week 5.1 criminal

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 Police

Chapter Outline

Introduction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec1#ch10lev1sec1)

The Nature of Policing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec2#ch10lev1sec2)

Policing in a Democratic Society (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec2#ch10lev2sec1)

Police as Street-Level Bureaucrats (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec2#ch10lev2sec2)

Policing as an “Impossible Job” (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec2#ch10lev2sec3)

History of Policing (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10lev1sec3)

Political Era (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10lev2sec4)

Reform Era (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10lev2sec5)

Community Era (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10lev2sec6)

Homeland Security Era? (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10lev2sec7)

Contemporary Police (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev1sec4)

Federal Law Enforcement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev2sec8)

State Police and State Highway Patrols (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev2sec11)

Sheriffs Departments (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev2sec12)

Municipal Police Departments (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev2sec13)

Special Police (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10lev2sec14)

Intergovernmental Relationships (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec5#ch10lev1sec5)

Federal Support (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec5#ch10lev2sec15)

State Support (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec5#ch10lev2sec16)

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 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec5#ch10lev2sec17)

Police and Policy Issues (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec6#ch10lev1sec6)

Police as Policymakers (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec6#ch10lev2sec18)

Police Issues (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec6#ch10lev2sec19)

Deployment of the Police (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec6#ch10lev2sec20)

Conclusion (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10lev1sec7)

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 are those government agencies that have some responsibility for enforcing the law and/or providing protection to our local communities. There are approximately 18,000 such agencies in the United States today, including over 50 federal law enforcement agencies, 49 state police agencies, over 12,000 municipal agencies, 3,067 sheriffs departments, and nearly 1,500 special police forces. These agencies are an important part of society, as they help ensure that society functions smoothly, thus allowing its citizens to lead stable and productive lives. These agencies are considered the �irst component in the criminal justice system, but they are also an integral part of the executive branch of government. As a result of their administrative (and bureaucratic) nature, they are a political entity that is affected by politics and that at the same time affects politics. This chapter looks at the role of policing in society, its history and contemporary status, its role in intergovernmental relationships, the various types of policing, and how policing �its into 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 POLICING The United States was founded on the principle of democracy. One aspect of creating a truly democratic society is to ensure that government does not usurp the powers of the people. To this end, Founding Fathers, after the creation of the U.S. Constitution, created the Bill of Rights—the �irst ten amendments to the Constitution—that established the rights and protections of American citizens against their government. And the most likely element of government that citizens will need to invoke these protections will often come at the hands of the police.

Policing in a Democratic Society Citizens have rights and protections against police of�icers since they act as an agent of the government. De�initively, one of the most important of these protections is the Fourth Amendment, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Citizens cannot be arbitrarily stopped and searched, nor can they be arrested on simple suspicion. The Constitution provides these protections to prevent the police from taking power away from the people. However, the delicate balance here must be understood. In many instances, it is police who protect people’s rights by ensuring that others’ rights are not violated and, when violated, that order is restored. In other words, the same agency of government that stands in the greatest position to take away your rights is also the same agency that is established to protect your rights. This is the dilemma of policing in a democratic society.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn1)

The true dilemma that is addressed here is the balancing of individual rights, those afforded to all citizens by the Constitution versus the maintenance of public order. On the one hand, we must ensure that individuals are afforded their rights, that they receive due process, and that they are not unfairly burdened by the system. On the other hand, it is the responsibility of the police to maintain order for all citizens, which may very well necessitate the violation, preferably legal violation, of individual rights. A simple example may suf�ice. If a group of juveniles hang out on a particular street corner, since it is a public street, they have that right. Yet, if the residents who live on the street corner feel threatened and passersby do not feel comfortable moving through the group on the sidewalk, this disrupts public order. A police of�icer comes along and is required to “do something” about the problem, as he or she is vested with the authority of government to resolve the situation. If the of�icer moves the juveniles along, he or she may very well be violating their right to peacefully assemble. If the of�icer arrests them for vagrancy, he or she may very well violate their rights against unreasonable seizures (arrests). If the of�icer does nothing, then the public order remains violated, and people living and walking in the area remain in fear. The of�icer must �ind a way to avoid violating the juveniles’ individual rights while at the same time restoring public order to ensure that both individual rights and public order are maintained.

In order to ensure that police of�icers balance these rights, they are also given a number of tools that often seem to be as widely diverse. Police of�icers are given an enormous amount of discretion in the performance of their job in order to allow them the ability to achieve this balance. Police can choose to do nothing, give a verbal warning, issue a written warning, deliver an arrest summons, or physically make an arrest. There are some constraints, however, that are often dictated by the nature of the crime. If a police of�icer catches a murderer, it is unlikely he or she will let the murderer go or merely give a verbal warning, but as the types of crimes become more like the scenario described previously, an of�icer is given a wider latitude of discretion.

Police of�icer discretion is also restrained by a number of different sources. The law clearly places parameters on what police can and cannot do, as U.S. Supreme Court and circuit court decisions dictate police behavior. One only has to think of several landmark cases to recognize these limitations, such as Miranda v. Arizona (1966) regarding the famous Miranda warning or Tennessee v. Garner (1985) regarding police use of deadly force. In addition, police of�icers are also restricted in their behavior through various policies, procedures, rules, and regulations as delineated by either the agency they work for, the jurisdiction they work for, or the state. Finally, police of�icers are supervised to some degree, and management can place more restraints on an of�icer’s use of discretion beyond the more formal policies found in departmental manuals.

Police as Street-Level Bureaucrats One more aspect of discretion has to do with its location within the police hierarchy. Wilson has noted that in policing, “discretion increases as one moves down the organizational hierarchy.”2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn2) Conversely, the higher one rises in the police department’s chain of command, the less discretion one has. Because police of�icers on the street (and at the bottom of the hierarchy) have far more discretion than those at the top, police of�icers have been called “street-level bureaucrats.”3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn3) Michael Lipsky, in his study of street-level bureaucracies—those public service agencies that interact directly with citizens in the performance of their duties—found that the nature of these agencies creates large con�licts between labor and management. This is because the police actually determine what the police departments do, whereas in most bureaucracies, decisions are made at the top and pushed down to the bottom. In other words, those at the bottom of the hierarchy tend to determine what those at the top do. This can create con�lict within the agency primarily based on the of�icer’s actions and his or her use of discretion.

Another aspect of policing that tends to make the role of the police a dif�icult one in a democratic society is based on the idea that government should re�lect the will of the people. More speci�ically, government should re�lect the values and norms of the society and community they serve. Extending this even further, it is argued that the police should re�lect these same values and norms and that as these values and norms change over time, the police should change too. This expectation has been termed as the “impossible mandate” by Manning and Van Maanen4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn4) and serves to further describe the many roles that the police must serve in today’s society.

Wilson, in his famous study, The Varieties of Police Behavior,5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn5) found that police do re�lect the community’s values and norms and that they tend to police in three different styles, depending on what the community desires. The �irst is the watchman style, which is more in line with maintaining public order with the most minimal amount of police intervention possible. The second style is the enforcer, which is the type of policing that strictly enforces any violation of the law. The third style is the service style, which attempts to perform its duties by providing a wide variety of services to better serve the public. That Wilson’s study found different styles of policing raises questions as to whether these styles were really re�lective of the community or the police organization; if they are truly re�lective of the community, what happens when the community changes? Do the police change their style in accordance?

Taking this even further, the role of the police is so ill de�ined in society that the reality of the “impossible mandate” should be quite evident. The media (see chapter 1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01) ) convey a message of the police as being crime �ighters, yet the reality of policing is that the crime-�ighting role is only a fraction of this (usually cited as 20% of an of�icer’s time). Police of�icers engage in civic programs and random patrols, and they appear in court, enforce traf�ic laws, respond to those in need of assistance, give directions to lost drivers, perform emergency 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 legal questions, respond to civil disputes, serve papers, and write reports. The roles that typical police of�icers perform in one day are so diverse that they are truly the “jack-of-all-trades” and “master-of-none.” Because of this, one author, Mark H. Moore, has called policing the “impossible job.”6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn6)

Policing as an “Impossible Job” Like the “impossible mandate,” the “impossible job” focuses on the many roles that police play in society. The “impossible job” concept focuses heavily on the fact that the police, unlike other organizations, do not have one all-encompassing policy goal or objective. In private businesses, the primary goal is to make money. In organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the overriding goal is to clean up the environment, and in �ire departments across the country, it is to put out �ires. In policing, as previously described, the goals and objectives are so numerous that the ability to perform the policing function is essentially impossible. There are tensions between the cost of policing and its outputs. Policing can become very expensive, and there is no real need to be highly ef�icient. The product that policing delivers is so varied that it is hard to really know what policing’s “bottom line” is. In addition, the proper use of authority is often debated; whatever action a police of�icer in the previously mentioned street-corner scenario selected, the actions of the of�icer could be easily debated. Finally, the uncertain goals—�ighting crime (which crimes?), law enforcement versus peacekeeping, crime control versus crime prevention, and reducing crime or reducing fear—all contribute to the complexities of policing.

Policing in a democratic society is a dif�icult task and one that appears to be getting more complex, not less. The implications for public policy should not be lost on the reader. What police of�icers do at the bottom can shape public policy. What police chiefs do at the top can shape public policy. And assuredly, how citizens perceive and react to the police can and will shape public policy. While the public policy that is being crafted at this level often applies primarily to the local process, these things have a way of rising much higher (e.g., police of�icer’s actions resulting in a Supreme Court’s decision affecting all police), and ideas at the top can often �ind their way down to the bottom (e.g., the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and its allocation of nearly $9 billion from the federal government to local police departments). Thus, police are not only an important actor within the criminal justice system but also an important player in the policy process. To understand this, it helps to look at how policing has become an important policy actor 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 HISTORY OF POLICING The history of policing is important to provide a more accurate picture of where we have been and where we should go in terms of ensuring a safe society. Police, police administrators, academics, and citizens should understand the strategies and police methods tried in the past to gain a better knowledge of what should be done in the future to help control criminal behavior.7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn7)

Policing today has its roots in the English system of policing. Dating back to the colonial era of America, when America was a part of England, as the new land became settled there was at least some need for a system of protection. As the majority of colonists during the 1600s tended to be English, they brought with them the system that they were familiar with from the old country. The system with which these English colonists were familiar consisted of the sheriffs, constables, and both the watch and the ward. Although all of these were common practices in England, with the colonists it really depended on where in America they settled that each of these was employed. Colonists settling in the southern colonies (e.g., Virginia and North Carolina) tended to favor the use of the sheriff. Those colonists settling in the northern colonies (e.g., New York and New Jersey) opted more for the constables. And where the larger urban areas began to grow, these cities and towns opted for either the watch or the ward, or both.

The sheriff was appointed by the colonial governor and served as the chief local government of�icial.8 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn8) His responsibilities included collecting taxes, conducting elections, maintaining bridges and roads, and various other duties. The constable also had some responsibility for enforcing the law and maintaining order but like the sheriff often had many duties that fell outside of what we today would consider policing. The watch consisted of men patrolling the city to guard against �ire, crime, and disorder and occasionally checking taverns for drunks. At �irst, cities and towns employed only a night watch, but as these cities and towns grew larger, many were forced to create the day watch. As in England, these positions often started as volunteer positions. When that failed, it was made mandatory duty for all adult males. As even that tended to fail (for many purposefully failed to show and willingly paid the �ine rather than serve), eventually the watch developed into paid positions, albeit poorly paid ones.

