any

serious crime but ma y be a threat to public or der or to themsel ves, such as the mentall y ill) and can also provide court security , operate county jails, and

investig ate crimes. In some jurisdictions, the sheriff also acts as cor oner , tax collect or, overseer of hig hw ay s and bridges, cust odian of the county treasury , and

provider of ir e, animal contr ol, and emergency medical services. Althoug h the duties of the sheriffs departments vary depending on the jurisdiction the y serv e,

there are essentiall y four models of sheriff s departments: (1) full-service models carry out law enf orcement , judicial, and correctional duties; (2) law

enf orcement models carry out onl y the law enf orcement duty; (3) civil–judicial models handle onl y court-r elated duties; and (4) corr ectional–judicial models

handle all the responsibilities e xcept la w enf orcement . 42 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 42)

Municipal P olic e Departments

Local or municipal law enf orcement agencies oper ate at the city and town le vels. Most departments (o ver half ) are small departments with few er than ten

emplo yees, but some departments ha ve man y oficers, such as the New Yor k City Police Department , which has near ly 38,000 s w orn oficers. As of 2004, local

police departments acr oss the nation had an estimat ed 573,152 fulltime employees, including 446,974 s w orn personnel. 43

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 43) This means that local police agencies r epr esent near ly thr ee-quart ers

of all law enf orcement agencies in the Unit ed States, emplo ying nearly tw o-thir ds of sw orn oficers.

Most agencies ar e requir ed to r espond to calls for service, pr ovide patr ols, and enforce tr afic la ws. In fact , mor e than 99 percent of local police departments

wer e responsible for r esponding to citizen calls for service, pr oviding r outine patr ol services, and enforcing tr afic la ws. Ninety -one percent , including all but a

few of those serving a population of 10,000 or mor e, were the primary in vestig ating agency for crimes occurring in their jurisdiction. Man y also are responsible

for enf orcing drug la ws. A bout se ven in eig ht local police departments had primary drug enf orcement responsibilities. A bout a thir d had oficers assigned full

time to drug enf orcement units, with over 13,000 oficers so assigned nation wide. About a thir d of departments had oficers assigned to multiagency drug task

for ces, with a total of mor e than 6,000 oficers assigned full time nation wide.

Municipal police are the most important component of American law enf orcement . There are far mor e local police oficers than state police or feder al agents.

Most crime that occurs and most crime that is investig ated is done so by local police. Hence, municipal police pla y a comple x role in ig hting crime. The y have the

hea viest responsibility for dealing with serious crime and ar e ask ed to pr ovide a wide r ange of emer gency services.

Special Polic e

There are other types of police departments that pr ovide special-purpose services, serving particular go vernment agencies. The y include agencies such as

transit police (such as the W ashingt on, D.C., Metr opolitan Transit P olice), public housing police, airport police, public school police, uni versity and college

campus police, Indian tribal police, and par k police. The coroner’s, or medical examiner’s, ofice is oft en consider ed a law enf orcement agency because it has the

responsibility t o in vestig ate crimes. The jurisdiction of these police is usuall y limited to speciic boundaries that ma y fall within a lar ger over all jurisdiction. It

must be remember ed that most of these agencies are real police for ces with tr aining and recruitment pr ocedur es similar to others. The oficers ha ve gener al

arrest po wers, ar e certiied by their respecti ve stat es, and participat e in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report pr ogr am. For example, thr ee-f ourths of university and

college campuses ha ve a bona ide police department , while the others emplo y privat e security . In terms of school district police, man y have their o wn police

departments, but others utilize oficers fr om local police departments or emplo y privat e security . Therefor e, one cannot assume that just because the jurisdiction

is not a municipal city or town, it does not emplo y a full-time police department . More information on U.S. Special Police For ces is gi ven in T able 10.4

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10ta b le 0 4)

T able 10.4 U . S. special polic e—tribal police, 2000 a ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b oo k s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 #ch 10tn 4)

F ull-time s w orn personnel

Agency name

and location

of

administr ative

headquart ers Total

P er

1,000

residents

Na vajo Nation

Department of

La w

Enf orcement

(AZ)

321 2

Tohono

O’Odham T ribal

Police

Department

(AZ)

76 4

Seminole

Department of

La w

Enf orcement

(FL)

67 26 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 18/29

Full-time s w orn personnel

Agency name

and location

of

administr ative

headquart ers Total

P er

1,000

residents

Gila Ri ver

Indian

Community

La w

Enf orcement

(AZ)

58 4

Og lala Sioux

Tribal P olice

Department

(SD)

58 1

Che yenne Ri ver

T ribal P olice

Department

(SD)

53 5

Salt Ri ver

T ribal P olice

Department

(AZ)

51 8

Chocta w Law

Enf orcement

Services (MS)

38 5

Sagina w

Chippew a

Tribal P olice

Department

(MI)

37 36

Whit e

Mountain

Apache Tribal

Police

Department

(AZ)

36 3

R osebud Sioux

Tribal La w

Enf orcement

(SD)

35 2

Oneida Indian

Nation Police

(NY)

33 17

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c4 /b ook

W arm Springs

Tribal P olice

Department

(OR)

33 9

Color ado River

T ribal P olice

Department

(AZ)

32 16

Assiniboine

and Sioux (Ft .

Peck) T ribal

Police (MT)

31 4 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 19/29

Full-time s w orn personnel

Agency name

and location

of

administr ative

headquart ers Total

P er

1,000

residents

Y akima T ribal

Police

Department

(W A)

31 2

Cher okee

Police

Department

(NC)

30 4

Miccosuk ee

Tribal P olice

Department

(FL)

30 51

Turtle

Mountain Band

of Chippew a

Indians Police

Department

(ND)

26 2

San Car los

Tribal P olice

Department

(AZ)

25 2

aNumber and rat e (per 1,000 residents and per 100 squar e miles) of full-time sw orn personnel, service population, and reserv ation land area in the tw entieth-lar gest tribally operated

law enf orcement agencies.

bReserv ation land consists of less than one squar e mile.

Source: A dapt ed from Sour ce book of C riminal Justic e Statistics , a vailable online at www .alban y.edu/sour cebook/pdf/t157.pdf ( h ttp ://www .alb an y.e du/so urc e b ook /p df/t 157.p df) . 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 20/29

10.5 INTERGOVERNMENT AL RELATIONSHIPS

Traditionall y in American policing, the only issue of intergo vernmental r elationships had to do with jurisdiction. As mor e and more police departments were

added in the Unit ed States in the ninet eenth and early tw entieth centuries, the primary issue reg arding ho w various agencies int eract ed tended to deal with

det ermining the proper jurisdiction responsible for a crime. Ear ly on, this t ended to be among local jurisdictions, such as cities and towns or cities and counties.

As the number of stat es creating stat e police agencies incr eased in the 1910s and 1920s, the problem over jurisdiction beg an to e vol ve t o det ermine when a

crime was in the jurisdiction and responsibility of a city or county and w hen it was within the jurisdiction of the stat e police. By the 1970s, the issue had become

ev en mor e comple x, as the number of feder al agencies increased, as did the number of special police agencies throug hout the Unit ed States. It was also at this

time that the role of the feder al government in ig hting crime was hea vily questioned. As crime rat es rose in the 1960s and 1970s and local police w ere ha ving a

dificult time dealing with the problem, people beg an looking to the feder al government t o do something about the pr oblem of crime. The question was, Ho w

could government r espond, and ho w should the y respond?

