A law enforcement program for the state of Illinois.

• Author: De Long, Earl H.
• Position: Originally published in Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 26, p. 741, 1936 - Reprint

The primary responsibility for the enforcement of the criminal law in the United States has been assigned from the beginning to the agencies of local government--to the sheriff, the coroner, and the prosecuting attorney of the county and to the police departments maintained by our cities. During the last thirty years, however, public officials and private citizens in one state after another have come to realize that local government has failed to carry the burden of its responsibility in this respect. It has become increasingly apparent that the task of investigating crimes and of apprehending and prosecuting those persons who are guilty of criminal offenses must be shared in some large measure by the administrative agencies of the state governments themselves.

In a few of the states--not more than twelve at the most--the realization of this need for positive intervention by state government has led to the establishment of the most effective police agencies in the United States--the state police forces, for example, of New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. In most of the states, however, no such effective or comprehensive state agencies have been established. Nevertheless, the pressure of public need has required that some action be taken in this same direction and, as a result, many of those which do not have full-fledged state police forces have a least a state bureau of criminal identification and investigation or a state highway police force, or both. In the majority of these states, and especially in those which have both such agencies, there is an urgent need for coordination of the separate agencies and policies into a single, well-integrated program of state action.

It is not the purpose of this discussion to present any extensive analysis of the problems of criminal law enforcement. The timeliness and the fundamental importance of consideration of this problem of state law enforcement organization are assumed. It is the intention here to deal very specifically and very briefly with the law enforcement situation in the State of Illinois, which is paying out a large sum of money annually for the support of state activities in the field of general criminal law enforcement and which is getting very little in return for that expenditure. The Attorney-General's Conference on Crime which met in Washington in December, 1934, emphasized most vigorously the fact that the major responsibility for criminal law enforcement must continue to rest with state and local agencies. Governor Horner of Illinois has evidenced his special interest in this problem by his membership on the Attorney-General's Advisory Committee on this problem of law enforcement. This combination of the factors of urgent need and current interest makes it especially appropriate to consider the Illinois problem and to suggest possible improvement.

The general outline of the discussion will be: (1) The extent, the cost, and the effectiveness of present state government activities in general law enforcement in Illinois; (2)a brief summary and comment upon the cost of effective state law enforcement programs in a few other states; and (3) an analysis of the changes which might be made in the present Illinois policy and practice in this respect.

In considering this Illinois problem one definite conclusion becomes quite apparent upon even cursory examination: The people of the state of Illinois already have at their command two official state law enforcement units which could be improved and utilized in such a way that without expenditure of any greater amount of money the state would have a highly effective law enforcement program. To attain that result, however, drastic change is necessary.

One of these agencies is the Illinois State Highway Maintenance Police; the other the State Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation. This Bureau, although seriously handicapped by inadequate appropriations since its creation in 1931, has been an astonishingly effective and successful agency. A large part of the millions of dollars spent on the state highway police since 1923, however, might just as well have been donated to charitable institutions.

The biennial appropriation for the Highway Police was $2,300,000 in 1931 and $2,000,000 in 1933. Before 1931 this unit was supported from the general highway maintenance appropriation of $8,200,000 in 1929, $6,000,000 in 1927 and 1925, and $3,000,000 in 1923. How large a part of these appropriations went to the highway police does not appear from state budgets or the appropriation acts. From 1923, when the force was created, until 1929, the personnel strength was one hundred men or less. In 1929 the number was increased to three hundred, and in 1935 the legislature authorized an increase to three hundred fifty, and also increased the appropriation to $2,500,000. The duties and powers of the force are prescribed by the Act of 1923, as it has been amended: (1) to enforce the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Law and of Article 8 of "An Act to revise the law in relation to roads and bridges," approved June 27, 1913; (2) to patrol the public highways and rural districts to make arrests for violations of the provisions of these acts; (3) to act as conservators of the peace and as such "have all powers possessed by policemen in cities, and sheriffs, except that the maintenance policemen hereby authorized may exercise such powers anywhere in the State." (This provision has been construed rather strictly by the attorney-general, and it has been assumed that these police powers relate only to motor vehicle and highway laws and not to criminal laws in general); (4) to cooperate with the police of cities, villages and incorporated towns, and with the police officers of any county, in enforcing the laws of the state and in making arrests and recovering property; (5)to collect delinquent automobile license fees; (6)to check the weight of any motor vehicle for the purpose of determining whether or not such vehicle is of a weight in excess of that permitted by law; (7) to determine, whenever possible, the person or persons or the causes responsible for the breaking or destruction of any hard-surfaced roadway, and to arrest all persons...