Colonial law enforcement was inef�icient, often corrupt, and subject to political in�luence. The sheriff, constable, and the watch and the ward had little capacity to either prevent crime or apprehend offenders. The sheriff and constable were only reactive, responding to complaints brought to them. They did not engage in preventive patrol. There were too few watch members to deter crime. In addition, since the positions were paid so poorly, only the poorest members of society tended to serve on the watch. Victims had no convenient way to report crimes. If people wanted to engage in moral criminal offenses (e.g., gambling, drinking, or sexual behaviors), they simply had to bribe law enforcement of�icials to “look the other way.” Thus, of�icial law enforcement agencies played a relatively small role in maintaining law and order.9 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn9)

During the Revolutionary War, peace was maintained by troops. After the war, peacekeeping reverted back to civilian control. Although the sheriffs, constables, and the watch and the ward continued in many jurisdictions, they were not highly favored because they were remnants of the King of England’s rule. Citizens in the new United States began to reject many of England’s former practices and advocated for individual rights as encapsulated in the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The sheriffs and constables were thus minimized in importance because they posed a danger to individual rights and freedoms and the people wanted to limit police authority. As a result, the method of policing at the time was left in the hands of the local governments rather than by creating a national (or state- level) police force. This was done to ensure that local communities, rather than a national or state government distantly removed from them, could assert greater control over law enforcement and to promote the local police to re�lect those communities. The resulting effect was a continuation of past English practices but with far less powers then they had previously held.

This method did not work well as America continued to grow from within and through mass immigration to this new and free country. In fact, as the cities grew, so too did the crime problem, and the old means of informal social control mechanisms, such as everyone knowing each other in the community, families asserting control over their children, and the church asserting its moral authority, began to fail. Crime and disorder were on the rise, and as crime, disorder, and riots broke out, there was no entity available to effectively respond to these problems. Perhaps the best example is in Boston, Massachusetts, for between 1834 and 1838, there were three major riots that ran rampant over the entire city, lasting for many days, killing and wounding numerous people, and causing enormous amounts of damage. As there was no one to stop the rioters, the riots ran their course. The people demanded something be done, and the answer lay across the Atlantic Ocean in London, England. There, Robert Peel had created the London Metropolitan Police Department, the �irst bona �ide police department in the world. The solution to the problem in Boston was evident, and in 1838, Boston created the �irst police department in the United States. New York would follow in 1845 with the creation of its �irst police department.

Although these departments were modeled after the London Metropolitan Police Department, American police departments looked very different. While London started with a force of over 1,000 police of�icers, wearing uniforms and badges and under strict supervision, the American experiment with police departments tended to start with fewer than 100 of�icers, with no uniforms and under little supervision. The reason had much to do with the previously cited desires for a very limited government presence. Over 1,000 police of�icers wearing uniforms was thought to be too strong a government presence, and people feared that their rights would be lost. As a result, early American policing was highly ineffective, and because of a lack of supervision and the political climate of the time, they became highly corrupt and often brutal.

Political Era Kelling and Moore have recognized three speci�ic eras in the history of policing.10 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn10) The �irst, known as the political era, began around 1840 and lasted until around 1900. During this time, many people from different backgrounds and cultures were coming into the country. In some communities, there was a breakdown in law and order that sometimes culminated in riots because of these social, economic, and political differences.11 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn11) For example, as previously described, Boston, between 1834 and 1838, endured three major riots, and New York, in the lead-up to its creation of a police department, had similar experiences that destroyed large sections of the city, damaged numerous storefronts, injured hundreds of people, and killed dozens. People recognized the need for a police force but were unsure what it should be. The idea of an organized police force was a radical idea to many at the time, but the alternative was further widespread rioting.

What developed was a policing system that was closely linked to local politicians and inherently corrupt but at the same time extremely helpful to new immigrants. When many of these immigrants arrived in the United States, they were unfamiliar with the language, customs, and culture. Politicians helped them �ind jobs and homes or helped with troubled children. Sometimes they would provide money to buy medicine for a sick family member. The politicians, in return, expected (and received) support from these immigrants during elections.12 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn12)

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 immigrants. Police tasks included some crime prevention but also included a wide range of useful social services, such as assisting immigrants in establishing themselves in communities and �inding jobs, housing the homeless during cold winter nights, and feeding the poor in soup kitchens. Because the police re�lected some of the ethnic makeup of the area in which they lived and worked, they had positive relationships with those of the same ethnic groups. The police were familiar with their neighborhoods and maintained order in them. Policing was done mostly by foot patrol, which helped the of�icers come to know and understand the people they policed. Police were integrated into neighborhoods and enjoyed the support of many of its citizens.

However, politicians had in�luence over the police. At that time, politicians could hire police of�icers. Thus, local politicians could reward their friends with jobs, a major form of patronage. There were no personnel standards for serving as an of�icer, and there was no job security—the police who were appointed by politicians could also be �ired on a whim by politicians. The police were obligated to politicians for their job and their job security. Thus, policing during the political era became closely linked to or even controlled by local politicians. The police and politicians worked together, but politics, through these political machines, in�luenced every aspect of American policing.

The closeness of police to political leaders and the lack of supervision of of�icers gave rise to widespread political corruption. Men with no education, bad health, and criminal records were hired as of�icers. They were vulnerable to being bribed in return for nonenforcement or lax enforcement of laws on drinking, gambling, or prostitution. There was very little in the way of formal training. In most places, new of�icers were handed a badge, a baton, and a copy of the department rules and sent out on patrol. There was a lack of communication, especially between police of�icers and a centralized headquarters, that made it impossible to respond to crimes. Supervision was also very weak. Of�icers could go weeks without seeing a supervisor, as they often went on and off duty from their homes. Even in those departments that required of�icers to serve their duty from the station house, much like �ire�ighters do today, of�icers still would often not see their supervisors for days at a time. Thus, of�icers evaded duty and spent much of their time in saloons and barber shops. They had to pay bribes for promotion. Detectives were often used by politicians to obtain information for political purposes. On the whole, inef�iciency, corruption, brutality, and a lack of professionalism were the chief results of this era of policing.

Reform Era The period from 1900 to the 1970s is called the “reform era.”13 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn13) Change in policing came with an organized movement for police professionalism and attempts to free policing from the control of politicians. The reformers wanted to eliminate politics from policing and to hire quali�ied leaders and of�icers. Change also came from the civil rights movement’s demands for equal justice as well as the development of advanced communications technology.

Most departments implemented civil service testing in an attempt to eliminate political patronage in the hiring and �iring of of�icers. Of�icers were hired on the basis of their quali�ications for the job and their ability to perform rather than their political connections. Departments emphasized their law enforcement roles over their social service role, which was now seen as the responsibility of social service agencies. Personnel standards were raised to include minimum recruitment requirements for intelligence, health, and moral character. Some departments created a formal training academy. There were calls for centralizing command and control within police departments. The departments became more military-like, with discipline and a chain of command.

New technology, such as two-way radios, telephones, and 911 emergency systems, helped police become more professional. Some communities decreased foot patrols and relied instead on patrol cars that allowed police to respond more quickly to calls for help. The police were concerned with reacting to crime and providing rapid response to all calls regardless of their urgency. Eventually, reliance on technology was viewed as a negative advancement. The police were spending less time on investigations and less time on the street, resulting in a loss of police relations with citizens. Citizens were not supportive of police and not providing them with information on crimes that police need.

Despite large increases in the size of police departments and in expenditures for new technology and new forms of equipment, police were not able to control crime or prevent its increase. Crime rose signi�icantly during the 1960s, as did the public’s fear of crime. Many minority citizens, especially African-Americans, did not perceive police treatment as fair or adequate. They protested not only police mistreatment but also lack of attention.

Both the civil rights movement and the antiwar movement brought new challenges to the police. The legitimacy of police and their role was brought into question. Students resisted police, minorities rioted against them, and the public, observing police behaviors and reactions on live television for the �irst time, questioned their tactics. Tensions between the police and the African-American community exploded in a series of riots across the nation from 1964 to 1968.

Community Era Thus began the third era of policing, called the “community era.”14 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn14) The community era had its roots in a conference at Michigan State University in 1955 discussing the problems of police–community relations and how best to �ix them. There was little political desire to �ix any of the problems at the time, however, because life in America was rather tranquil. However, in the wake of the crime rate spiking upward, riots in the streets, demonstrations over civil rights and the Vietnam War, and campus unrest, police reactions brought to the forefront the political issues of the day and the weakness of police–community relations. Hence, with the problem being evident and a solution already existing, the movement toward improving police–community relations became political policy.

This policy was part of the Johnson administration’s success in passing the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration under the Department of Justice, part of the role of which was to funnel federal grants for police to state and local agencies. Many of these grants were focused on implementing the tenets of police–community relations. Police were often provided training regarding the various cultures they policed as well as special groups, such as juveniles, the elderly, and the handicapped. In addition, programs called “team policing” were begun in many cities during the early 1970s that consisted of special groups of of�icers working with the community to alleviate some of the problems particular to their neighborhoods. In concert with these programs, Neighborhood Watch programs were started all over America in an attempt to have citizens report more crimes and suspicious activities to the local police. Although many of these programs were aimed at improving police–community relations, the reality is that they had a negligible impact.

The reason for their lack of success had much to do with the way in which these programs were run. Team policing used special teams to work with the neighborhoods, while the rest of the police department continued their past practices. Hence, one small group of of�icers spoke of working with the community, while the rest seemingly worked against the community. In the Neighborhood Watch programs, police helped start these programs but abandoned them after the initial implementation. Without the guidance of the one entity these programs were supposed to help, they �loundered until they were eventually abandoned and only the signs on the street corners remained. This was also combined with other problems; for example, the police tended to emphasize random patrols to prevent crime, rapid response to solve crimes faster, and more and better detectives to solve crimes. Research in the 1970s demonstrated 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. Finally, taking into consideration that with the implementation of the 911 system police were fast becoming tied to calls for service, policing was at a breaking point, and nothing seemed to work.

These factors caused many to consider what does work in policing, and the movement toward community policing in the early 1980s was seemingly the answer. Community policing is a shift from traditional, reactive policing to one that promotes working with the community to solve problems before crimes occur.15 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn15) The police become partners with the community to create strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime by increasing the interaction and cooperation between local police and the citizens. The goals are to reduce and prevent crime and to increase feelings of safety among residents and reduce fears of crime, to help develop closer ties to the community, and to engage residents in a joint effort to prevent crime.

Community policing refers to a number of different strategies, but they revolve primarily around getting the police on the street to interact more with the people.16 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn16) Some departments have increased foot patrols to get of�icers out of their cars and onto the street. Some have created storefront police stations to make the police more accessible to the public. Others have distributed community surveys in an effort to de�ine the public’s perception of community problems so they can deal with those problems better. Some departments have sponsored youth activities to improve relations between youth and police and also to help deter juvenile crime. Finally, some departments have instituted more modern Neighborhood Watch programs where the police meet with citizens on a regular basis, usually monthly, to update the community on the information that the police have regarding crime and disorder in their neighborhoods and to give the community a chance to voice their perspectives on what problems exist. Then, working together to address these problems, the police and community develop a method for addressing these problems that shares the resources of the police with the resources of the community.

