AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice

Chapter 4 -

Policing: Purpose and Organization

The Police Mission

What are the main purposes of Police? Enforce Laws Investigate Crimes/Arrest Offenders Prevent Crime Keep the Peace Serve the Community

Law Enforcement

Responsible for enforcing federal, state, and local laws

– Traditional role as “crime fighters” Majority of time spent on non-emergency calls for

service– Only 10% - 20% of calls require law enforcement

Enforcement priorities come from Departments Role Models of society

– Held to higher ethical standard– On and off-duty behavior always being judged

Investigation and Arrest

Most law enforcement response and activity is REACTIVE

– Something happens, someone calls, police respond to call– Rare to intervene in crime actually in progress

Phases of Investigation– Crime occurs/someone calls police– Patrol officer responds/investigates/writes report– Report referred to Detective Bureau– Follow-up investigation may result in arrest

Crime Prevention

Anticipation, recognition, and appraisal of a crime risk and initiation of some action to eliminate or reduce it

– PROACTIVE approach to criminal activity– Old concept, new implementation through dedicated

resources Techniques

– Access control, theft-deterrence, lighting, landscaping, CPTED

Programs– Operation ID, Neighborhood Watch, Crime Stoppers

Keeping the Peace

What is a cop’s official title in CA?– Peace Officer (PC § 830.1)

High priority of maintaining Peace and Order in society

Enforcement of Quality-of-Life Offenses– Minor or “petty” offenses that tend to disrupt maintenance of

peaceful existence Disturbing the Peace (415 PC) Loitering/Panhandling Vandalism/Graffiti Public Drinking/Intoxication/Drug Use

Broken Windows Theory

Serving the Community

Direct public access to police services just a phone call away!

10%-20% of calls actual emergencies, majority are “calls for service”– Lost and found– Minor accidents– Barking dogs, other disturbances– Suspicious persons/circumstances– Check the welfare

Levels of Police Jurisdiction

Federal Departments (page 115)

– Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, US Postal Service

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)– Mission Statement

Protect and defend US against terrorist threats Uphold and enforce criminal laws Provide leadership and criminal justice services

– 56 field offices, 400 satellite offices

Levels of Police Jurisdiction

State-Level Agencies– Most state police agencies formed as link

between federal and local jurisdictions

CA State Police Agencies– ABC, CHP, Fish & Game, State Parks, State

University Police

Levels of Police Jurisdiction

Local Agencies– City (Police) and County (Sheriff) departments responsible

for local law enforcement services

Police primary jurisdiction within city limits Sheriff primary jurisdiction within unincorporated

areas of county– Some smaller cities contract with local Sheriff for police

services– Sheriff responsible for jail operations, prisoner

transportation, and court services

Police Administration

Management responsible for– Directing, coordinating, controlling…– Personnel, resources, and activities…– In crime prevention, apprehension of criminals,

recovery of stolen property, and community service

Managers are usually sworn personnel who have promoted to higher ranks

Police Organization and Structure

Line Operations– Field Operations– Activities devoted to day-to-day police work

Staff Operations– Support Services– Administration, Human Resources, Training

Chain-of-Command– Hierarchical line of communication and authority between higher

and lower levels (ranks)– Quasi-military structure and organization

Span-of-Control– Number of personnel or units under one supervisor’s authority

Epochs of Policing(Refer to chart, page 126)

Political Era: 1840’s–1930’s– Police served interests of politicians in power– Spoils Era

Reform Era: 1930’s–1970’s– “Professional” model of policing removed police from political

influence– Vollmer’s reforms

Community-Policing Era: 1970’s–Present Day– Focus on needs of Community– Cooperative effort, working with community

Homeland-Security Era: 2001–Present Day– Focus on prevention of terrorism– Increased cooperation between agencies/jurisdictions

Policing Styles

Watchman Style– Concern for law-and-order maintenance– Crime control more important than crime prevention

Legalistic Style– Strict enforcement of Letter of the Law– May ignore other “social” problems

Service Style– Focus on “helping” rather than strict enforcement– Social-assistance, drug-treatment programs, etc.

Police-Community Relations

Evolved out of civil unrest of 1960’s Effort to re-unite Police and Community

– Police and Community must work together– Police derive legitimacy from Community– Focus on positive Police-Community relations– Less emphasis on apprehending criminals

PCR Programs– Crime Prevention/Property Identification– Neighborhood Watch– Drug Awareness – Victims’ Assistance

Team Policing

Developed in 60’s and 70’s as extension of PCR model

Maintained specific “team” of officers in same geographical area (beat)

Benefits?– Beat integrity– Familiarization with people/area– Trust and cooperation– Officers allowed to handle full investigations

Evolution of Community Policing

Strategic Policing– Traditional goal of enforcement using innovative

enforcement techniques Intelligence, Undercover Ops., Surveillance, Forensics

Problem-Oriented Policing– Address underlying social problems as contributors to

crime/criminal behavior Cooperation between agencies to attack overall problem

Community Policing– Based on cooperative partnership between Police and

Community Attempt to reduce crime/fear of crime and improve quality of

life for members of community

Community Policing

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)– Funding, Training, Technology

Goals of Community Policing– Police and Community work together– Identify/address needs of Community– Allow Community more say in prioritizing problems and how Police

respond to them– Proactive vs. Reactive approach to crime

DOJ created COPS to administer funds– 100,000 CP Officers by 1999– Additional $500 million made available for 50,000 more– 2002: “Homeland Security through Community Policing”

Obstacles to Community Policing

Some communities/community members remain dissatisfied with police services

– Distrustful of changes Disagreement over priority of community needs Power of Police Subculture

– Some departments/officers unwilling to change from traditional roles of LE

– Still see primary role as crime fighter and success measured by number of arrests, citations, etc.

– May offer CP programs but not truly supportive– Resentment and hostility sometimes mutual

Law Enforcement Support

LEAA (1969-1982)– Attempt to combat crime through funding of crime prevention

programs– Expired after $8 billion spent/no significant impact

Scientific Police Management (1970’s)– Application of social sciences to police administration

Increase police effectiveness Decrease citizen complaints Enhance use of available resources

Evidence-Based Policing (EBP)– Using research as evidence for evaluating police practices and to

guide decision-making

Kansas City Experiment (1974)

Year-long study of Preventive Patrol– Southern part of city divided into 15 beats

5 = no change in patrol services 5 = patrol officers/services doubled 5 = no patrol service, response to calls only

– Citizens not notified of experiment/changes Results

– No impact on preventable crimes– Citizens unaware of change in patrol services– No impact on fear of crime, per citizen survey

Effects– Directed Patrol– Call Prioritization

Discretion of Individual Officers

The opportunity to exercise choice in daily activities and decisions– Where/how to patrol– Who to stop/detain– When to warn/cite/arrest

Discretion of individual officers is arguably more important than department policy!

Factors That AffectDiscretionary Decision-Making

Officer’s background– Personal values, prejudices, etc.

Suspect’s characteristics– Age, gender, socio-economic status, etc.

Department policy– Strict, loose, mandatory arrests, etc.

Community interest– Concerns with certain behaviors/crimes

Factors That AffectDiscretionary Decision-Making

Pressure from victims– Cooperative, uncooperative, victim assistance

Disagreement with certain laws– Public opinion, minor violations

Available alternatives– Treatment programs, counseling services

Personal beliefs/practices of officer– Off-duty behavior may affect outlook