F eder al Support

The President’s Commission on La w Enf orcement and the Administr ation of Justice, in its report The Challeng e of Crime in a Free Societ y , argued that crime was

lar gel y the responsibility of the stat e and local governments. 4 4 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 44)

Ho wev er , it did en vision a role for the feder al government in addr essing the problem of crime. It stat ed that the feder al government has the dir ect responsibility

for enf orcing major criminal statut es, especiall y in the areas of kidnapping, bank robbery , counterfeiting, and tax evasion. The commission also stat ed that the

feder al government f or y ears had pr ovided inf ormation, advice, and training to stat e and local law enf orcement and that it should continue to do so. Finall y, it

not ed that it could bring the vast resour ces of the feder al government t o bear on the pr oblems of crime in order to enhance stat e and local law enf orcement . The

commission essentiall y argued that the feder al government should and does pla y a role in crime contr ol.

Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger have articulat ed that the feder al role in crime contr ol reall y falls int o thr ee categories of anticrime strategies. The irst is policymaking,

wher e the “feder al government can r egulat e a virtuall y unlimit ed range of acti vities belie ved t o contribut e to str eet crime (assault , rape, r obbery , burglary , drug

dealing, mur der) and whit e-collar crime (fr aud, decepti ve business pr actices, illeg al inancial transactions). ” 45

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 45) In f act , Congr ess has, since the 1970s, engaged mor e heavily in the

passage of feder al criminal laws. One report found that of “all feder al crimes enact ed since 1865, over f orty per cent have been cr eat ed since 1970, ” 46

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 46) demonstr ating that the feder al government has become mor e engaged

in crime contr ol policy over the past 40 y ears. Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger further explain that “onl y the feder al government can r egulat e such things as

immigr ation lows, int erstat e commer ce, and global corpor ate acti vities, ” 47

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 47) gi ving them exclusi ve rig hts to r egulat e crime in reg ard to certain types

of criminal beha vior. This is largely ho w the creation of so man y feder al law enf orcement agencies in the tw entieth century came about: Congr ess passing laws

that then needed speciic agencies to enf orce. Still further , under the concept of policymaking, the feder al government has the capability of establishing model

policies and thr oug h its policymaking capabilities can encour age (through threat or attr active gr ants) stat e and local agencies to come int o compliance with its

policies. For example, w hen agencies adher e to the feder al reporting mechanisms reg arding the updat es from the Unif orm Crime Reports to the National

Incident Based R eporting Syst em (a “model policy ” for r eporting crime rat es), the y are given gr ants to assist them in the implementation pr ocess.

The second means is policy administr ation. In this case, “the feder al government can declar e an undesir able activity a feder al crime, ther eby bringing the full

for ce of feder al law enf orcement (the Feder al Bureau of Investig ation, the Drug Enforcement Agency , even the U .S. military in overseas drug int erdiction eff orts),

prosecution (U .S. Attorne ys), and adjudication (lit erall y ‘making a feder al case’ before a feder al court) to bear on the acti vity.” 4 8

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 48) This is essentiall y an ext ension of the policymaking function of

go vernment . Once Congress passes a feder al criminal law, it gi ves the administr ation the capability of enforcing that speciic la w and bringing the vast resour ces

of the feder al government t o bear .

The third means of feder al intervention in crime is thr oug h policy funding. As Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger explain, “The feder al government can pr ovide human,

inancial, and inf ormational resour ces (technical experts or ad visers, mone y, studies and statistics that compar e crime trends acr oss man y jurisdictions) and is in

a unique position to coor dinat e (or legally mandat e) interjurisdictional anticrime plans. ” 49

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 49) This is the ar ea wher e the feder al government has the most po wer to

inluence the criminal justice s yst em in the Unit ed States. When the feder al government channels mone y to stat e and local governments, it has the most impact

on the int ergo vernmental r elations betw een these three levels of go vernment . Examples of this abound, but the thr ee major initiati ves o ver the past 40 y ears

ha ve been the gr ants for police under the Omnibus Crime Contr ol and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that w ere deli ver ed by the La w Enf orcement Assistance

Administr ation, the Edw ar d Bryne Memorial Stat e and Local Law Enf orcement Assistance Pr ogr am block grants of the 1980s and 1990s, and the COPS gr ants of

the 1990s that result ed from the passage of the Violent Crime Contr ol and Law Enf orcement Act of 1994, w hich cr eat ed COPS to deli ver these gr ants to stat e and

local agencies (see Chapt er 1 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 01#ch 01) ). Each of these gr ants has had a pr ofound impact not

onl y on the departments recei ving the grants but also on ho w policing is done over all. Table 10.5

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c5 #ch 10ta b le 0 5) sho ws gr ant allocations to stat es under the Byrne Gr ant Progr am.

Stat e Support

The state’s role in int ergo vernmental r elations has become mor e comple x as well. While the feder al syst em dictat es two levels of go vernment , national and state,

the state governments also can cr eat e or allo w for the cr eation of independent (cities and towns) and dependent (counties) go vernment police agencies. So,

w hile stat e governments set the standar ds for all la w enf orcement agencies in their stat es, they do not have complet e control over the functioning of these

agencies. Stat es can and do set standar ds for la w enf orcement certiication, tr aining standar ds, and recertiication and can establish stat e-level policies and

pr ocedur es that local law enf orcement is requir ed to follo w. Ho wev er , it is oft en the case that local law enf orcement , throug h its actions and policies, can end up

dictating stat e-level policy . In a sense, the state acts as a coor dinat or betw een the many local agencies within the state as well as acting as a channel for man y of

the feder al initiati ves. This can be gr ant mone y recei ved fr om the feder al government (e.g., the Bryne gr ants) or inf ormation being forw arded fr om local agencies

to the national go vernment (e.g., the Unif orm Crime Reports).

Local Support

This then lea ves the r ole of the local la w enf orcement agencies as questionable in reg ard to their speciic r ole in the int ergo vernmental r elationship. In other

w or ds, it w ould seem that the y are mer ely the ones that recei ve beneits, dictat es, or mandat es and are simpl y the agencies that are responsible for e xecuting the 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 21/29

policies at the local level. While much of this is true, police agencies can also be the pr oving gr ounds for feder al initiati ves, int ended or unint ended, that will

ev entuall y inluence the feder al model policies. In man y cases, the feder al government will mak e available gr ants for local agencies t o att empt new progr ams

aimed at impr oving police eficiency , lowering crime rat es, or impr oving public satisf action with the police. If these progr ams are found eff ecti ve, the y often

become the model policies that the feder al government ad vocat es. In other cases, when an agency , without feder al assistance, implements a progr am that is

successful, the feder al government ma y advocat e this as the policy of the feder al government and will support it thr oug h policy funding, as was seen under the

COPS gr ants for local la w enf orcement to implement the tenets of community policing.