The ideas of community policing can be traced to Wilson and Kelling,17 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn17) who acknowledged the importance of the community in crime control. They said that neighborhood disorder creates fear. In other words, neighborhood areas that are �illed with street people, youth gangs, prostitutes, and the mentally disturbed are the ones most likely to maintain a high degree of crime. Some neighborhoods, particularly those in distress, give out crime-promoting signals. A neighborhood �illed with deteriorating housing, unrepaired broken windows, and untended disorderly behavior gives out those crime-promoting signals. Honest citizens live in fear in these areas, and predatory criminals are attracted to them. To reduce crime and the fear of crime, according to Wilson and Kelling, police need citizens’ cooperation, support, and assistance. To do this, police need to have more close contact with the people they serve and rely less on police cars that serve only to remove an of�icer from the community and alienate people. These citizens are potential sources of information to help police.

The move toward community policing quickly gained momentum, and it is now being used by large metropolitan police forces as well as small, rural departments. As more and more departments experienced success and saw public satisfaction with the police increase, community policing began to spread even further. However, the biggest impetus for the implementation of community policing in the 1990s came with the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which brought federal support for implementing community policing programs (see Chapter 1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01) ). The creation of the Of�ice of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) under the Department of Justice began issuing grants to state and local agencies to hire additional police of�icers, purchase equipment, and provide training under the concepts of community policing and caused the number of agencies engaging in community policing to proliferate substantially. As a result, going into the twenty-�irst century, community policing has been the overriding police policy for most departments in the United States.

Homeland Security Era? With the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on American soil, some have argued that we are now seeing the end of the era of community policing and the beginning of the homeland security era.18 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn18) As America responded quickly to the attacks by educating themselves on terrorism and demanding action from government, the president and the U.S. Congress quickly began a process of restructuring government to focus on antiterrorism (prevention techniques) and counterterrorism (how to actively respond to terrorists) measures in order to meet these new demands. The creation of the Of�ice of Homeland Security and its subsequent passage as a cabinet-level department as well as the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act are both inclinations that the national government is moving in this direction. In addition, many of the grants for local agencies have become centered on homeland security, and perhaps most telling was the fact that the Of�ice of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) had its budget slashed by the Bush administration, but the Department of Homeland Security saw its budget allocations increase substantially. Funding for the COPS of�ice was reinstated under President Obama (see Chapter 1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01) ), but only time will tell if American law enforcement has truly entered into a new era of policing.

Understanding the history of policing in America is important for grasping how police came to be an actor in the public policy process. However, also understanding the current status of policing in America helps us understand the complexities that this particular component of the criminal justice system brings to the table. It is easy to talk of the “police,” but when we de�ine what we mean, we begin to understand that police operate at many different levels and that across each level there are many different agencies. It is to understanding the contemporary status of policing that we now turn.

Box 10.1: Agencies That Transferred into the Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Agriculture

– Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Program

– Plum Island Animal Disease Center

• Department of Commerce

– Critical Infrastructure Assurance Of�ice

• Department of Defense

– Chemical and Biological Defense programs, including the National Bioweapons Defense Analysis Center (Biowatch)

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 System

• Department of Energy

– Defense Nuclear Non-Proliferation

– Energy Security and Assurance Center

• Department of Health and Human Services

– Strategic National Stockpile

• Department of Justice

– National Infrastructure Protection Center

– Immigration and Customs Enforcement

– Of�ice of Domestic Preparedness

– United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

• Department of Transportation

– Transportation Security Administration

– United States Coast Guard

• Department of the Treasury

– Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

– United States Customs Service

– United States Secret Service

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• General Services Administration

– Federal Computer 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 CONTEMPORARY POLICE There are over 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, all having different jurisdictions and therefore different responsibilities and powers. This means that no one agency has unlimited power. Most law enforcement agencies are found on the local level, with some at the state level and far less at the federal level. Although there are federal law enforcement agencies, there is no national police force in the United States, and federal law enforcement makes up less than 10 percent of all law enforcement agencies in the nation. Each agency, whether federal, state, or local, has a different jurisdiction and was created to enforce speci�ic laws or help with particular situations. The role of each federal agency is speci�ied by federal statute. The different agencies are described in the following sections.

Federal Law Enforcement The federal law enforcement agencies are designed to protect the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens throughout the nation. Although there is no federal police force, there are over �ifty federal law enforcement agencies that deal with federal offenses. The �irst federal law enforcement agency was the U.S. Marshals Service, created by Congress on September 24, 1789, through the passage of the Judiciary Act.19 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn19) The U.S. Marshal Service is given the responsibility of judicial security, provides services for the federal courts (such as serving writs), and is in charge of fugitive investigations. The most recent change came in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when Congressional legislation created the Department of Homeland Security. This newly formed agency began operations on January 24, 2003. See Box 10.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec3#ch10sb01) .

As a result of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a number of federal law enforcement agencies fell under its organizational chart. The DHS has the following agencies that report to it: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the United States Secret Service (USSS), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The Department of Justice, however, still remains as the largest law enforcement umbrella organization, which has under its control the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (ATF), and the United States Marshal Service (USMS).

As of September 2004, federal agencies employed over 100,000 full-time personnel.20 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn20) This was an increase of about 10 percent over 2002. Their duties include criminal investigation/enforcement (42%), police response/patrol (19%), corrections (18%), noncriminal investigations/enforcement (14%), court operations (3%), and security/protection (3%).21 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn21) Three-�ifths of federal of�icers were employed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (27,705), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (15,214), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (12,424), and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (10,399).22 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn22) In addition to the high number of employees in these agencies, there are also a number of very small and little-known federal law enforcement agencies, including those for Amtrak (317), the Tennessee Valley Authority (168), the National Marine Fisheries Service (141), and the Library of Congress (116).23 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn23) Women accounted for approximately 15 percent of federal of�icers in 2004, about the same as in 2002.24 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn24) Minority representation was approximately 30 percent in 2004, very similar to the years 1998 and 2002.25 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn25)

Key Department of Justice Law Enforcement Agencies

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is housed within the Department of Justice and headquartered in Washington, D.C.26 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn26) It is the principal investigative arm of the federal government. It is charged with gathering and reporting facts, locating witnesses, and compiling evidence in cases involving violations of federal law, including all federal statutes not speci�ically assigned to other agencies. This includes the investigation of espionage, sabotage, treason, subversive activities, and other actions related to national security; civil rights violations; murder and assault of federal of�icers; mail fraud; robbery and burglary of federally insured banks; kidnapping; interstate transportation of stolen vehicles; organized crime and drug traf�icking; terrorism; and white-collar crime. The mission of the FBI is “to uphold the law through the investigation of violations of federal criminal statutes; to protect the United States from hostile intelligence efforts; to provide assistance to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”27 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn27) More recently, because of the terrorist attacks of September 11, FBI Director Robert Mueller has explained that “while we remain committed to our other important national security and law enforcement responsibilities, the prevention of terrorism takes precedence in our thinking and planning; in our hiring and staf�ing; in our training and technologies; and, most importantly, in our investigations.”28 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn28) The FBI’s jurisdiction includes a wide range of responsibilities that is ever changing in the criminal, civil, and security �ields, but it has �ive areas that have been given priority. These are the areas that affect society the most: organized crime/drugs, terrorism, white-collar crime, foreign counterintelligence, and violent crime. See Box 10.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10sb02) .

Box 10.2: Directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigationa (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10tn1)

Director Assumed Of�ice

Stanley W. Finch July 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 Of�ice

A. Bruce Bielaski April 30, 1912

William E. Allen, act. February 10, 1919

William J. Flynn July 1, 1919

William J. Burns August 22, 1921

J. Edgar Hoover, act. May 10, 1924

J. Edgar Hoover December 10, 1924

L. Patrick Gray, act. May 3, 1972

William D. Ruckelshaus, act. April 27, 1973

Clarence M. Kelley July 9, 1973

William H. Webster February 23, 1978

John E. Otto, act. May 26, 1987

William S. Sessions November 2, 1987

Floyd I. Clarke, act. July 19, 1993

Louis J. Freeh September 1, 1993

Thomas J. Pickard, act. June 25, 2001

Robert S. Mueller III September 4, 2001

aThe Federal Bureau of Investigation was created July 26, 1908, and was referred to as Of�ice of Chief Examiner. It became the Bureau of Investigation (March 16, 1909), United States Bureau of Investigation (July 1, 1932), Division of Investigation (August 10, 1933), and Federal Bureau of Investigation (July 1, 1935).

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation home page (2010), available online at www.�bi.gov/libref/directors/directmain.htm (http://www.�bi.gov/libref/directors/directmain.htm) .

The FBI also offers important services to state and local law enforcement agencies. The FBI will help other agencies with things such as �ingerprint identi�ication, laboratory examination, and police training. The FBI Identi�ication Division, established in 1924, collects and maintains a vast �ingerprint �ile (over 181 million sets of �ingerprints) that can be used by local police departments. It also acts as a national clearinghouse for criminal identi�ication data and missing persons data. The FBI exchanges identi�ication data with law enforcement agencies in more than 80 foreign countries. The FBI’s crime laboratory, created in 1932, provides ballistic testing and handwriting analysis for local police and also helps them test and identify evidence such as hairs, �ibers, blood, tire tracks, DNA, drugs, and other evidence. It has advanced forensic research capabilities as well. The FBI also allows states to use its National Crime Information Center, which is a database of information on stolen vehicles, stolen guns, stolen property, wanted persons with outstanding warrants, sexual predators, and so on. It also collects and disseminates crime statistics through its annual Uniform Crime Report.

The FBI has 56 �ield of�ices throughout the country to investigate federal offenses and assist state and local of�icials. Training for FBI agents is held at the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Specially selected local law enforcement personnel may also receive training there.

The FBI, as part of the Department of Justice, is overseen by the attorney general of the United States. At this time, the FBI employs approximately 24,000 people, with 12,424 special agents across the nation and in foreign countries. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the FBI ordered a major restructuring aimed at providing improved information sharing for the targeting of terrorists.

U. S. MARSHALS SERVICE The U.S. Marshals Service is the nation’s oldest federal law enforcement agency.29 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn29) It was created by the First Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, eighty- one years before the creation of the Department of Justice. George Washington appointed the �irst thirteen U.S. marshals, who were given the authority to support and protect the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges, Congress, or the president. This included serving subpoenas, summonses, writs, and warrants; making arrests; handling prisoners; and other orders issued by the courts. Marshals also performed administrative work for the courts: they handled all the money; paid fees for the attorneys, jurors, and witnesses; rented courtrooms and jail space; and hired bailiffs and janitors. They served as a link between the executive and judicial branches of government. Marshals were nominated by the president and approved by the Senate to four-year terms. At this time, the marshals were the major representatives of federal law enforcement. They performed most federal law enforcement functions until the formation of the Department of Justice. The marshals conducted the national census for 80 years (from 1790 to 1870), registered aliens, exchanged fugitives, and rented space from local authorities for federal courtrooms.

