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
–

Majority of time spent on non-emergency calls for
service
–


Traditional role as “crime fighters”
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
–
–

Techniques
–

PROACTIVE approach to criminal activity
Old concept, new implementation through dedicated
resources
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
–
–

Staff Operations
–
–

Support Services
Administration, Human Resources, Training
Chain-of-Command
–
–

Field Operations
Activities devoted to day-to-day police work
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
–
–

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
–
–

Police served interests of politicians in power
Spoils Era
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
–
–

Legalistic Style
–
–

Concern for law-and-order maintenance
Crime control more important than crime prevention
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


Problem-Oriented Policing
–
Address underlying social problems as contributors to
crime/criminal behavior


Intelligence, Undercover Ops., Surveillance, Forensics
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)
–

Goals of Community Policing
–
–
–
–

Funding, Training, Technology
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



–

Citizens not notified of experiment/changes
Results
–
–
–

5 = no change in patrol services
5 = patrol officers/services doubled
5 = no patrol service, response to calls only
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 Affect
Discretionary Decision-Making

Officer’s background
–

Suspect’s characteristics
–

Age, gender, socio-economic status, etc.
Department policy
–

Personal values, prejudices, etc.
Strict, loose, mandatory arrests, etc.
Community interest
–
Concerns with certain behaviors/crimes
Factors That Affect
Discretionary Decision-Making

Pressure from victims
–

Disagreement with certain laws
–

Public opinion, minor violations
Available alternatives
–

Cooperative, uncooperative, victim assistance
Treatment programs, counseling services
Personal beliefs/practices of officer
–
Off-duty behavior may affect outlook