T able 10.5 Pr ogr am funds allocation of Edw ar d Bryne Memorial Stat e and Local Law Enfor cement Assistanc e (by jurisdiction, iscal year

2003)

Jurisdiction Funds allocat ed Per centage t o be passed thr oug h to local jurisdictions

Alabama $ 7,659,952 60. 10

Alask a 2,189,951 24. 14

Arizona 9,039,952 61. 86

Arkansas 5,130,952 52. 84

Calif ornia 51,258,953 67. 34

Color ado 7,687,952 59. 56

Connecticut 6,198,952 38. 25

Delawar e 2,422,951 27. 15

District of Columbia 2,085,951 100. 00

Florida 25,063,953 64. 85

Geor gia 13,458,353 59. 56

Hawaii 3,044,951 49. 53

Idaho 3,181,951 57. 74

Illinois 19,209,953 65. 51

Indiana 10,039,953 59. 29

Io wa 5,453,952 48. 19

Kansas 5,138,952 57. 09

Kentucky 7,098,952 38. 50

Louisiana 7,653,952 54. 04

Maine 3,115,951 52. 03

Mary land 9,042,952 43. 52

Massachusetts 10,400,364 36. 52

Michig an 15,579,953 57. 83

Minnesota 8,418,952 65. 72

Mississippi 5,360,952 56. 93

Missouri 9,347,952 58. 53

Montana 2,590,884 52. 56

Nebraska 3,734,951 62. 12

Nevada 4,366,952 72. 11 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 22/29

Jurisdiction Funds allocat ed Per centage t o be passed thr oug h to local jurisdictions

New Hampshir e $ 3,087,951 54. 68

New Jersey 13,500,953 59. 23

New Mexico 3,870,589 49. 29

New Yor k 28,542,953 65. 16

North Car olina 13,116,953 42. 41

North Dak ota 2,175,951 58. 68

Ohio 17,487,589 64. 06

Oklahoma 6,245,952 45. 79

Oregon 6,285,952 49. 95

Penns ylv ania 18,831,953 56. 04

Rhode Island 2,795,951 41. 05

South Car olina 7,119,952 47. 05

South Dak ota 2,356,951 53. 80

Tennessee 9,524,952 60. 11

Texas 32,275,953 60. 42

Utah 4,569,952 52. 34

V ermont 2,150,951 29. 32

Vir ginia 12,814,953 35. 11

Washingt on 9,911,953 63. 72

West Vir ginia 3,837,951 50. 13

Wisconsin 9,018,952 61. 51

Wyoming 1,982,951 61. 59

Puert o Rico 6,765,952 0. 00

Virgin Islands 1,427,951 0. 00

Guam 1,471,363 0. 00

American Samoa 944,424 0. 00

Northern Marianas 479,474 0. 00

Sour ce: A dapt ed from Sour ce book of C riminal Justic e Statistics , a vailable online at www .alban y.edu/sour cebook/pdf/t114.pdf ( h ttp ://www .alb an y.e du/so urc e b ook /p df/t 114.p df) .

Man y have equat ed intergo vernmental r elations with a w hit e pick et fence w her e the lateral slats ar e the various le vels of go vernment and the v ertical posts

ar e the diff erent agencies that run thr oug h them. This is a depiction that may begin to help one understand int ergo vernmental r elations, but it is per haps far t oo

simplistic in terms of understanding the public policy of crime and criminal justice in America. The issues of jurisdiction, policymaking, policy administr ation,

and policy funding creat e an int egral web of relations betw een the feder al, state, and local law enf orcement agencies, but ther e is no seamless agency that

operates at all thr ee levels. R ather , a better depiction may actuall y be a mosaic, for ther e are thousands of diff erent agencies that someho w all come together ,

acting in concert , to cr eat e a pictur e that is our criminal justice syst em. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 23/29

10.6 POLICE AND POLICY ISSUES

Police oficers, police chief s, and, more speciicall y, police or ganizations ar e eng aged in the public policy process on a dail y basis. The crime problems that police

addr ess on the streets in their cities, towns, and counties ar e the types of pr oblems that public policymak ers attempt to addr ess in the passage of crime

legislation. When police departments implement a particular progr am within their jurisdiction, the y are implementing a pr ogr am most likely de vised as part of

the implementation of a lar ger crime policy . And the outcomes of these progr ams and the new problems that arise oft en feed back int o the public policy process,

thus making the police a continual part of the policy cycle.

Polic e as Policymak ers

Welsh and Harris pr ovide a good o verview of ho w police agencies become invol ved in the policy pr ocess. 50

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 50) The y discuss the diff erences betw een policy , progr ams, and projects.

The y describe a policy as “a rule or set of rules or guidelines for ho w to mak e a decision ”; a progr am as “a set of services aimed at achie ving speciic goals and

objecti ves within speciied indi viduals, groups, or ganizations, or communities”; and a pr oject as “a time-limit ed set of services provided t o particular indi viduals,

groups, or ganizations or communities, usuall y focused on a sing le need, problem or issue. ” 51

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 51) So, f or e xample, the policy could be the f eder al government’s “w ar on

drugs” and the various anti—drug abuse legislation it has passed. The pr ogr am could be a series of crack downs on the open-air drug mar kets f ound in their

jurisdiction, w hile the pr oject ma y simpl y be a police oficer speaking at a school event about the dangers of drugs. The under lying pr oblem in this case is drug

abuse, but each of these—policies, progr ams, and projects—is working tow ar d the same policy objecti ve, namel y, t o r educe drug abuse in American society .

When police oficers engage in these progr ams or perf orm these projects, the y are participating in the policy pr ocess.

In fact , Welsh and Harris go even further and describe the policy de velopment of criminal justice agencies as consisting of its o wn policy cy cle. The pr ocess

includes anal yzing the problem, setting goals and objecti ves, designing the pr ogr am or policy , developing an action plan, de veloping a plan f or monit oring the

progr am, developing a plan f or e valuating the out comes, and inall y initiating the policy or progr am. 52

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 52) This pr ocess is very similar to the public policy pr ocess, but this

process oper ates at the micr o (local) level, w hile the public policy pr ocess described in this text oper ates at the macr o (national and state) level. Ho wev er , the

tw o ar e hig hly relat ed, for , as discussed in terms of int ergo vernmental r elations, it is oft en the case that a local progr am that achie ves some degr ee of success

may become the policy solution to a national pr oblem and thus become part of the national public policy process. Or , con versel y, a national public policy ma y see

the implementation process as providing the police the necessary funds t o implement a feder al government pr ogr am.

Polic e Issues

There are numer ous examples of ho w either crime- or police-r elated issues can often become part of the lar ger public policy process. For example, police

departments continuall y review their use-of-f orce policies and updat e these on the basis of changes in the law, court decisions, and new ad vances in t echnology .

When they experience a series of use-of-f orce incidents in their agencies, the pr ocess that Welsh and Harris describe will oft en be invok ed, with the goal of

per haps reducing the number of incidents or reducing the harm caused b y these incidents. In Houst on, Texas, f or e xample, the police department had a number

of use-of-f orce incidents betw een 2000 and 2004. In 2004, the newly appoint ed police chief request ed a review of these incidents, and the solution t o the

pr oblem w as the implementation of Taser w eapons to be issued to all oficers. This is a case of the policy pr ocess pla ying out at the local level. One onl y has to

look at the R odne y King situation in 1992 to understand ho w the issue of police use of for ce can surf ace onto the macr o public policy process and to tr ace the

impact that this incident had on policing thr oug hout the 1990s.