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 received no salary but were paid by various fees for services rendered. But much of that changed when the marshals received agency status in 1969. Today, the marshals are involved in a wide variety of federal law enforcement duties with approximately 3,233 deputy marshals to perform these duties. Marshals continue to perform judicial security. Protection of federal judicial of�icials, including judges, attorneys, and jurors, holds a high priority with the Marshals Service. Deputy marshals use the latest security techniques and devices at highly sensitive trials. The Marshals Service protects more than 2,000 sitting judges and countless other court of�icials at more than 400 court facilities throughout the nation. The Marshals Service also oversees each aspect of courthouse construction projects, from design through completion, to ensure the safety of federal judges, court personnel, and the public.

The Marshals Service is also involved in fugitive investigations, the one duty that has made it famous with the movie and television series The Fugitive. In 2003, the Marshals Service apprehended 55 percent of all federal fugitives. The agency executes more arrest warrants than all other federal law enforcement agencies combined regarding this duty. The marshals work with other law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels as well as with international agencies in the pursuit of fugitives.

In addition to these duties, the Marshals Service ensures the safety of witnesses who risk their lives testifying for the government in cases involving organized crime and other signi�icant criminal activity. Since 1970, the Marshals Service has protected, relocated, and given new identities to over 7,500 witnesses. The marshals are also responsible for housing over 47,000 federal unsentenced prisoners each day in federal, state, and local jails. Approximately 75 percent of Marshals Service prisoners are housed in 1,300 state, local, and private jails. Thirty percent are housed in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities. In areas where detention space is scarce, the Marshals Service uses Cooperative Agreement Program funds to improve local jail conditions and expand jail capacities in return for guaranteed space for federal prisoners. Finally, one other key duty of the Marshals Service remains the historical duties of serving the federal courts in the criminal process.

The director of the Marshals Service is appointed by the president and supervises the operations of the service throughout the United States and its territories, assisted by the deputy director, eight assistant directors, and a general counsel. The director answers to the attorney general. There are 94 marshals and approximately 3,233 deputy marshals and administrative personnel who operate from 427 of�ice locations in all 94 federal judicial districts in the United States, from Guam, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico and from Alaska to Florida. The Marshals Service is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was created in 1973 under the Nixon administration. Although it was a new agency, the DEA was actually derived from a number of other government agencies that had developed and changed over much of the twentieth century. It began with the passage of the Harrison Act in 1914, which established federal jurisdiction over the supply and use of narcotics. The act was primarily a tax law, but one section made it unlawful for any “unregistered” person to possess heroin, cocaine, opium, morphine, or any of their products. In 1919, the Volstead Act passed, ensuring the enforcement of Prohibition. The Prohibition Unit of the Revenue Bureau had a small unit called the Narcotics Division. When the Narcotics Drugs Import and Export Act of 1922 was passed, it strictly prohibited the importation of narcotic drugs for anything other than medicinal purposes.30 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn30)

In 1930, the Narcotics Division became the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. It grew quickly under the leadership of Harry Anslinger, especially when he identi�ied marijuana as a serious drug problem. As a result, Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. The Boggs Act of 1956 followed, which made any use of heroin illegal. In the 1960s, the quantity of drugs seized in the United States and overseas increased dramatically. So, in 1963, the President’s Advisory Commission on Narcotic and Drug Abuse recommended numerous revisions to federal drug enforcement efforts. That resulted in the creation of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in 1968. Two years later, in 1970, Congress passed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. This established �ive schedules of drugs that classi�ied controlled substances according to their abuse potential.31 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn31)

In 1973, during the Nixon administration, all drug-related agencies were combined to form the DEA under federal Reorganization Plan Number 2.32 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn32) The DEA became the primary federal agency responsible for the enforcement of federal laws concerning the use, sale, and distribution of narcotics and other controlled substances in the United States. It is also responsible for the investigation of drug seizures by U.S. Customs agents at border points and the regulation of the distribution of legal narcotics and drugs.

The DEA currently has approximately 10,000 staff members, about half of whom are special agents. It has headquarters in New York with agents throughout the country. There are 237 domestic of�ices and 80 foreign of�ices in 58 countries. The DEA helps local and state law enforcement in investigating illegal drug use and carrying out independent surveillance and enforcement activities to control the import of narcotics. It works with foreign governments in cooperative efforts aimed at destroying opium and marijuana crops and reducing the availability of narcotics. It tries to in�iltrate drug rings and simulates buying narcotics in order to arrest drug dealers. It maintains regional laboratories to test seized drugs so that accurate records and measures can be presented at trials. The DEA’s Of�ice of Intelligence helps coordinate information and enforcement activities with local, state, and foreign governments. It also has a narcotics intelligence system that collects, analyzes, and disseminates data. It recently began sharing information with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in regard to the connection between terrorists using the illegal drug trade to fund its activities.

The DEA investigates major narcotic violators who operate at interstate and international levels. It is responsible for the seizure and forfeiture of assets derived from, traceable to, or intended to be used for illicit drug traf�icking; enforcement of regulations governing the legal manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances; management of a national narcotics intelligence system; coordination with federal, state, and local law enforcement; cooperation with counterpart agencies abroad; and training, scienti�ic research, and information exchange in support of drug traf�ic prevention and control.

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) was originally part of the Internal Revenue Service but is now part of the Department of the Treasury.33 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn33) It was originally created to enforce the ban on alcohol mandated under the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and it is most well known for battling bootleggers and gamblers during Prohibition. When Prohibition was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, the suppression of the illegal manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages was less important. President Franklin D. Roosevelt folded many of these duties under the Alcohol Tax Unit within the Internal Revenue Service in 1933. The next year, with the passage of the �irst federal �irearms laws, the Alcohol Tax Unit picked up the duty of enforcing these laws. This would remain the case until 1968, when duties would be shifted to the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, which would become an independent bureau 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

Effective January 24, 2003, the ATF was transferred under the Homeland Security Act to the Department of Justice. The law enforcement functions of ATF under the Department of the Treasury were transferred to the Department of Justice. The tax and trade functions of ATF will remain in the Treasury Department with the new Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. In addition, the agency’s name was changed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to re�lect its new mission in the Department of Justice.34 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn34) The ATF currently has nearly 2,400 agents and helps control the sales of untaxed liquor and cigarettes. To the surprise of many, the agency still does seize illegal stills on occasion. The primary focus of the ATF, however, is on enforcing federal �irearms laws. It has jurisdiction over the illegal sales, importation, and criminal misuse of �irearms and explosives. It created the National Firearms Tracing Center, which processes hundreds of thousands of trace requests annually. The ATF issues federal �irearm licenses and permits for the import and export of �irearms.

Key Department of Homeland Security Law Enforcement Agencies

U. S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) under the Department of Homeland Security was formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).35 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn35) With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the INS, which included the Border Patrol, was divided into two parts. The �irst part, under the USCIS, is responsible for overseeing the admission and naturalization process of aliens. The second part, the enforcement elements of the INS and speci�ically the Border Patrol, was merged with the responsibilities of the U.S. Customs Service and also placed under the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, one element handles the processing of aliens, whereas the other element (see the next section) handles the enforcement. The USCIS has approximately 18,000 employees.

U. S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is part of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for guarding points of entry into the United States and preventing the smuggling of contraband into (or out of ) the country.36 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn36) It ensures that taxes and tariffs are paid on imported goods and helps control the �low of narcotics into the country. It is also authorized to conduct investigations of aliens who are residing illegally in the United States or who have engaged in activities prohibited by law and to investigate people who attempt to illegally import aliens into the country. The U.S. Customs was originally part of the Department of the Treasury, but after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, it was moved under this new agency and renamed U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The other agency with which it was combined was the Border Patrol, a uniformed enforcement division that was originally established in 1924 and served as part of the INS. It too was moved under the Department of Homeland Security and integrated with U.S. Customs. Border Patrol agents, now working together with members of Customs, are responsible for patrolling over 8,000 miles of international borders to prevent illegal entry of aliens into the United States. There are approximately 18,000 agents working this speci�ic duty, and they make approximately 1.5 million arrests each year along the border with Mexico.

U. S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency is the largest investigative agency in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with over 19,000 employees. Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE’s mission is to enforce immigration and customs laws. The agencies that were either moved entirely or merged in part into ICE included the investigative and intelligence resources of the United States Customs Service, the criminal investigation resources of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the United States Federal Protective Service. The Federal Protective Service was transferred from ICE to the National Protection and Programs Directorate effective October 28, 2009.

U. S. SECRET SERVICE The U.S. Secret Service was originally created by Congress in 1865 to investigate and enforce the laws against counterfeiting. However, after President McKinley was assassinated in 1901, protecting the safety of the president became its primary purpose. Because it was originally created to investigate counterfeiting, it was placed under the Department of the Treasury, where it had remained for over 125 years. Like many other agencies, it too was moved under the Department of Homeland Security with the reorganization of many government agencies.37 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn37) Despite these changes, however, its duties and functions have remained the same. The Secret Service is mandated by statute and executive order to carry out two signi�icant missions: protection and criminal investigations. The Secret Service protects the president and vice president, their families, heads of state, and other designated individuals; investigates threats against these individuals; protects the White House, the vice president’s residence, foreign missions, and other buildings within Washington, D.C.; and plans and implements security designs for designated “national special security events.” The Secret Service also investigates violations of laws relating to counterfeiting of obligations and securities of the United States; �inancial crimes that include but are not limited to access device fraud, �inancial institution fraud, identity theft, and computer fraud; and computer-based attacks on the nation’s �inancial, banking, and telecommunications infrastructure.

State Police and State Highway Patrols In addition to federal agencies, there are many kinds of state law enforcement agencies that have been established over time. Each has its own jurisdiction and own responsibilities. Since each state can establish its own law enforcement agencies, these vary from state to state. State law enforcement agencies can be state police, highway patrols, and state investigative agencies. State police are agencies that have statewide power over both traf�ic regulation and criminal investigation. Highway patrols have statewide authority to enforce traf�ic regulations and arrest nontraf�ic violators. They provide a variety of different law enforcement services. Some share responsibilities with local police agencies. They can enforce traf�ic laws on the main highways. Their responsibilities vary concerning investigative powers. Some provide crime lab services for local police departments.

State police or highway patrols were created by state legislatures to deal with crime in nonurban areas. Most states found that the invention of automobiles made it impossible for the local sheriffs departments to deal with highly mobile offenders, so state governors and legislatures created plans for police agencies that would be responsible to the state instead of being tied to local politics and the possible corruption found there. Although many states did develop state police agencies, others developed state highway patrols. Some states, such as California, actually developed both and still maintain these two distinct agencies.

