AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice Chapter 4 - Policing: Purpose and Organization
AJ 50 – Introduction to Administration of Justice
Chapter 4 -
Policing: Purpose and Organization
The Police Mission
What are the main purposes of Police? Enforce Laws Investigate Crimes/Arrest Offenders Prevent Crime Keep the Peace Serve the Community
Law Enforcement
Responsible for enforcing federal, state, and local laws
– Traditional role as “crime fighters” Majority of time spent on non-emergency calls for
service– Only 10% - 20% of calls require law enforcement
Enforcement priorities come from Departments Role Models of society
– Held to higher ethical standard– On and off-duty behavior always being judged
Investigation and Arrest
Most law enforcement response and activity is REACTIVE
– Something happens, someone calls, police respond to call– Rare to intervene in crime actually in progress
Phases of Investigation– Crime occurs/someone calls police– Patrol officer responds/investigates/writes report– Report referred to Detective Bureau– Follow-up investigation may result in arrest
Crime Prevention
Anticipation, recognition, and appraisal of a crime risk and initiation of some action to eliminate or reduce it
– PROACTIVE approach to criminal activity– Old concept, new implementation through dedicated
resources Techniques
– Access control, theft-deterrence, lighting, landscaping, CPTED
Programs– Operation ID, Neighborhood Watch, Crime Stoppers
Keeping the Peace
What is a cop’s official title in CA?– Peace Officer (PC § 830.1)
High priority of maintaining Peace and Order in society
Enforcement of Quality-of-Life Offenses– Minor or “petty” offenses that tend to disrupt maintenance of
peaceful existence Disturbing the Peace (415 PC) Loitering/Panhandling Vandalism/Graffiti Public Drinking/Intoxication/Drug Use
Broken Windows Theory
Serving the Community
Direct public access to police services just a phone call away!
10%-20% of calls actual emergencies, majority are “calls for service”– Lost and found– Minor accidents– Barking dogs, other disturbances– Suspicious persons/circumstances– Check the welfare
Levels of Police Jurisdiction
Federal Departments (page 115)
– Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, US Postal Service
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)– Mission Statement
Protect and defend US against terrorist threats Uphold and enforce criminal laws Provide leadership and criminal justice services
– 56 field offices, 400 satellite offices
Levels of Police Jurisdiction
State-Level Agencies– Most state police agencies formed as link
between federal and local jurisdictions
CA State Police Agencies– ABC, CHP, Fish & Game, State Parks, State
University Police
Levels of Police Jurisdiction
Local Agencies– City (Police) and County (Sheriff) departments responsible
for local law enforcement services
Police primary jurisdiction within city limits Sheriff primary jurisdiction within unincorporated
areas of county– Some smaller cities contract with local Sheriff for police
services– Sheriff responsible for jail operations, prisoner
transportation, and court services
Police Administration
Management responsible for– Directing, coordinating, controlling…– Personnel, resources, and activities…– In crime prevention, apprehension of criminals,
recovery of stolen property, and community service
Managers are usually sworn personnel who have promoted to higher ranks
Police Organization and Structure
Line Operations– Field Operations– Activities devoted to day-to-day police work
Staff Operations– Support Services– Administration, Human Resources, Training
Chain-of-Command– Hierarchical line of communication and authority between higher
and lower levels (ranks)– Quasi-military structure and organization
Span-of-Control– Number of personnel or units under one supervisor’s authority
Epochs of Policing(Refer to chart, page 126)
Political Era: 1840’s–1930’s– Police served interests of politicians in power– Spoils Era
Reform Era: 1930’s–1970’s– “Professional” model of policing removed police from political
influence– Vollmer’s reforms
Community-Policing Era: 1970’s–Present Day– Focus on needs of Community– Cooperative effort, working with community
Homeland-Security Era: 2001–Present Day– Focus on prevention of terrorism– Increased cooperation between agencies/jurisdictions
Policing Styles
Watchman Style– Concern for law-and-order maintenance– Crime control more important than crime prevention
Legalistic Style– Strict enforcement of Letter of the Law– May ignore other “social” problems
Service Style– Focus on “helping” rather than strict enforcement– Social-assistance, drug-treatment programs, etc.
Police-Community Relations
Evolved out of civil unrest of 1960’s Effort to re-unite Police and Community
– Police and Community must work together– Police derive legitimacy from Community– Focus on positive Police-Community relations– Less emphasis on apprehending criminals
PCR Programs– Crime Prevention/Property Identification– Neighborhood Watch– Drug Awareness – Victims’ Assistance
Team Policing
Developed in 60’s and 70’s as extension of PCR model
Maintained specific “team” of officers in same geographical area (beat)
Benefits?– Beat integrity– Familiarization with people/area– Trust and cooperation– Officers allowed to handle full investigations
Evolution of Community Policing
Strategic Policing– Traditional goal of enforcement using innovative
enforcement techniques Intelligence, Undercover Ops., Surveillance, Forensics
Problem-Oriented Policing– Address underlying social problems as contributors to
crime/criminal behavior Cooperation between agencies to attack overall problem
Community Policing– Based on cooperative partnership between Police and
Community Attempt to reduce crime/fear of crime and improve quality of
life for members of community
Community Policing
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994)– Funding, Training, Technology
Goals of Community Policing– Police and Community work together– Identify/address needs of Community– Allow Community more say in prioritizing problems and how Police
respond to them– Proactive vs. Reactive approach to crime
DOJ created COPS to administer funds– 100,000 CP Officers by 1999– Additional $500 million made available for 50,000 more– 2002: “Homeland Security through Community Policing”
Obstacles to Community Policing
Some communities/community members remain dissatisfied with police services
– Distrustful of changes Disagreement over priority of community needs Power of Police Subculture
– Some departments/officers unwilling to change from traditional roles of LE
– Still see primary role as crime fighter and success measured by number of arrests, citations, etc.
– May offer CP programs but not truly supportive– Resentment and hostility sometimes mutual
Law Enforcement Support
LEAA (1969-1982)– Attempt to combat crime through funding of crime prevention
programs– Expired after $8 billion spent/no significant impact
Scientific Police Management (1970’s)– Application of social sciences to police administration
Increase police effectiveness Decrease citizen complaints Enhance use of available resources
Evidence-Based Policing (EBP)– Using research as evidence for evaluating police practices and to
guide decision-making
Kansas City Experiment (1974)
Year-long study of Preventive Patrol– Southern part of city divided into 15 beats
5 = no change in patrol services 5 = patrol officers/services doubled 5 = no patrol service, response to calls only
– Citizens not notified of experiment/changes Results
– No impact on preventable crimes– Citizens unaware of change in patrol services– No impact on fear of crime, per citizen survey
Effects– Directed Patrol– Call Prioritization
Discretion of Individual Officers
The opportunity to exercise choice in daily activities and decisions– Where/how to patrol– Who to stop/detain– When to warn/cite/arrest
Discretion of individual officers is arguably more important than department policy!
Factors That AffectDiscretionary Decision-Making
Officer’s background– Personal values, prejudices, etc.
Suspect’s characteristics– Age, gender, socio-economic status, etc.
Department policy– Strict, loose, mandatory arrests, etc.
Community interest– Concerns with certain behaviors/crimes
Factors That AffectDiscretionary Decision-Making
Pressure from victims– Cooperative, uncooperative, victim assistance
Disagreement with certain laws– Public opinion, minor violations
Available alternatives– Treatment programs, counseling services
Personal beliefs/practices of officer– Off-duty behavior may affect outlook