Other examples of police issues that ar e part of the public policy pr ocess include police pursuits, police use of discr etion, and police corruption. A more recent

issue that w as beginning to surf ace as perhaps one of the major public policy issues prior to the Sept ember 11 terr orist attack s was the issue of racial pr oiling

by police. Her e the issue was w hether police mot or vehicle st ops w ere being conduct ed on the basis of reasonable suspicion or on the basis of racial pr oiling.

The amount of att ention paid to this issue b y the media continued to incr ease in the late 1990s and ear ly 2000, and man y people suggest ed that the police were

biased in w ho the y stopped, sear ched, ticketed, and arr ested. Resear ch that has been conduct ed on this topic, ho wev er , has been extr emel y weak and wr oug ht

with methodological problems and has given mix ed results. 53 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 53) This

helped cr eat e the contr overs y over the issue, but it w as lar gely supplant ed with the terr orist attack s. This does not mean that racial pr oiling is still not an issue

with which police departments must cont end; it simpl y means that it is no longer one of the major issues on the agenda or one that is being activel y consider ed

by the public policy pr ocess.

In terms of understanding the issues of policing as being part of the lar ger public policy process, the debat e over the pr oper method of police deplo yment speak s

best to ho w police organizations ar e part of the public policy pr ocess. Ov er the past 30 years, the pr oper deplo yment of the police has become a topic of policy

debat e and has seen some of the most sw eeping legislation and policy changes passed at the national, stat e, and local levels. It is t o these particular methods of

police deplo yment that we no w turn.

Deplo yment of the Polic e

Policing in the tw entieth century was lar gely tak en for gr ant ed until the ear ly 1970s. What has become kno wn as traditional policing made a number of

assumptions in reg ard to the w ay the police w ere deplo yed. It assumed that police oficers riding ar ound on patr ol deterred crimes; that when crimes did occur ,

if the police could arrive on scene f ast er, the crimes w ould usuall y be solved; and that if no suspects w ere tak en into cust ody, the det ective units w ould be able to

sol ve the crimes with their in vestig ative skills and t echnology . No one reall y questioned these long-held assumptions until the ear ly 1970s. Man y of these

assumptions were questioned and refut ed, and since then policing has been sear ching for new , inno vati ve w ay s t o deplo y its for ces in or der to pr ovide saf er

communities and mor e effecti ve la w enf orcement agencies. Det ermining the proper method for deplo ying police has become part of the public policy process

over the past 40 y ears, as police policy has mo ved a w ay fr om “tr aditional” policing and att empt ed such policies as community -oriented policing, problem-

orient ed policing, and zero-toler ance policing. Mor e recentl y, with the Sept ember 11 terr orist attack s, part of the public policy process has been about

det ermining the proper role for local police in t erms of homeland security . All these philosophies and methods for deplo ying the police have w orked their w ay

thr oug h the policy process, but the y came largely as a rejection of “tr aditional” policing in the 1970s. Understanding this is critical to understanding w hy police

deplo yment has become a public policy issue.

TRADITION AL POLICING 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 24/29

Traditional policing, as it is oft en ref err ed to toda y, w as reall y a part of the professionalization mo vement in policing as w ell as ad vancements in t echnology that

built up thr oug hout the ear ly tw entieth century . The goal among the early r ef ormers w as to diseng age policing from politics and to de velop a means t o hold

police mor e accountable. To do this, man y of the social services offered by the police w ere minimized w hile the aspects of law enf orcement w ere emphasized. In

addition, police w ere seen as ha ving the capability of det erring crime throug h their presence and rest oring order thr oug h the power of arr est. Since it was the

police that had the kno wledge and tr aining, the assistance of the public w as minimized in importance, and all that was needed from them w as, in the w ords of

Dr agnet ’s Joe Frida y, “just the f acts. ”

As a result of the Omnibus Crime Contr ol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, funding w as allocat ed for impr oving policing in the w ak e of the rise in crime rat es

thr oug hout the 1960s. The crime bill also allocat ed funding for r esear ch into policing, and such resear ch institut es as the Police Foundation and the R and

Corpor ation recei ved funding t o conduct r esear ch in policing. The resear ch indings that came out of this funding ended up challenging the assumptions that had

long been held in policing, namel y, that r andom patr ols deter crime, that fast er responses to crime sol ve mor e crimes, and that police detective tr aining and

technology sol ve mor e crimes.

The effecti veness of policing sty les on crime was irst test ed in a resear ch study in Kansas City, Missouri, by the P olice Foundation. Published in 1974, the stud y

looked at ifteen separ ate police beats that w ere di vided int o thr ee groups. 54

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 54) The irst gr oup, a contr ol group, retained normal police patr ol (one car

per beat); the second was a “pr oacti ve” r esponse using tw o or thr ee times the normal number of patr ol oficers; and the third was “r eacti ve” in that its pr ev enti ve

patr ol was eliminat ed and police responded onl y when summoned by citizens to the scene of a crime (police v ehicles assigned to these beats ent ered them onl y

in response to a call for service). The citizens li ving in the ar eas were not told of the e xperiment .

The prev enti ve patr ol experiment measur ed the impact of the different le vels of patr ol on criminal activity and community perceptions and attitudes. In

addition, the stud y looked at police oficer beha vior and police department practices. Mor eover , it look ed at police response time, arr est practices, police oficer

use of time, and oficer attitudes. The stud y found that v ariations in the le vel of patr ol had no statisticall y signiicant effect on either criminal acti vity or citizen

feelings of saf ety. In fact , the variations had little eff ect on residential or business bur glaries, mot or vehicle thefts, lar cenies invol ving aut o accessories, robberies,

vandalism, or other criminal beha vior. It found that citizens’ fear of crime w as not signiicantl y affected by changes in the le vel of patr ol and that citizen attitudes

to w ar d police w ere not signiicantl y affected by the le vel of patr ol. The variations had little eff ect on citizens’ satisf action with police or their fear of futur e

criminal behavior. On the whole, the stud y suggest ed that the number of patrol cars on the street and their visibility to citizens has little eff ect on the crime rat e.

The diff erent social int eractions that police oficers ha ve with citizens, based on the type of policing, is f ound in T able 10.6

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c6 #ch 10ta b le 0 6) .