One of the �irst state-level agencies formed was the Texas Rangers in 1835 (before Texas became a state). The Texas Rangers originally patrolled the Mexican border to protect it against bandits crossing over from Mexico as well as to protect settlers against Indian attacks. Other states followed suit with similar organizations; the Massachusetts State Constables was created in 1865 and the Arizona Rangers in 1901. These, however, were very narrowly de�ined state-level agencies and did not fully re�lect the modern concept of state police. The �irst bona �ide state police agency was the Pennsylvania State Constabulary, created in 1905 in response to the anthracite coal strikes and the often bloody con�licts between labor and management. This was a highly centralized 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 broadly de�ined duties and a quasi-military style of leadership. It became the model for many state police forces, most of which were created over the next 20 years.38 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn38)

Currently, every state but Hawaii has its own police force. There are approximately 80,000 state police employees across the nation.39 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn39) They have jurisdiction over highways and enforce the traf�ic laws of their states. In some states, including New York and Pennsylvania, the state police are also �ire, �ish, and game wardens. In other states, such as Texas and West Virginia, there are special state police agencies that deal with these types of law violations. In Michigan, state police may be required to execute civil process in legal actions to which the state is a party. In Connecticut and Pennsylvania, state police conduct driver’s licensing road tests. Some also carry out training academies for all law enforcement in the state, such as West Virginia, and others provide emergency medical services. Tables 10.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table01) –10. 3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table03) give more information about local law enforcement agencies. Table 10.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table01) shows information on the number of state and local law enforcement agencies; Table 10.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table02) provides information on the educational requirements for those employed in local police departments; and Table 10.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table03) is an analysis of training requirements for new police recruits.

Table 10.1 State and local law enforcement agencies and employees (by type of agency, United States, 2004)

Number of employees

Full time Part time

Type of agency Number of agencies Total Sworn Nonsworn Total Sworn Nonsworn

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 state 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

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, Bulletin NCJ 212749 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, June 2007), p. 2.

Most state police crime laboratories aid local police departments in investigating crime scenes and analyzing evidence. Special services and technical expertise in such areas as bomb-site analysis and homicide investigations may be provided. They can provide accident investigations, conduct public information campaigns about traf�ic safety, and manage accident scenes involving hazardous material. Sometimes, state agencies will help local agencies conduct criminal investigations and make arrests or even investigate organized crime, fraud, narcotics violations, violent crime, arson, and motor vehicle theft.

Table 10.2 Minimum education requirements for new of�icer recruits in local police departments (by size of population served, United States, 2003)

Percentage of agencies requiring a minimum of

Population served

Total with requirements

High school diploma

Some collegea (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10tn2)

Two-year college degree

Four-year college degree

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

Percentage of agencies requiring a minimum of

Population served

Total with requirements

High school diploma

Some collegea (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10tn2)

Two-year college degree

Four-year college degree

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

aNondegree requirements.

Source: Adapted from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available online at www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/) .

Table 10.3 Training requirements for new of�icer recruits in local police departments (by size of population served, United States, 2003)

Average number of hours requireda (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10tn3)

Academy Field

Population served Total State mandated Other required Total State mandated Other Required

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 average number of training hours required exclude departments not requiring training.

Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available online at www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/) .

Sheriffs Departments Sheriffs departments are an interesting agency because of the government structure of counties. Counties exist by decree of the state and have no sovereignty. Therefore, county sheriffs of�ices exist through state authorization, but they work for the county commissions, which are an extension of state government. Some sheriffs departments are large, such as that of Los Angeles County, the largest in the nation, with over 8,000 sheriffs deputies, whereas some rural departments have no full-time of�icers, relying on either part-time of�icers or a mixture of part-time of�icers and the state police.40 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn40) As of 2004, sheriffs departments had an estimated 175,018 sworn personnel serving in 3,067 departments (the same number of counties in the United States).41 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn41)

The sheriff is usually an elected position. This system exists in every state except Rhode Island and Hawaii, where sheriffs are appointed. This means that they must be aware of the public’s perceptions of them, the agency, and crime in their jurisdiction because of their concern regarding reelection. Because they are elected of�icials, they are directly involved in partisan politics in ways that municipal police chiefs 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 was often the only legal authority in the territories. Today, the responsibilities of the sheriff depend largely on the size of the agency and the jurisdiction. Sheriffs can perform law enforcement duties, including serving civil process papers (summonses and court orders), patrol, traf�ic enforcement, and both accident and criminal investigations. The sheriff has extensive civil law authority and can make civil arrests (can detain people who have not committed any serious crime but may be a threat to public order or to themselves, such as the mentally ill) and can also provide court security, operate county jails, and investigate crimes. In some jurisdictions, the sheriff also acts as coroner, tax collector, overseer of highways and bridges, custodian of the county treasury, and provider of �ire, animal control, and emergency medical services. Although the duties of the sheriffs departments vary depending on the jurisdiction they serve, there are essentially four models of sheriffs departments: (1) full-service models carry out law enforcement, judicial, and correctional duties; (2) law enforcement models carry out only the law enforcement duty; (3) civil–judicial models handle only court-related duties; and (4) correctional–judicial models handle all the responsibilities except law enforcement.42 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn42)

Municipal Police Departments Local or municipal law enforcement agencies operate at the city and town levels. Most departments (over half ) are small departments with fewer than ten employees, but some departments have many of�icers, such as the New York City Police Department, which has nearly 38,000 sworn of�icers. As of 2004, local police departments across the nation had an estimated 573,152 fulltime employees, including 446,974 sworn personnel.43 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn43) This means that local police agencies represent nearly three-quarters of all law enforcement agencies in the United States, employing nearly two-thirds of sworn of�icers.

Most agencies are required to respond to calls for service, provide patrols, and enforce traf�ic laws. In fact, more than 99 percent of local police departments were responsible for responding to citizen calls for service, providing routine patrol services, and enforcing traf�ic laws. Ninety-one percent, including all but a few of those serving a population of 10,000 or more, were the primary investigating agency for crimes occurring in their jurisdiction. Many also are responsible for enforcing drug laws. About seven in eight local police departments had primary drug enforcement responsibilities. About a third had of�icers assigned full time to drug enforcement units, with over 13,000 of�icers so assigned nationwide. About a third of departments had of�icers assigned to multiagency drug task forces, with a total of more than 6,000 of�icers assigned full time nationwide.

Municipal police are the most important component of American law enforcement. There are far more local police of�icers than state police or federal agents. Most crime that occurs and most crime that is investigated is done so by local police. Hence, municipal police play a complex role in �ighting crime. They have the heaviest responsibility for dealing with serious crime and are asked to provide a wide range of emergency services.

Special Police There are other types of police departments that provide special-purpose services, serving particular government agencies. They include agencies such as transit police (such as the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Transit Police), public housing police, airport police, public school police, university and college campus police, Indian tribal police, and park police. The coroner’s, or medical examiner’s, of�ice is often considered a law enforcement agency because it has the responsibility to investigate crimes. The jurisdiction of these police is usually limited to speci�ic boundaries that may fall within a larger overall jurisdiction. It must be remembered that most of these agencies are real police forces with training and recruitment procedures similar to others. The of�icers have general arrest powers, are certi�ied by their respective states, and participate in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report program. For example, three-fourths of university and college campuses have a bona �ide police department, while the others employ private security. In terms of school district police, many have their own police departments, but others utilize of�icers from local police departments or employ private security. Therefore, one cannot assume that just because the jurisdiction is not a municipal city or town, it does not employ a full-time police department. More information on U.S. Special Police Forces is given in Table 10.4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10table04)

Table 10.4 U. S. special police—tribal police, 2000a (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4#ch10tn4)

Full-time sworn personnel

Agency name and location of administrative headquarters Total

Per 1,000

residents

Navajo Nation Department of Law Enforcement (AZ)

321 2

Tohono O’Odham Tribal Police Department (AZ)

76 4

Seminole Department of Law Enforcement (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 sworn personnel

Agency name and location of administrative headquarters Total

Per 1,000

residents

Gila River Indian Community Law Enforcement (AZ)

58 4

Oglala Sioux Tribal Police Department (SD)

58 1

Cheyenne River Tribal Police Department (SD)

53 5

Salt River Tribal Police Department (AZ)

51 8

Choctaw Law Enforcement Services (MS)

38 5

Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Police Department (MI)

37 36

White Mountain Apache Tribal Police Department (AZ)

36 3

Rosebud Sioux Tribal Law Enforcement (SD)

35 2

Oneida Indian Nation Police (NY)

33 17 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec4/book

Warm Springs Tribal Police Department (OR)

33 9

Colorado River Tribal Police Department (AZ)

32 16

Assiniboine and Sioux (Ft. Peck) Tribal 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 sworn personnel

Agency name and location of administrative headquarters Total

Per 1,000

residents

Yakima Tribal Police Department (WA)

31 2

Cherokee Police Department (NC)

30 4

Miccosukee Tribal Police Department (FL)

30 51

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians Police Department (ND)

26 2

San Carlos Tribal Police Department (AZ)

25 2

aNumber and rate (per 1,000 residents and per 100 square miles) of full-time sworn personnel, service population, and reservation land area in the twentieth-largest tribally operated law enforcement agencies.

bReservation land consists of less than one square mile.

Source: Adapted from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available online at www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t157.pdf (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t157.pdf) .

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 INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS Traditionally in American policing, the only issue of intergovernmental relationships had to do with jurisdiction. As more and more police departments were added in the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the primary issue regarding how various agencies interacted tended to deal with determining the proper jurisdiction responsible for a crime. Early on, this tended to be among local jurisdictions, such as cities and towns or cities and counties. As the number of states creating state police agencies increased in the 1910s and 1920s, the problem over jurisdiction began to evolve to determine when a crime was in the jurisdiction and responsibility of a city or county and when it was within the jurisdiction of the state police. By the 1970s, the issue had become even more complex, as the number of federal agencies increased, as did the number of special police agencies throughout the United States. It was also at this time that the role of the federal government in �ighting crime was heavily questioned. As crime rates rose in the 1960s and 1970s and local police were having a dif�icult time dealing with the problem, people began looking to the federal government to do something about the problem of crime. The question was, How could government respond, and how should they respond?

Federal Support The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, in its report The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, argued that crime was largely the responsibility of the state and local governments.44 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn44) However, it did envision a role for the federal government in addressing the problem of crime. It stated that the federal government has the direct responsibility for enforcing major criminal statutes, especially in the areas of kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting, and tax evasion. The commission also stated that the federal government for years had provided information, advice, and training to state and local law enforcement and that it should continue to do so. Finally, it noted that it could bring the vast resources of the federal government to bear on the problems of crime in order to enhance state and local law enforcement. The commission essentially argued that the federal government should and does play a role in crime control.

Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger have articulated that the federal role in crime control really falls into three categories of anticrime strategies. The �irst is policymaking, where the “federal government can regulate a virtually unlimited range of activities believed to contribute to street crime (assault, rape, robbery, burglary, drug dealing, murder) and white-collar crime (fraud, deceptive business practices, illegal �inancial transactions).”45 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn45) In fact, Congress has, since the 1970s, engaged more heavily in the passage of federal criminal laws. One report found that of “all federal crimes enacted since 1865, over forty percent have been created since 1970,”46 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn46) demonstrating that the federal government has become more engaged in crime control policy over the past 40 years. Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger further explain that “only the federal government can regulate such things as immigration �lows, interstate commerce, and global corporate activities,”47 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn47) giving them exclusive rights to regulate crime in regard to certain types of criminal behavior. This is largely how the creation of so many federal law enforcement agencies in the twentieth century came about: Congress passing laws that then needed speci�ic agencies to enforce. Still further, under the concept of policymaking, the federal government has the capability of establishing model policies and through its policymaking capabilities can encourage (through threat or attractive grants) state and local agencies to come into compliance with its policies. For example, when agencies adhere to the federal reporting mechanisms regarding the updates from the Uniform Crime Reports to the National Incident Based Reporting System (a “model policy” for reporting crime rates), they are given grants to assist them in the implementation process.

