An Analysis of State Statutes Regarding the Role of Law Enforcement

• Author: Carly E. Cortright,Wesley McCann,Dale Willits,Mary K. Stohr,Craig Hemmens
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418806562
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418806562

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(1) 103 –132

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418806562

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

An Analysis of State Statutes

Regarding the Role of Law

Enforcement

Carly E. Cortright1, Wesley McCann2, Dale Willits1,

Craig Hemmens1, and Mary K. Stohr1

Abstract

Police officer roles are typically divided into either crime control or peacekeeping/

order maintenance functions. With the prevalence of community-oriented policing

(COP), the majority of an officer’s duties are ostensibly more order maintenance

in nature, but in the post-Ferguson world, the crime-fighting, warrior cop mentality

still holds firm, which is in conflict with the tenets of COP. State statutes dictate the

legal role of police officer and prior analyses demonstrated a shift over time toward

including more order maintenance tasks following the emergence of COP. This

analysis reexamines these statutes to determine if this shift continued. Our findings

indicate a counterintuitive reversal in the trend, with more states removing order

maintenance and peacekeeping duties from their statutes despite the wide dominance

of COP.

Keywords

statute, police, law enforcement, role

Introduction

Law enforcement in the last 5 years has come under increased scrutiny following sev-

eral high-profile deadly use of force incidents, most notably the Michael Brown case

in Ferguson, Missouri (C. P. Wilson & Wilson, 2015). This and other incidents have

led to increased strain between police and minority communities. This is especially

1Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

2CUNY–John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Craig Hemmens, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Washington State University, P.O.

Box 644872, Pullman, WA 99164-4872, USA.

Email: Craig.hemmens@wsu.edu

806562CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418806562Criminal Justice Policy ReviewCortright et al.

research-article2018

104 Criminal Justice Policy Review 31(1)

problematic when one considers that high crime rates tend to flourish in urban, disad-

vantaged neighborhoods—precisely where minorities disproportionately reside

(Brunson, 2015). Any crime control by police in these areas has the potential to back-

fire if there are not strong police-community relations. Indeed, the final report of the

President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) strongly encouraged police

departments to reorganize in such a way as to promote building trust and legitimacy,

with the report’s authors suggesting that efforts to improve oversight, transparency,

and community engagement were essential moving forward. Therefore, since the

emergence of community policing in the 1900s (Greene, 2000), there has been an even

greater push toward moving police in the direction of improving service and commu-

nity relations, bridging the gap between the ideology and implementation of commu-

nity policing.

Yet, at the same time, there is clear evidence that at least some segment of the polic-

ing world favors a return to a more aggressive style of policing. Some scholars have

argued that police have become increasingly militarized from the 2000s on (Balko,

2013; Kraska, 2007), with at least some of the impetus related to a desire to increase

terrorism preparedness following the attacks of September 11, 2001 (Roberts, Roberts,

& Liedka, 2012). Balko (2013) argues that this is a part of a broader trend in policing,

in which policing has come to emphasize the idea of a “warrior cop” focused on crime

fighting, despite the fact that this runs contrary to the suggestion from the 21st Century

Task force to adopt a guardian mind-set involving major elements of community-

oriented policing (COP).

The current push toward improving community relations and police legitimacy

reflect an interest in the peacekeeping/order maintenance approach to policing, while

the so-called rise of the warrior cop and the focus on militarization reflects a strong

interest in crime control. These approaches, peacekeeping/order maintenance and

crime control, have long been viewed as the two primary roles of the police function

in modern society (Bittner, 1967; Goldstein, 1977). Both the public and officers alike

put emphasis on the crime control role, envisioning law enforcement as crime fighters

first and foremost, although the reality is these responsibilities, such as making arrests

or issuing citations, are only a small portion (less than 30%) of a police officer’s daily

duties (Mastrofski, 1983). The more mundane peacekeeping role typifies an average

officer’s day (Goldstein, 1977), especially in the era of community policing (Greene,

2000), with the primary objective of peacekeeping being to prevent crime in the first

place.

To further add to this disconnect between desired outcomes on community rela-

tions (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015) and the perceived

militarization of police (Balko, 2013), which pits law enforcement against the com-

munity they serve, is the actual legal expectations of police officers. Although crime

control and peacekeeping are the conventional primary roles of policing, the legally

defined duties of law enforcement are prescribed by state law. That is to state that

aside from whatever informal roles police fill, state law dictates the formal role of

the police.