T able 10.6 C omparisons of social int eractions and structur al components of v arious forms of policing

Social int eraction or

structur al dimension Traditional policing C ommunity policing Pr oblem-orient ed policing Zero-toler ance policing

Focus of policing La w enf orcement Community building thr oug h crime

prev ention

La w, or der , and fear pr oblems Order pr oblems

Forms of int erv ention Reacti ve, based on

criminal la w

Proacti ve, on criminal, ci vil, and

administr ative la w

Mix ed, on criminal, civil, and

administr ative la w

Proacti ve, uses criminal, ci vil, and

administr ative la w

Range of polic e

activity

Narr ow , crime focused Br oad, crime, or der , fear , and

quality -of-life focused

Narr ow t o br oad—pr oblem focused Narr ow , location and beha vior

focused

Le vel of discr etion at

line level

Hig h and

unaccountable

High and accountable to the

community and local commanders

Hig h and accountable primaril y to the

police administr ation

Low but primaril y accountable to

the police administr ation

Focus of polic e

cultur e

Inwar d, rejecting

community

Outw ard, building partnerships Mix ed, depending on problem, but

anal ysis f ocused

In war d focused on the tar get

problem

Locus of decision

making

Police dir ected,

minimized the

invol vement of others

Community —police coproduction,

joint responsibility and assessment

Varied, police identify pr oblems but

with community invol vement/action

P olice dir ected, some link ages to

other agencies w her e necessary

Communication lo w Down war d fr om police

to community

Horizontal betw een police and

community

Horizontal between police and

community

Down war d fr om police to

community

Range of c ommunity

in vol vement

Lo w and passi ve Hig h and acti ve Mix ed depending on problem set Low and passi ve

Linkage with other

agencies

P oor and int ermitt ent Participati ve and int egrative in the

o ver ar ching pr ocess

Participati ve and int egrative depending

on the pr oblem set

Moder ate and int ermitt ent

Type of or ganization

and c ommand focus

Centr alized command

and contr ol

Decentr alized with community

linkage

Decentr alized with local command

accountability to centr al

administr ation

Centralized or decentr alized but

internal focus

Implications for

or ganizational

change/de velopment

Few , static

organization f ending

off the en vironment

Man y, d ynamic or ganization f ocused

on the en vironment and

envir onmental int eractions

Varied, focused on pr oblem resolution

but with import for or ganization and

int elligence support

Few , limit ed interventions focused

on tar get problems, using man y

traditional methods 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 25/29

Social int eraction or

structur al dimension Traditional policing C ommunity policing Pr oblem-orient ed policing Zero-toler ance policing

Measur ement of

success

Arr est and crime rat es,

particular ly serious

P art I crimes

Varied, crime, calls for service, fear

reduction, use of public

V aried, pr oblems sol ved, minimized,

displaced

Arr ests, ield stops, acti vity location

speciic

Source: J. R. Gr eene, “Community Policing in America: Changing the Natur e, Structur e, and Function of P olice, ” in Policie s, Processe s, and Decisions in the Criminal Justic e Syst em , vol. 3

(W ashingt on, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000), p. 311.

Althoug h the study was criticized for its r esear ch design, it was a watershed event in American policing. It not onl y test ed the eff ecti veness of patr ol but at

the same time challenged traditional assumptions about police pr ev enti ve patr ol. A similar Police Foundation stud y was conduct ed later in 1978 and 1979 on

foot patr ol in the New ark Foot P atr ol Experiment . 55 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 55) In this stud y, some

foot patr ol beats recei ved the same number of f oot patr ol oficers, some recei ved mor e, and others were the contr ol beats with foot patr ol oficers responding

onl y on the basis of calls for service. The e xperiment found that additional foot patr ol did not reduce serious crime, but the diff erent le vels of police stafing did

ha ve a signiicant eff ect on citizen attitudes tow ar d the police. Citizens w ere aw ar e of the diff erent le vels of f oot patr ol, and residents in beats with added foot

patr ol oficers consist ently saw crime pr oblems diminish in their neig hbor hoods. Like the Kansas City experiment , howev er , foot patr ol stafing levels w ere not

associat ed with the reduction of crime, an assumption dating back to the ear liest days of policing.

Another stud y conduct ed by the R and Corpor ation in the 1970s test ed the long-held police assumption that rapid r esponse to the r eport of a crime helped

incr ease the clear ance of crimes. 56 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 56) A good portion of police

e xpenditur es in the post—Wor ld W ar II er a were to enhance the capabilities of the police to r espond fast er to r eports of crime. F ast er cars, mor e patr ol cars, and

the implementation of 911 were all aimed at speeding up response time. The R and Corpor ation study, also in Kansas City , found that in the majority of cases

(o ver 75 %), it w ould not matt er how fast the police r esponded to a crime scene because of the long dela y in citizens’ reporting crimes to the police, on a ver age

40 minut es. And althoug h the resear chers found that appr oximat ely 25 per cent of all report ed serious crimes could have incr eased the ability of the police to

mak e an arrest, the reality w as that the y were able to do so in onl y less than 3 per cent of all report ed serious crimes. Therefor e, another long-held assumption in

policing w as dispelled by resear ch in the 1970s.

Finall y, the R and Corpor ation conduct ed another study in the mid-1970s that looked at the criminal investig ation process to det ermine how eff ecti ve it w as in

sol ving crimes. 57 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 57) The r esear chers looked at the investig ation process

and the technology being applied at the time in or der to det ermine how eff ecti ve, primaril y throug h arrest and clear ance rat es, criminal in vestig ations were. The

resear chers looked at what in vestig ators do during the w ork hours, ho w the y collect ed and processed evidence, ho w the y prepar ed their cases for pr osecution,

and what type of pr oacti ve measur es they used. Althoug h there were man y indings from this stud y, the primary inding w as lar gely a refutation of another long-

held assumption, namel y, that police det ectives’ kno wledge and skills, as w ell as the lat est technology , solved cases. What the r esear chers found w as that the

det ecti ves’ skills and t echnology account ed for a small portion of cases sol ved and that w hat reall y solved most crimes w ere citizens, either witnesses, victims, or

friends and relati ves of either , coming forw ard to help the police.

Each of these studies in its o wn rig ht challenged assumptions that had exist ed in policing for w ell over f our decades. R andom patr ols do not deter crime, rapid

response does not incr ease the number of suspects arrested or cases clear ed, and highly skilled det ectives and t echnology do not sol ve most crimes. The

resulting eff ect of these thr ee studies was that municipalities, facing iscal constr aints in the 1970s, began to r educe the number of police oficers on staff. P olice

emphasis on rapid r esponse continued, but it w as tied lar gely to the 911 emer gency response s yst em. And the resour ces that detectives r ecei ved w ere somew hat

diminished also because of iscal constraints. All this was count erintuiti ve because cutting police assumed that police f ocused onl y on crime contr ol and did not

provide other services. In addition, with the ad vent of 911, calls f or service actuall y began to rise signiicantl y during this same time period, necessitating more

police, not few er. Finall y, det ectives and t echnology ar e still an int egral part of policing and are critical to putting victim and witness stat ements to use in a

criminal in vestig ation.

The larger impact that these studies had on the public policy process is that the y left man y questioning what works in policing. Since the methods of policing

that had been emplo yed f or man y decades were found ineff ective, the solution w as to try to det ermine how best to deplo y the police to o ver come these indings.

The resulting impact w as a mo vement a w ay fr om “tr aditional policing” in the 1980s and 1990s to new methods of police deplo yment . The three main policies

that were de veloped, lar gely from gr assr oots efforts, were community -oriented policing, problem-orient ed policing, and zero-toler ance policing.

COMM UNITY -ORIENTED POLICING

One of the irst inno vati ve methods t o come out of the neg ative criticism of tr aditional policing in the 1970s w as community -oriented policing. Community

policing is aimed at entirely alt ering the basic philosoph y of twentieth-century policing by impr oving the r elationship betw een the police and the public in order

for the police and local neig hbor hoods to w ork together to addr ess the problems of crime and disor der. The police become partners with the community to

cr eat e str ategies to addr ess the causes of crime and reduce the fear of crime b y incr easing the interaction and cooper ation between local police and the citizens.