The second means is policy administration. In this case, “the federal government can declare an undesirable activity a federal crime, thereby bringing the full force of federal law enforcement (the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, even the U.S. military in overseas drug interdiction efforts), prosecution (U.S. Attorneys), and adjudication (literally ‘making a federal case’ before a federal court) to bear on the activity.”48 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn48) This is essentially an extension of the policymaking function of government. Once Congress passes a federal criminal law, it gives the administration the capability of enforcing that speci�ic law and bringing the vast resources of the federal government to bear.

The third means of federal intervention in crime is through policy funding. As Dilulio, Smith, and Saiger explain, “The federal government can provide human, �inancial, and informational resources (technical experts or advisers, money, studies and statistics that compare crime trends across many jurisdictions) and is in a unique position to coordinate (or legally mandate) interjurisdictional anticrime plans.”49 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn49) This is the area where the federal government has the most power to in�luence the criminal justice system in the United States. When the federal government channels money to state and local governments, it has the most impact on the intergovernmental relations between these three levels of government. Examples of this abound, but the three major initiatives over the past 40 years have been the grants for police under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 that were delivered by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the Edward Bryne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program block grants of the 1980s and 1990s, and the COPS grants of the 1990s that resulted from the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which created COPS to deliver these grants to state and local agencies (see Chapter 1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch01#ch01) ). Each of these grants has had a profound impact not only on the departments receiving the grants but also on how policing is done overall. Table 10.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec5#ch10table05) shows grant allocations to states under the Byrne Grant Program.

State Support The state’s role in intergovernmental relations has become more complex as well. While the federal system dictates two levels of government, national and state, the state governments also can create or allow for the creation of independent (cities and towns) and dependent (counties) government police agencies. So, while state governments set the standards for all law enforcement agencies in their states, they do not have complete control over the functioning of these agencies. States can and do set standards for law enforcement certi�ication, training standards, and recerti�ication and can establish state-level policies and procedures that local law enforcement is required to follow. However, it is often the case that local law enforcement, through its actions and policies, can end up dictating state-level policy. In a sense, the state acts as a coordinator between the many local agencies within the state as well as acting as a channel for many of the federal initiatives. This can be grant money received from the federal government (e.g., the Bryne grants) or information being forwarded from local agencies to the national government (e.g., the Uniform Crime Reports).

Local Support This then leaves the role of the local law enforcement agencies as questionable in regard to their speci�ic role in the intergovernmental relationship. In other words, it would seem that they are merely the ones that receive bene�its, dictates, or mandates and are simply the agencies that are responsible for executing 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 proving grounds for federal initiatives, intended or unintended, that will eventually in�luence the federal model policies. In many cases, the federal government will make available grants for local agencies to attempt new programs aimed at improving police ef�iciency, lowering crime rates, or improving public satisfaction with the police. If these programs are found effective, they often become the model policies that the federal government advocates. In other cases, when an agency, without federal assistance, implements a program that is successful, the federal government may advocate this as the policy of the federal government and will support it through policy funding, as was seen under the COPS grants for local law enforcement to implement the tenets of community policing.

Table 10.5 Program funds allocation of Edward Bryne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance (by jurisdiction, �iscal year 2003)

Jurisdiction Funds allocated Percentage to be passed through to local jurisdictions

Alabama $ 7,659,952 60. 10

Alaska 2,189,951 24. 14

Arizona 9,039,952 61. 86

Arkansas 5,130,952 52. 84

California 51,258,953 67. 34

Colorado 7,687,952 59. 56

Connecticut 6,198,952 38. 25

Delaware 2,422,951 27. 15

District of Columbia 2,085,951 100. 00

Florida 25,063,953 64. 85

Georgia 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

Iowa 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

Maryland 9,042,952 43. 52

Massachusetts 10,400,364 36. 52

Michigan 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 allocated Percentage to be passed through to local jurisdictions

New Hampshire $ 3,087,951 54. 68

New Jersey 13,500,953 59. 23

New Mexico 3,870,589 49. 29

New York 28,542,953 65. 16

North Carolina 13,116,953 42. 41

North Dakota 2,175,951 58. 68

Ohio 17,487,589 64. 06

Oklahoma 6,245,952 45. 79

Oregon 6,285,952 49. 95

Pennsylvania 18,831,953 56. 04

Rhode Island 2,795,951 41. 05

South Carolina 7,119,952 47. 05

South Dakota 2,356,951 53. 80

Tennessee 9,524,952 60. 11

Texas 32,275,953 60. 42

Utah 4,569,952 52. 34

Vermont 2,150,951 29. 32

Virginia 12,814,953 35. 11

Washington 9,911,953 63. 72

West Virginia 3,837,951 50. 13

Wisconsin 9,018,952 61. 51

Wyoming 1,982,951 61. 59

Puerto 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

Source: Adapted from Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available online at www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t114.pdf (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t114.pdf) .

Many have equated intergovernmental relations with a white picket fence where the lateral slats are the various levels of government and the vertical posts are the different agencies that run through them. This is a depiction that may begin to help one understand intergovernmental relations, but it is perhaps far too simplistic in terms of understanding the public policy of crime and criminal justice in America. The issues of jurisdiction, policymaking, policy administration, and policy funding create an integral web of relations between the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, but there is no seamless agency that operates at all three levels. Rather, a better depiction may actually be a mosaic, for there are thousands of different agencies that somehow all come together, acting in concert, to create a picture that is our criminal justice system.

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 of�icers, police chiefs, and, more speci�ically, police organizations are engaged in the public policy process on a daily basis. The crime problems that police address on the streets in their cities, towns, and counties are the types of problems that public policymakers attempt to address in the passage of crime legislation. When police departments implement a particular program within their jurisdiction, they are implementing a program most likely devised as part of the implementation of a larger crime policy. And the outcomes of these programs and the new problems that arise often feed back into the public policy process, thus making the police a continual part of the policy cycle.

Police as Policymakers Welsh and Harris provide a good overview of how police agencies become involved in the policy process.50 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn50) They discuss the differences between policy, programs, and projects. They describe a policy as “a rule or set of rules or guidelines for how to make a decision”; a program as “a set of services aimed at achieving speci�ic goals and objectives within speci�ied individuals, groups, organizations, or communities”; and a project as “a time-limited set of services provided to particular individuals, groups, organizations or communities, usually focused on a single need, problem or issue.”51 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn51) So, for example, the policy could be the federal government’s “war on drugs” and the various anti—drug abuse legislation it has passed. The program could be a series of crackdowns on the open-air drug markets found in their jurisdiction, while the project may simply be a police of�icer speaking at a school event about the dangers of drugs. The underlying problem in this case is drug abuse, but each of these—policies, programs, and projects—is working toward the same policy objective, namely, to reduce drug abuse in American society. When police of�icers engage in these programs or perform these projects, they are participating in the policy process.

In fact, Welsh and Harris go even further and describe the policy development of criminal justice agencies as consisting of its own policy cycle. The process includes analyzing the problem, setting goals and objectives, designing the program or policy, developing an action plan, developing a plan for monitoring the program, developing a plan for evaluating the outcomes, and �inally initiating the policy or program.52 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn52) This process is very similar to the public policy process, but this process operates at the micro (local) level, while the public policy process described in this text operates at the macro (national and state) level. However, the two are highly related, for, as discussed in terms of intergovernmental relations, it is often the case that a local program that achieves some degree of success may become the policy solution to a national problem and thus become part of the national public policy process. Or, conversely, a national public policy may see the implementation process as providing the police the necessary funds to implement a federal government program.

Police Issues There are numerous examples of how either crime- or police-related issues can often become part of the larger public policy process. For example, police departments continually review their use-of-force policies and update these on the basis of changes in the law, court decisions, and new advances in technology. When they experience a series of use-of-force incidents in their agencies, the process that Welsh and Harris describe will often be invoked, with the goal of perhaps reducing the number of incidents or reducing the harm caused by these incidents. In Houston, Texas, for example, the police department had a number of use-of-force incidents between 2000 and 2004. In 2004, the newly appointed police chief requested a review of these incidents, and the solution to the problem was the implementation of Taser weapons to be issued to all of�icers. This is a case of the policy process playing out at the local level. One only has to look at the Rodney King situation in 1992 to understand how the issue of police use of force can surface onto the macro public policy process and to trace the impact that this incident had on policing throughout the 1990s.

Other examples of police issues that are part of the public policy process include police pursuits, police use of discretion, and police corruption. A more recent issue that was beginning to surface as perhaps one of the major public policy issues prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks was the issue of racial pro�iling by police. Here the issue was whether police motor vehicle stops were being conducted on the basis of reasonable suspicion or on the basis of racial pro�iling. The amount of attention paid to this issue by the media continued to increase in the late 1990s and early 2000, and many people suggested that the police were biased in who they stopped, searched, ticketed, and arrested. Research that has been conducted on this topic, however, has been extremely weak and wrought with methodological problems and has given mixed results.53 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn53) This helped create the controversy over the issue, but it was largely supplanted with the terrorist attacks. This does not mean that racial pro�iling is still not an issue with which police departments must contend; it simply means that it is no longer one of the major issues on the agenda or one that is being actively considered by the public policy process.

In terms of understanding the issues of policing as being part of the larger public policy process, the debate over the proper method of police deployment speaks best to how police organizations are part of the public policy process. Over the past 30 years, the proper deployment of the police has become a topic of policy debate and has seen some of the most sweeping legislation and policy changes passed at the national, state, and local levels. It is to these particular methods of police deployment that we now turn.

Deployment of the Police Policing in the twentieth century was largely taken for granted until the early 1970s. What has become known as traditional policing made a number of assumptions in regard to the way the police were deployed. It assumed that police of�icers riding around on patrol deterred crimes; that when crimes did occur, if the police could arrive on scene faster, the crimes would usually be solved; and that if no suspects were taken into custody, the detective units would be able to solve the crimes with their investigative skills and technology. No one really questioned these long-held assumptions until the early 1970s. Many of these assumptions were questioned and refuted, and since then policing has been searching for new, innovative ways to deploy its forces in order to provide safer communities and more effective law enforcement agencies. Determining the proper method for deploying police has become part of the public policy process over the past 40 years, as police policy has moved away from “traditional” policing and attempted such policies as community-oriented policing, problem- oriented policing, and zero-tolerance policing. More recently, with the September 11 terrorist attacks, part of the public policy process has been about determining the proper role for local police in terms of homeland security. All these philosophies and methods for deploying the police have worked their way through the policy process, but they came largely as a rejection of “traditional” policing in the 1970s. Understanding this is critical to understanding why police deployment has become a public policy issue.

TRADITIONAL 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 often referred to today, was really a part of the professionalization movement in policing as well as advancements in technology that built up throughout the early twentieth century. The goal among the early reformers was to disengage policing from politics and to develop a means to hold police more accountable. To do this, many of the social services offered by the police were minimized while the aspects of law enforcement were emphasized. In addition, police were seen as having the capability of deterring crime through their presence and restoring order through the power of arrest. Since it was the police that had the knowledge and training, the assistance of the public was minimized in importance, and all that was needed from them was, in the words of Dragnet’s Joe Friday, “just the facts.”

As a result of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, funding was allocated for improving policing in the wake of the rise in crime rates throughout the 1960s. The crime bill also allocated funding for research into policing, and such research institutes as the Police Foundation and the Rand Corporation received funding to conduct research in policing. The research �indings that came out of this funding ended up challenging the assumptions that had long been held in policing, namely, that random patrols deter crime, that faster responses to crime solve more crimes, and that police detective training and technology solve more crimes.

The effectiveness of policing styles on crime was �irst tested in a research study in Kansas City, Missouri, by the Police Foundation. Published in 1974, the study looked at �ifteen separate police beats that were divided into three groups.54 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn54) The �irst group, a control group, retained normal police patrol (one car per beat); the second was a “proactive” response using two or three times the normal number of patrol of�icers; and the third was “reactive” in that its preventive patrol was eliminated and police responded only when summoned by citizens to the scene of a crime (police vehicles assigned to these beats entered them only in response to a call for service). The citizens living in the areas were not told of the experiment.

The preventive patrol experiment measured the impact of the different levels of patrol on criminal activity and community perceptions and attitudes. In addition, the study looked at police of�icer behavior and police department practices. Moreover, it looked at police response time, arrest practices, police of�icer use of time, and of�icer attitudes. The study found that variations in the level of patrol had no statistically signi�icant effect on either criminal activity or citizen feelings of safety. In fact, the variations had little effect on residential or business burglaries, motor vehicle thefts, larcenies involving auto accessories, robberies, vandalism, or other criminal behavior. It found that citizens’ fear of crime was not signi�icantly affected by changes in the level of patrol and that citizen attitudes toward police were not signi�icantly affected by the level of patrol. The variations had little effect on citizens’ satisfaction with police or their fear of future criminal behavior. On the whole, the study suggested that the number of patrol cars on the street and their visibility to citizens has little effect on the crime rate. The different social interactions that police of�icers have with citizens, based on the type of policing, is found in Table 10.6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec6#ch10table06) .

Table 10.6 Comparisons of social interactions and structural components of various forms of policing

Social interaction or structural dimension Traditional policing Community policing Problem-oriented policing Zero-tolerance policing

Focus of policing Law enforcement Community building through crime prevention

Law, order, and fear problems Order problems

Forms of intervention Reactive, based on criminal law

Proactive, on criminal, civil, and administrative law

Mixed, on criminal, civil, and administrative law

Proactive, uses criminal, civil, and administrative law

Range of police activity

Narrow, crime focused Broad, crime, order, fear, and quality-of-life focused

Narrow to broad—problem focused Narrow, location and behavior focused

Level of discretion at line level

High and unaccountable

High and accountable to the community and local commanders

High and accountable primarily to the police administration

Low but primarily accountable to the police administration

Focus of police culture

Inward, rejecting community

Outward, building partnerships Mixed, depending on problem, but analysis focused

Inward focused on the target problem

Locus of decision making

Police directed, minimized the involvement of others

Community—police coproduction, joint responsibility and assessment

Varied, police identify problems but with community involvement/action

Police directed, some linkages to other agencies where necessary

Communication �low Downward from police to community

Horizontal between police and community

Horizontal between police and community

Downward from police to community

Range of community involvement

Low and passive High and active Mixed depending on problem set Low and passive

Linkage with other agencies

Poor and intermittent Participative and integrative in the overarching process

Participative and integrative depending on the problem set

Moderate and intermittent

Type of organization and command focus

Centralized command and control

Decentralized with community linkage

Decentralized with local command accountability to central administration

Centralized or decentralized but internal focus

Implications for organizational change/development

Few, static organization fending off the environment

Many, dynamic organization focused on the environment and environmental interactions

Varied, focused on problem resolution but with import for organization and intelligence support

Few, limited interventions focused on target problems, using many 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 interaction or structural dimension Traditional policing Community policing Problem-oriented policing Zero-tolerance policing

Measurement of success

Arrest and crime rates, particularly serious Part I crimes

Varied, crime, calls for service, fear reduction, use of public

Varied, problems solved, minimized, displaced

Arrests, �ield stops, activity location speci�ic

Source: J. R. Greene, “Community Policing in America: Changing the Nature, Structure, and Function of Police,” in Policies, Processes, and Decisions in the Criminal Justice System, vol. 3 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000), p. 311.

Although the study was criticized for its research design, it was a watershed event in American policing. It not only tested the effectiveness of patrol but at the same time challenged traditional assumptions about police preventive patrol. A similar Police Foundation study was conducted later in 1978 and 1979 on foot patrol in the Newark Foot Patrol Experiment.55 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn55) In this study, some foot patrol beats received the same number of foot patrol of�icers, some received more, and others were the control beats with foot patrol of�icers responding only on the basis of calls for service. The experiment found that additional foot patrol did not reduce serious crime, but the different levels of police staf�ing did have a signi�icant effect on citizen attitudes toward the police. Citizens were aware of the different levels of foot patrol, and residents in beats with added foot patrol of�icers consistently saw crime problems diminish in their neighborhoods. Like the Kansas City experiment, however, foot patrol staf�ing levels were not associated with the reduction of crime, an assumption dating back to the earliest days of policing.

Another study conducted by the Rand Corporation in the 1970s tested the long-held police assumption that rapid response to the report of a crime helped increase the clearance of crimes.56 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn56) A good portion of police expenditures in the post—World War II era were to enhance the capabilities of the police to respond faster to reports of crime. Faster cars, more patrol cars, and the implementation of 911 were all aimed at speeding up response time. The Rand Corporation study, also in Kansas City, found that in the majority of cases (over 75 %), it would not matter how fast the police responded to a crime scene because of the long delay in citizens’ reporting crimes to the police, on average 40 minutes. And although the researchers found that approximately 25 percent of all reported serious crimes could have increased the ability of the police to make an arrest, the reality was that they were able to do so in only less than 3 percent of all reported serious crimes. Therefore, another long-held assumption in policing was dispelled by research in the 1970s.

Finally, the Rand Corporation conducted another study in the mid-1970s that looked at the criminal investigation process to determine how effective it was in solving crimes.57 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn57) The researchers looked at the investigation process and the technology being applied at the time in order to determine how effective, primarily through arrest and clearance rates, criminal investigations were. The researchers looked at what investigators do during the work hours, how they collected and processed evidence, how they prepared their cases for prosecution, and what type of proactive measures they used. Although there were many �indings from this study, the primary �inding was largely a refutation of another long- held assumption, namely, that police detectives’ knowledge and skills, as well as the latest technology, solved cases. What the researchers found was that the detectives’ skills and technology accounted for a small portion of cases solved and that what really solved most crimes were citizens, either witnesses, victims, or friends and relatives of either, coming forward to help the police.

Each of these studies in its own right challenged assumptions that had existed in policing for well over four decades. Random patrols do not deter crime, rapid response does not increase the number of suspects arrested or cases cleared, and highly skilled detectives and technology do not solve most crimes. The resulting effect of these three studies was that municipalities, facing �iscal constraints in the 1970s, began to reduce the number of police of�icers on staff. Police emphasis on rapid response continued, but it was tied largely to the 911 emergency response system. And the resources that detectives received were somewhat diminished also because of �iscal constraints. All this was counterintuitive because cutting police assumed that police focused only on crime control and did not provide other services. In addition, with the advent of 911, calls for service actually began to rise signi�icantly during this same time period, necessitating more police, not fewer. Finally, detectives and technology are still an integral part of policing and are critical to putting victim and witness statements to use in a criminal investigation.

The larger impact that these studies had on the public policy process is that they left many questioning what works in policing. Since the methods of policing that had been employed for many decades were found ineffective, the solution was to try to determine how best to deploy the police to overcome these �indings. The resulting impact was a movement away from “traditional policing” in the 1980s and 1990s to new methods of police deployment. The three main policies that were developed, largely from grassroots efforts, were community-oriented policing, problem-oriented policing, and zero-tolerance policing.

COMMUNITY-ORIENTED POLICING One of the �irst innovative methods to come out of the negative criticism of traditional policing in the 1970s was community-oriented policing. Community policing is aimed at entirely altering the basic philosophy of twentieth-century policing by improving the relationship between the police and the public in order for the police and local neighborhoods to work together to address the problems of crime and disorder. The police become partners with the community to create strategies to address the causes of crime and reduce the fear of crime by increasing the interaction and cooperation between local police and the citizens. The goals are to reduce and prevent crime, to increase feelings of safety among residents and reduce fears of crime, to help develop closer ties to the community, and to engage residents in a joint effort to prevent crime.

The roots of community policing can be traced to Wilson and Kelling’s “broken windows” theory, published in 1982 as a means of dealing with the question of what works in policing and how best to deploy the police.58 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn58) The authors acknowledged the importance of community in local crime control. They said that neighborhood disorder creates fear. In other words, neighborhood areas that are �illed with street people, youth gangs, prostitutes, and the mentally disturbed are the ones most likely to maintain a high degree of crime. Some neighborhoods, particularly those in distress, give out crime-promoting signals. A neighborhood �illed with deteriorating housing, unrepaired broken windows, potholes, abandoned vehicles, and other untended disorderly behavior gives out those crime-promoting signals. It tells the criminals that no one cares about this particular neighborhood. Honest citizens then live in fear in those areas, and predatory criminals are attracted to the area, with honest citizens becoming victims.

To reduce crime and the fear of crime, according to Wilson and Kelling, police need citizens’ cooperation, support, and assistance. To do this, police need to have closer contact with the people they serve and rely less on police cars, which serve only to remove an of�icer from the community and alienate people. These citizens are potential sources of information to help people. To elicit the help of communities, the police not only must work alongside them as coproducers in the �ight against crime but also must be willing to share power with the citizens. Under community policing, power is shared between 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 between citizens and law enforcement of�icials. To be effective, citizens must actively participate with the police to �ight crime and disorder. Police departments must focus on the problems of the community rather than the needs of the police departments.

The move toward community policing began in the early 1980s with a few experiments and local attempts at programs, demonstration projects, and subtle changes in policing practices aimed at implementing the broken windows theory.59 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn59) Eventually, by the late 1980s, more and more police departments began to move toward adopting the community policing methods within their agencies, and community policing rapidly spread throughout the United States. As agencies began to see much success with this grassroots method of policing, it caught the attention of national policymakers in the Clinton administration, and eventually community policing would become a national public policy (see Chapter 14 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch14#ch14) ).

PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING Another method for more effective police deployment that came out of the late-1970s questioning of police practices is the concept of problem-oriented policing. Herman Goldstein, in an article published in 1979, advocated that police should focus on the ends rather than the means. He found that too often police became so obsessed with the procedures of policing that they forget the ultimate goal of reducing or eliminating crime and disorder. Goldstein argued that when it came to calls for service, police acted as if the call had no history and no future and that it was not related to any other problems the police department encountered. Police of�icers arrived on scene, dealt with the situation, and then left as if the problem was resolved. He argued that the symptoms of the problem were resolved for the moment but that the underlying problem remained. He also argued that often problems are related to one another, but because police are so �ixated on the means, they fail to analyze the ends in policing. Thus, Goldstein advocated that police apply a simple problem-solving method to their work.