The goals are to r educe and pr ev ent crime, t o incr ease feelings of saf ety among residents and reduce fears of crime, t o help de velop closer ties t o the community ,

and to eng age residents in a joint eff ort to pr ev ent crime.

The r oots of community policing can be tr aced to Wilson and K elling’s “br oken windo ws” theory , published in 1982 as a means of dealing with the question of

what w orks in policing and ho w best to deplo y the police. 58 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 58) The

authors ackno wledged the importance of community in local crime contr ol. They said that neig hbor hood disor der creat es fear . In other words, neig hbor hood

areas that ar e illed with str eet people, youth g angs, pr ostitut es, and the mentall y disturbed are the ones most lik ely to maintain a hig h degr ee of crime. Some

neighbor hoods, particular ly those in distr ess, give out crime-pr omoting signals. A neighbor hood illed with deterior ating housing, unrepair ed broken windo ws,

potholes, abandoned vehicles, and other unt ended disor derly beha vior gives out those crime-pr omoting signals. It tells the criminals that no one car es about this

particular neig hbor hood. Honest citizens then live in f ear in those ar eas, and pr edat ory criminals are attr acted to the ar ea, with honest citizens becoming

victims.

To r educe crime and the fear of crime, accor ding to Wilson and K elling, police need citizens’ cooper ation, support , and assistance. To do this, police need to ha ve

closer contact with the people the y serv e and rel y less on police cars, w hich serv e only to r emo ve an oficer fr om the community and alienat e people. These

citizens are pot ential sour ces of information to help people. T o elicit the help of communities, the police not onl y must work alongside them as copr oducers in

the ight against crime but also must be willing to shar e power with the citizens. Under community policing, po wer is shar ed betw een local groups and 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 26/29

individuals and betw een citizens and law enf orcement oficials. To be eff ecti ve, citizens must acti vel y participat e with the police to ig ht crime and disor der.

Police departments must focus on the pr oblems of the community rather than the needs of the police departments.

The mo ve t ow ar d community policing beg an in the early 1980s with a f ew e xperiments and local att empts at progr ams, demonstr ation projects, and subtle

changes in policing practices aimed at implementing the broken windo ws theory . 59

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 59) E ventuall y, b y the lat e 1980s, mor e and more police departments

began to mo ve t ow ar d adopting the community policing methods within their agencies, and community policing rapidl y spread throug hout the Unit ed States. As

agencies began to see much success with this gr assr oots method of policing, it caug ht the attention of national policymak ers in the Clinton administr ation, and

ev entuall y community policing would become a national public policy (see Chapt er 14

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 14#ch 14) ).

PR OBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING

Another method for mor e effecti ve police deplo yment that came out of the late-1970s questioning of police practices is the concept of pr oblem-orient ed policing.

Herman Goldstein, in an article published in 1979, advocat ed that police should focus on the ends r ather than the means. He found that t oo oft en police became

so obsessed with the procedur es of policing that they for get the ultimat e goal of reducing or eliminating crime and disor der. Goldst ein argued that when it came

to calls f or service, police act ed as if the call had no hist ory and no futur e and that it was not relat ed to an y other problems the police department encount ered.

Police oficers arri ved on scene, dealt with the situation, and then left as if the pr oblem was resol ved. He ar gued that the sympt oms of the problem were resol ved

for the moment but that the under lying pr oblem remained. He also ar gued that oft en problems are relat ed to one another , but because police are so ix ated on

the means, the y fail t o anal yze the ends in policing. Thus, Goldst ein advocat ed that police appl y a simple problem-sol ving method to their w ork.

The article w as mor e theor etical than practical, but it caug ht the attention of two resear chers, Spelman and Eck, w ho att empt ed to tak e Goldst ein’s method and

put it int o practice. Aft er consulting with Goldst ein, they devised the SARA model for policing. 60

(h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 60) S ARA (Scanning, Anal ysis, R esponse, Assessment) is a four-st ep

problem-sol ving model. The irst stage, scanning, tells oficers to scan their en vironment for pr oblems and try to see if v arious pr oblems are relat ed. For

example, one city block ma y face the separ ate pr oblems of bur glaries, drug dealing, and pr ostitution. Responding to each of these crimes separ ately can be time-

consuming and w ould requir e different police tactics. Ho wev er , if the crimes w ere link ed, one solution may resol ve all thr ee problems.

Once a problem is recognized and narr ow ly deined, the ne xt step is to anal yze the problem. In the anal ysis stage, the function is t o g ather as much inf ormation

about the problem as possible. This ma y include police reports, talking with other oficers, talking with the community , and analyzing the number of calls for

service. Data collection helps the oficer g ain a fuller understanding of the pr oblems, per haps inding, as in the case mentioned previousl y, that all the bur glaries

ar e occurring in a speciic apartment comple x, all the drug dealers arrested are from a near by neig hbor hood, and the prostitut es are near ly al way s the same ones

and all drug addict ed. As part of this step, police can gain a bett er understanding of the problems the y face and ho w best to deal with them.

This leads to the thir d step in the SARA model: response. Oficers use the data collect ed from the pr evious stage t o help them de velop possible r esponses to

reduce or eliminat e the problem. Once the y have a list of options, the y select the most viable option and implement it. For example, in the pr eviousl y described

scenario, if the drug addicts are committing bur glaries t o bu y the drugs and prostitut es are pr esent because of the dealers and users, then getting rid of the drug

dealers ma y reduce the pr oblems associat ed with all three crimes.

Finall y, the f ourth st ep of the SARA model calls for an assessment of the r esponse. The k ey t o this st ep is to det ermine if the response had an y impact on the

problem. If it did, then continuation of the response ma y be warr ant ed. If it did not , then selecting and implementing another response ma y be necessary .

Problem-orient ed policing, especially the SARA model, became a successful method of policing, w hether implement ed alone or as part of a larger community -

oriented policing progr am. In its initial testing in Newport New s, Virginia, in the ear ly 1980s, it w as found t o successfull y resol ve a number of pr oblems. The

model then beg an to spr ead across the Unit ed States in the late 1980s and 1990s, and numer ous police departments began requiring their oficers to w ork on

pr oblem-orient ed policing projects. Pr oblem-orient ed policing has been deemed by man y to be a v ery successful method of policing.

ZER O-TOLERANCE P OLICING

The other method of policing that w as cr eat ed in the mid-1980s came to be kno wn as zero-toler ance policing. This method of policing became kno wn widel y in

its implementation in New Yor k City under Ma yor R udolph Giuliani beginning in the ear ly 1990s. Ho wev er , the concepts for zer o-toler ance policing were also

deri ved fr om the Wilson and Kelling article “Br oken Windo ws.” 61 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 61)

While community -oriented policing focuses on the aspect of the article that stat ed that the police and community needed to w ork together to addr ess crime and

disorder, the zer o-toler ance method focuses on the article’s belief that minor crimes and disor der are what lead to mor e serious crime. Hence, police should

enforce the minor crimes and disor der that are typicall y ignored, especiall y in large urban areas, in or der to r educe serious crime. B y remo ving the signs of

disor der, those things that promot e other crimes, police help send the signal that the neighbor hood is not going to toler ate crime and disor der, thus rest oring

order and allo wing law-abiding citizens to feel saf e and to “tak e back their neig hbor hoods” from the criminals.