The article was more theoretical than practical, but it caught the attention of two researchers, Spelman and Eck, who attempted to take Goldstein’s method and put it into practice. After consulting with Goldstein, they devised the SARA model for policing.60 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn60) SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment) is a four-step problem-solving model. The �irst stage, scanning, tells of�icers to scan their environment for problems and try to see if various problems are related. For example, one city block may face the separate problems of burglaries, drug dealing, and prostitution. Responding to each of these crimes separately can be time- consuming and would require different police tactics. However, if the crimes were linked, one solution may resolve all three problems.

Once a problem is recognized and narrowly de�ined, the next step is to analyze the problem. In the analysis stage, the function is to gather as much information about the problem as possible. This may include police reports, talking with other of�icers, talking with the community, and analyzing the number of calls for service. Data collection helps the of�icer gain a fuller understanding of the problems, perhaps �inding, as in the case mentioned previously, that all the burglaries are occurring in a speci�ic apartment complex, all the drug dealers arrested are from a nearby neighborhood, and the prostitutes are nearly always the same ones and all drug addicted. As part of this step, police can gain a better understanding of the problems they face and how best to deal with them.

This leads to the third step in the SARA model: response. Of�icers use the data collected from the previous stage to help them develop possible responses to reduce or eliminate the problem. Once they have a list of options, they select the most viable option and implement it. For example, in the previously described scenario, if the drug addicts are committing burglaries to buy the drugs and prostitutes are present because of the dealers and users, then getting rid of the drug dealers may reduce the problems associated with all three crimes.

Finally, the fourth step of the SARA model calls for an assessment of the response. The key to this step is to determine if the response had any impact on the problem. If it did, then continuation of the response may be warranted. If it did not, then selecting and implementing another response may be necessary.

Problem-oriented policing, especially the SARA model, became a successful method of policing, whether implemented alone or as part of a larger community- oriented policing program. In its initial testing in Newport News, Virginia, in the early 1980s, it was found to successfully resolve a number of problems. The model then began to spread across the United States in the late 1980s and 1990s, and numerous police departments began requiring their of�icers to work on problem-oriented policing projects. Problem-oriented policing has been deemed by many to be a very successful method of policing.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICING The other method of policing that was created in the mid-1980s came to be known as zero-tolerance policing. This method of policing became known widely in its implementation in New York City under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani beginning in the early 1990s. However, the concepts for zero-tolerance policing were also derived from the Wilson and Kelling article “Broken Windows.”61 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn61) While community-oriented policing focuses on the aspect of the article that stated that the police and community needed to work together to address crime and disorder, the zero-tolerance method focuses on the article’s belief that minor crimes and disorder are what lead to more serious crime. Hence, police should enforce the minor crimes and disorder that are typically ignored, especially in large urban areas, in order to reduce serious crime. By removing the signs of disorder, those things that promote other crimes, police help send the signal that the neighborhood is not going to tolerate crime and disorder, thus restoring order and allowing law-abiding citizens to feel safe and to “take back their neighborhoods” from the criminals.

Zero-tolerance policing advocates an aggressive means of law enforcement in order to stop and deter future crime. One of the reasons for this, it is argued, is that in those neighborhoods that have already decayed and are experiencing distress, it will take the assistance of the police to address the problem of crime and disorder because citizens’ level of fear is already high and they will be unwilling or unable to help. In addition, these types of neighborhoods tend to be highly transient and lack the communal ties and civic organizations that can assist in restoring order. Moreover, the goal of zero-tolerance policing is to focus on the “hot spots” of crime and disorder, those locations that tend to exhibit problems based on time, location, and individuals. By employing “crackdowns” on these certain types of crimes, locations, and violators, police can alleviate or eliminate these types of minor crimes and disorders, thus preventing the promotion of more serious crimes. Examples include the crackdowns on graf�iti in the New York subways, the open-air drug markets in Washington, D.C., and even the targeting of the infamous “squeegeemen” on the street corners of New York City.

The success of zero-tolerance policing has been mixed, and it has been a highly controversial method of policing. Although New York City Mayor Giuliani favored the method and crime rates did fall dramatically throughout his tenure as mayor, crime rates were falling throughout the United States overall. There are many advocates for zero-tolerance policing,62 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn62) and there have been many advocates against this method of policing.63 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Marion.3980.17.1/sections/ch10lev1sec7#ch10cn63) While it is too soon to tell the true success of these police methods and more research is needed, zero-tolerance policing has assuredly been a controversial police policy over the past decade.

HOMELAND SECURITY

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-oriented policing, and zero-tolerance policing all came largely as a result of the challenges to traditional policing issued in the 1970s. More recently, however, a new concept of policing is beginning to unfold, and that is the role of policing in homeland security. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the federal government has shifted to a policy of homeland security, and part of that has incorporated local �ire�ighters and local police agencies. What is currently at issue is not so much determining if local police are going to play a role in this new public policy but rather what role they can play. Much confusion abounds in terms of what homeland security means: is it simply being more watchful for suspicious activities, is it intelligence gathering on the part of patrol of�icers, or is it standing guard at possible terrorist targets in their jurisdictions? And, beyond determining what role the police will play in homeland security, the natural extension of this is to ask who will pay. As the public policy of homeland security is clearly a national policy issue, it would seem that the policy will be an intergovernmental one driven by the presidential administration. This is becoming evident in the police incorporation of the National Management Framework’s (NMF) centerpiece, the Incident Command System (ICS), into its policies and procedures. As police of�icers are commonly the �irst responders in an incident and for the fact that the incident command system allows for a management structure to respond to man-made and natural disasters, this is fast becoming the most common means of police of�icers engaging in Homeland Security. ICS allows for a multi-police agency response to major incidents, and when the response necessitates other areas of expertise (e.g., �ire, hospital, schools, etc.), incident command allows for the incorporation of these agencies into what is known as a uni�ied command—one command structure but one composed of multiple agencies and jurisdiction representatives.

2/13/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Marion.3980.17.1?sections=cover,ch10,ch10lev1sec1,ch10lev1sec2,ch10lev1sec3,ch10lev1sec4,ch10lev1sec5,ch… 28/29

CONCLUSION

The role of the police in our society is a complex mosaic of agencies (federal, state, and local) and roles (law enforcement, services, and order maintenance) that have built up over the course of America’s history. The speci�ic history of law enforcement in this country provides us with some understanding of where we are in terms of providing police protection today. While there are many types of policing, all provide several basic functions, such as crime prevention, criminal investigations, and various services. These functions are provided by law enforcement on the federal, state, and local levels. All these agencies are in�luenced by politics and, in turn, affect politics. In the same right, all these agencies are in�luenced by the public policy process and, in turn, affect the public policy process.

Notes 1. H. Goldstein, Policing a Free Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1977). 2. J. Q. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior (New York: Atheneum, 1973), p. 21. 3. M. Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980). 4. P. K. Manning and J. Van Maanen, Policing: A View from the Street (Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear, 1978). 5. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior. 6. M. H. Moore, “Police Leadership: The Impossible Dream?” in Impossible Jobs in Public Management, ed. E. C. Hargrove and J. C. Glidewell (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,

1990), pp. 72–102. 7. N. M. Marion, Criminal Justice in America: The Politics behind the System (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2002). 8. Ibid.; W. M. Oliver and J. F. Hilgenberg, Jr., A History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2006). 9. Oliver and Hilgenberg, A History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America.

10. G. L. Kelling and M. H. Moore, “From Political to Reform to Community: The Evolving Strategy of Police,” in Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality, ed. J. R. Greene and S. D. Mastrofski (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1988).

11. Oliver and Hilgenberg, A History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America. 12. Marion, Criminal Justice in America. 13. Kelling and Moore, “From Political to Reform to Community.” 14. Ibid. 15. W. M. Oliver, Community-Oriented Policing: A Systemic Approach to Policing, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003). 16. Ibid. 17. J. Q. Wilson and G. L. Kelling, “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” Atlantic Monthly 249 (March 1982): 29–38. 18. W. M. Oliver, “The Homeland Security Juggernaut: The End of the Community Policing Era?” Crime and Justice International 20 (79, 2004): 4–10. 19. Oliver and Hilgenberg, A History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America; U.S. Marshals Service home page (2004), available online at

www.usdoj.gov/marshals/history/oldest.htm (http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/history/oldest.htm) . 20. K. Maguire and A. L. Pastore, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available online at www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ (http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/) . 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004), available online at www.�bi.gov/homepage.htm (http://www.�bi.gov/homepage.htm) . 27. Ibid. 28. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2004), available online at www.�bi.gov/aboutus.htm (http://www.�bi.gov/aboutus.htm) . 29. U.S. Marshals Service (2004), available online at www.usdoj.gov/marshals/ (http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/) . 30. Marion, Criminal Justice in America. 31. Ibid. 32. Drug Enforcement Administration (2004), available online at www.usdoj.gov/dea/ (http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/) . 33. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2004), available online at www.atf.gov/ (http://www.atf.gov/) . 34. Ibid. 35. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (2004), available online at http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/index.htm (http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/index.htm) . 36. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (2004), available online at www.customs.gov/ (http://www.customs.gov/) . 37. U.S. Secret Service (2004), available online at www.secretservice.gov/ (http://www.secretservice.gov/) . 38. Oliver and Hilgenberg, A History of Crime and Criminal Justice in America. 39. Maguire and Pastore, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid. 42. L. P. Brown, “The Role of the Sheriff,” in The Future of Policing, ed. A. W. Cohn (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1978), pp. 227–28. 43. Maguire and Pastore, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. 44. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (New York: Avon, 1968). 45. J. J. Dilulio, Jr., S. K. Smith, and A. J. Saiger, “The Federal Role in Crime Control,” in Crime, ed. J. Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia (San Francisco: ICS Press, 1995), pp. 445–62. 46. J. A. Strazella, The Federalization of Criminal Law (Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1998), p. 2. 47. Dilulio et al., “The Federal Role in Crime Control.” 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 50. W. N. Welsh and P. W. Harris, Criminal Justice Policy and Planning (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1999). 51. Ibid., pp. 5–6. 52. Ibid. 53. W. J. Chambliss, Power, Politics, and Crime (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 2001); H. M. MacDonald, Are Cops Racist? (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2003). 54. G. L. Kelling et al., The Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment: A Summary Report (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1974). 55. Police Foundation, The Newark Foot Patrol Experiment (Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation, 1981). 56. W. G. Spelman and D. K. Brown, Calling the Police: A Replication of the Citizen Reporting Component of the Kansas City Response Time Analysis (Collingdale, P.A.: Diane

Publishing), pp. iii–xx. 57. J. M. Chaiken, P. W. Greenwood, and J. Petersilia, “The Criminal Investigation Process: A Summary Report,” Policy Analysis 3 (1977): 187–217. 58. Wilson and Kelling, “Broken Windows.” 59. Oliver, Community-Oriented Policing.

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. Eck and W. Spelman, Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). 61. Wilson and Kelling “Broken Windows.” 62. G. L. Kelling and C. M. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows (New York: Free Press, 1996); E. B. Silverman, NYPD Battles Crime (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1999). 63. A. McArdle and T. Erzen, Zero Tolerance: Quality of Life and the New Police Brutality in New York City (New York: New York University Press, 2001).