Zer o-toler ance policing advocat es an aggr essive means of la w enf orcement in or der to st op and det er futur e crime. One of the reasons for this, it is ar gued, is that

in those neig hbor hoods that have alr ead y deca yed and ar e experiencing distr ess, it will take the assistance of the police to addr ess the problem of crime and

disor der because citizens’ level of f ear is alr ead y hig h and the y will be unwilling or unable to help. In addition, these types of neig hbor hoods tend to be hig hly

transient and lack the communal ties and ci vic or ganizations that can assist in r est oring order . Mor eover , the goal of zer o-toler ance policing is to focus on the

“hot spots” of crime and disor der, those locations that tend to e xhibit pr oblems based on time, location, and indi viduals. By emplo ying “crack downs” on these

certain types of crimes, locations, and violat ors, police can alleviate or eliminat e these types of minor crimes and disorders, thus prev enting the pr omotion of

mor e serious crimes. Examples include the crack downs on gr afiti in the New Yor k sub way s, the open-air drug mar kets in W ashingt on, D.C., and even the

tar geting of the inf amous “squeegeemen ” on the street corners of New Yor k City .

The success of zero-toler ance policing has been mix ed, and it has been a highly contr oversial method of policing. Althoug h New Yor k City Ma yor Giuliani f av or ed

the method and crime rat es did fall dr amaticall y throug hout his tenur e as mayor , crime rat es w ere falling thr oug hout the Unit ed States over all. Ther e are man y

advocat es for zer o-toler ance policing, 62 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 62) and ther e have been man y

advocat es against this method of policing. 63 ( h ttp ://c on te n t.t hu ze le a rn in g.c om /b ook s/M ari on .3 980.1 7.1 /se ctio n s/ch 10le v 1 se c7 #ch 10cn 63) While it is t oo soon to tell

the true success of these police methods and mor e resear ch is needed, zero-toler ance policing has assur edly been a contr oversial police policy o ver the past

decade.

HOMELAND SE CURITY 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 27/29

The concepts of community-oriented policing, problem-orient ed policing, and zero-toler ance policing all came largely as a result of the challenges to tr aditional

policing issued in the 1970s. Mor e recentl y, ho wev er , a new concept of policing is beginning to unf old, and that is the role of policing in homeland security . In the

wak e of the Sept ember 11 terr orist attack s in 2001, the feder al government has shift ed to a policy of homeland security , and part of that has incorpor ated local

ir eig hters and local police agencies. What is curr ently at issue is not so much determining if local police are going to pla y a role in this new public policy but

rather w hat role the y can play. Much confusion abounds in t erms of w hat homeland security means: is it simpl y being more watchful for suspicious acti vities, is it

intelligence gathering on the part of patr ol oficers, or is it standing guar d at possible terr orist tar gets in their jurisdictions? And, beyond det ermining what role

the police will pla y in homeland security , the natural ext ension of this is to ask w ho will pa y. As the public policy of homeland security is clear ly a national policy

issue, it w ould seem that the policy will be an int ergo vernmental one dri ven b y the pr esidential administr ation. This is becoming evident in the police

incorpor ation of the National Management Framew ork’s (NMF) cent erpiece, the Incident Command Syst em (IC S), into its policies and procedur es. As police

oficers are commonl y the irst responders in an incident and for the f act that the incident command s yst em allo ws for a management structur e to r espond to

man-made and natur al disast ers, this is fast becoming the most common means of police oficers eng aging in Homeland Security . ICS allo ws for a multi-police

agency r esponse to major incidents, and w hen the response necessitat es other areas of expertise (e.g., ir e, hospital, schools, etc.), incident command allo ws for

the incorpor ation of these agencies into what is kno wn as a uniied command—one command structur e but one composed of multiple agencies and jurisdiction

repr esentati ves. 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 28/29

CONCL USION

The role of the police in our society is a comple x mosaic of agencies (feder al, state, and local) and roles (la w enf orcement , services, and order maint enance) that

have built up o ver the course of America ’s history. The speciic hist ory of law enf orcement in this country pr ovides us with some understanding of w her e we ar e

in terms of pr oviding police pr otection toda y. While ther e are man y types of policing, all provide se ver al basic functions, such as crime pr ev ention, criminal

in vestig ations, and various services. These functions ar e pr ovided b y la w enf orcement on the feder al, state, and local levels. All these agencies ar e inluenced by

politics and, in turn, aff ect politics. In the same rig ht, all these agencies ar e inluenced by the public policy pr ocess and, in turn, aff ect the public policy process.

Not es

1. H . G old st ein , Polic in g a F re e S o cie ty ( C am brid ge, Mass.: B al li n ger, 1 977).

2 . J . Q . W ilso n, Va rie tie s o f P olic e B eh avio r ( N ew Y o rk : A the neu m , 1 973), p . 2 1.

3. M. L ip sk y, S tr e et-L evel B ure a u cra cy ( N ew Y o rk : R usse ll S ag e F o u n dat io n , 1 980).

4 . P . K . Man nin g an d J . V an Maan en , Polic in g: A V ie w f r o m t h e S tr e et ( S an ta Mo nic a, C al if.: G ood ye ar , 1 978).

5 . W ilso n, Va rie tie s o f P olic e B eh avio r .

6. M. H . Mo ore , “ P oli c e L ead ershi p: T he I m possi ble Dr eam ?” i n Im possib le J o b s in P ublic M an agem en t , e d . E . C . H ar gro ve an d J . C . G li d ew ell ( L aw re n ce : U niv e rsi ty P re ss o f K an sas,

1990), p p. 7 2–1 02.

7. N . M. Mar io n , Crim inal J u stic e in A m eric a: Th e P olit ic s b eh in d t h e S yste m ( Du rham , N .C .: C ar oli n a A cad em ic P re ss, 2 002).

8 . I b id .; W . M. O liv e r an d J . F . H ilg en berg , J r ., A His to ry o f C rim e a n d C rim inal J u stic e in A m eric a ( B ost on : A lly n & B ac on , 2 006).

9 . O liv e r an d H ilg en berg , A His to ry o f C rim e a n d C rim inal J u stic e in A m eric a .

10. G . L . K elli n g an d M. H . Mo ore , “ F ro m P oli t ic al t o R efo rm t o C om mun it y : T he E vo lv in g S tr at eg y o f P oli c e ,” i n Com munit y P olic in g: R heto ric o r R ea lit y , e d . J . R . G re en e an d S . D .

Mast ro fsk i ( W est port, C on n.: P rae ger, 1 988).

1 1. O liv e r an d H ilg en berg , A His to ry o f C rim e a n d C rim inal J u stic e in A m eric a .

12. Mar io n , Crim inal J u stic e in A m eric a .

13. K elli n g an d Mo ore , “ F ro m P oli t ic al t o R efo rm t o C om mun it y .”

1 4. I b id .

15. W . M. O liv e r, C om munit y-O rie nte d P olic in g: A S yste m ic A ppro a ch t o P olic in g , 3 rd e d . ( U pper S ad dle R iv e r, N .J.: P re n tic e H al l, 2 003).

1 6. I b id .

17. J . Q . W ilso n an d G . L . K elli n g, “ B ro ken W in dow s: T he P oli c e an d N eig hb orho od S af ety ,” A tla n tic M on th ly 2 49 ( Mar ch 1 982): 2 9–3 8.

18. W . M. O liv e r, “ T he H om elan d S ecu rit y J u ggern au t: T he E nd o f t he C om mun it y P oli c in g E ra?” Crim e a n d J u stic e I n te rn atio nal 2 0 ( 7 9, 2 004): 4 –1 0.

19. O liv e r an d H ilg en berg , A His to ry o f C rim e a n d C rim inal J u stic e in A m eric a ; U .S . Mar shal s S erv ic e ho me p ag e ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at

www .usd oj.go v/m arsh als/h ist ory /o ld est .htm ( h ttp :/ /w ww.u sd oj.g ov/m arsh als / h is to ry /o ld est.h tm ) .

2 0. K . Mag uir e an d A . L . P ast ore , So u rc e b ook o f C rim inal J u stic e S ta tis tic s , a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .alb an y.e du/so urc e b ook / ( h ttp :/ /w ww.a lb an y.e du/so u rc e b ook /) .

2 1. I b id .

22. I b id .

23. I b id .

24. I b id .

25. I b id .

26. F ed eral B ure au o f I n ve st ig at io n ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .b i.go v/h om ep age .htm ( h ttp :/ /w ww.b i.g ov/h om ep age .h tm ) .

2 7. I b id .

28. F ed eral B ure au o f I n ve st ig at io n ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .b i.go v/a bou tu s.h tm ( h ttp :/ /w ww.b i.g ov/a b ou tu s.h tm ) .

2 9. U .S . Mar shal s S erv ic e ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .usd oj.go v/m arsh als/ ( h ttp :/ /w ww.u sd oj.g ov/m arsh als / ) .

3 0. Mar io n , Crim inal J u stic e in A m eric a .

31. I b id .

32. Dr ug E nfo rc e m en t A dm in ist rat io n ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .usd oj.go v/d ea / ( h ttp :/ /w ww.u sd oj.g ov/d ea /) .

3 3. B ure au o f A lc o ho l, T o b ac co , F ir e ar ms an d E xp lo si ve s ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .atf.go v/ ( h ttp :/ /w ww.a tf.g ov/) .

3 4. I b id .

35. U nit e d S tat es C it iz e n shi p an d I m mig rat io n S erv ic e ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at http ://u scis.go v/gr ap hics/a bou tu s/i ndex .h tm ( h ttp :/ /u sc is .g ov/g ra p hic s/ a b ou tu s/ in dex .h tm ) .

3 6. U .S . C ust om s an d B ord er P ro te ctio n ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .custom s.go v/ ( h ttp :/ /w ww.custo m s.g ov/) .

3 7. U .S . S ecre t S erv ic e ( 2 004), a v ai lab le o n li n e at www .secretse rv ic e .go v/ ( h ttp :/ /w ww.secre ts e rv ic e .g ov/) .

3 8. O liv e r an d H ilg en berg , A His to ry o f C rim e a n d C rim inal J u stic e in A m eric a .

39. Mag uir e an d P ast ore , So u rc e b ook o f C rim inal J u stic e S ta tis tic s .

40. I b id .

41. I b id .

42. L . P . B ro w n, “ T he R ole o f t he S he riff, ” i n Th e F u tu re o f P olic in g , e d . A . W . C ohn ( B ev e rly H ills, C al if.: S ag e, 1 978), p p. 2 27–2 8.

43. Mag uir e an d P ast ore , So u rc e b ook o f C rim inal J u stic e S ta tis tic s .

44. P re si den t’s C om missi on o n L aw E nfo rc e m en t an d A dm in ist rat io n o f J u st ic e , Th e Ch alle n ge o f C rim e in a F re e S o cie ty ( N ew Y o rk : A vo n , 1 968).

4 5. J . J . Di lu li o , J r ., S . K . S m it h, an d A . J . S ai ger, “ T he F ed eral R ole i n C rim e C on tr o l,” i n Crim e , e d . J . Q . W ilso n an d J . P ete rsi li a ( S an F ran cisc o: I C S P re ss, 1 995), p p. 4 45–6 2.

46. J . A . S tr az ella, Th e F ed era liz atio n o f C rim inal L aw ( W ashi ngto n , D .C .: A m eric an B ar A sso ciat io n , 1 998), p . 2 .

47. Di lu li o e t al ., “ T he F ed eral R ole i n C rim e C on tr o l.”

4 8. I b id .

49. I b id .

50. W . N . W elsh an d P . W . H ar ris, C rim inal J u stic e P olic y a n d P la n nin g ( C in cin nat i: A nderso n, 1 999).

5 1. I b id ., p p. 5 –6 .

52. I b id .

53. W . J . C ham bli ss, P ow er, P olit ic s, a n d C rim e ( B ou ld er, C olo .: W est vie w P re ss, 2 001); H . M. Mac Donal d, A re C op s R acis t? ( C hi cag o: I v an R . De e, 2 003).

5 4. G . L . K elli n g e t al ., Th e K an sa s Cit y P re ve n tiv e P atr o l E xp erim en t: A S u m mary R ep ort ( W ashi ngto n , D .C .: P oli c e F o u n dat io n , 1 974).

5 5. P oli c e F o u n dat io n , Th e N ew ark F o ot P atr o l E xp erim en t ( W ashi ngto n , D .C .: P oli c e F o u n dat io n , 1 981).

5 6. W . G . S p elm an an d D . K . B ro w n, Ca llin g t h e P olic e: A R ep lic atio n o f t h e Cit izen R ep ortin g C om pon en t o f t h e K an sa s Cit y R esp on se Tim e A naly sis ( C olli n gd al e, P .A .: Di an e

Publi shi ng), p p. i ii– xx.

5 7. J . M. C hai ken , P . W . G re en w ood , an d J . P ete rsi li a, “ T he C rim in al I n ve st ig at io n P ro ce ss: A S u m mar y R ep ort,” P olic y A naly sis 3 ( 1 977): 1 87–2 17.

58. W ilso n an d K elli n g, “ B ro ken W in dow s.”

59. O liv e r, C om munit y-O rie nte d P olic in g . 2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch … 29/29

60. J . E . E ck an d W . S p elm an , Pro b le m -S o lv in g: P ro b le m -O rie nte d P olic in g in N ewp ort N ew s ( W ashi ngto n , D .C .: P oli c e E xe cu tiv e R ese arch F o ru m , 1 987).

6 1. W ilso n an d K elli n g “ B ro ken W in dow s.”

62. G . L . K elli n g an d C . M. C ole s, F ixin g B ro ken W indow s ( N ew Y o rk : F re e P re ss, 1 996); E . B . S ilv e rm an , NYP D B attle s C rim e ( B ost on : N orthe ast ern U niv e rsi ty P re ss, 1 999).

6 3. A . Mc Ard le an d T . E rz e n , Zero T o le ra n ce : Q ualit y o f L if e a n d t h e N ew P olic e B ru ta lit y in N ew Y o rk Cit y ( N ew Y o rk : N ew Y o rk U niv e rsi ty P re ss, 2 001).