Nonarrest Decision Making in Police–Citizen Encounters

• Published date: 01 September 2007
• Date: 01 September 2007
• Author: William Terrill,Eugene A. Paoline
• DOI: 10.1177/1098611107299998
• Subject Matter: Articles

308

Authors’ Note: This article is based on data from the Project on Policing Neighborhoods, supported by

Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-0071 by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department

of Justice. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. An earlier version of this article was presented at the American

Society of Criminology Meeting in Toronto, Canada, in November 2005.

Police Quarterly

Volume 10 Number 3

September 2007 308-331

© 2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/1098611107299998

http://pqx.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Nonarrest Decision Making in

Police–Citizen Encounters

William Terrill

Michigan State University, East Lansing

Eugene A. Paoline III

University of Central Florida, Orlando

While early arrest studies tended to be more qualitative in nature and focus on the nonar-

rest process, more recent quantitative research has centered on the factors most likely to

predict arrest. Using observational data, the current study draws on both lines of inquiry

by examining incidents of nonarrest where there was a threshold of evidence that would

support an arrest. A multivariate model of nonarrest decision making is presented, and

qualitative narratives are analyzed to disentangle actions that police took in lieu of arrest,

as well as reasons for alternate actions. The findings indicate that nonarrest behavior is

much more prevalent than arrest, irrespective of evidence strength, and that several situ-

ational factors are statistically related to nonarrest decisions. The findings also show that

alternative arrest actions are not demonstrably different than those noted by descriptive

studies some 40 years ago, although the reasons for nonarrest behavior are substantially

more varied.

Keywords: police; nonarrest; arrest; discretion; police–citizen encounters

The discretionary decisions that police make have long been a focus of researchers

(Ohlin, 1993; Walker, 1992). The arrest decision, in particular, has garnered much

attention over the years. Early research generally focused on the pervasiveness and

appropriateness of discretion, especially as it related to nonarrest decision making

(Davis, 1969, 1975; Goldstein, 1960; Kadish & Kadish, 1973; LaFave, 1962a, 1962b).

Additional research identified some of the actions officers take in lieu of arrest (e.g.,

citing for a less serious offense; releasing an individual to a third party; separating

or mediating a dispute; gathering information; and a host of verbal actions including

warning, advising, counseling, persuading, and threatening), as well as potential rea-

sons why officers decide not to invoke their formal arrest powers (e.g., legislature

may not desire enforcement, limited resources, individual/organizational philosophy)

Terrill, Paoline / Nonarrest Decision Making 309

(Bayley & Bittner, 1984; Brown, 1981; LaFave, 1965; Piliavin & Briar, 1964;

Sherman & Berk,1984; Sykes & Brent, 1983; Whitaker, 1982).

Despite the emphasis placed on nonarrest initially, researchers soon began to shift

their attention toward arrest decision making (e.g., Berk & Loseke, 1980-1981;

Lundman, 1979; Smith, 1984, 1986, 1987; Smith & Klein, 1983, 1984; Smith &

Visher, 1981; Worden, 1989). This development seems reasonable on several fronts.

First, the decision to arrest serves as the entry point for the criminal justice process.

Second, the decision-making process post non-arrest is difficult to capture as an

official record is not documented. In addition, it may be argued that emphasizing

arrest over nonarrest was a subtle change because the decision-making “point”

remained the same. The corresponding benefits of this line of inquiry have resulted

in an impressive body of literature identifying those factors affecting the decision to

bring a suspect into the criminal justice system (e.g., officer response type, suspect

characteristics and behaviors, offense seriousness, available evidence) (Riksheim &

Chermak, 1993; Sherman, 1980).

Whereas the advantage of a developed knowledge base regarding arrest decision

making is immeasurable, the downside has been a lack of consistent systematic

inquiry regarding the resulting end of a decision that occurs with much greater

frequency—nonarrest. Essentially, whereas we have learned much about the “in”

decision (i.e., arrest) over the past several decades, inquiries focusing on the “out”

decision (i.e., nonarrest) have waned considerably. That the arrest/nonarrest decision

is one and the same, as a decision-making point, is to some degree overly simplistic.

The process of nonarrest behavior opens the door to a second level of decision mak-

ing regarding what officers do in lieu of arrest and why. Understanding officer

behavior within the nonarrest decision-making process becomes even more salient

when placed within the context of contemporary policing and community policing

initiatives. Whereas constraining police discretion was once central to the police

mandate (Kelling & Moore, 1996), more contemporary police strategies call for offi-

cers to apply their discretionary powers as they seek alternatives to arrest in coming

up with solutions to various neighborhood problems (Mastrofski, Worden, & Snipes,

1995). As such, we are beyond the simple fascination with the abundance of discre-

tion and now ask officers to utilize their discretionary power. Yet the extent and

nature of nonarrest decision making remains relatively unknown during a time when

officer discretion is generally encouraged.

The present inquiry seeks to fill this empirical void by revisiting the nonarrest

decision among contemporary police officers working within the community era.

Using data collected as part of the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN), a

large-scale systematic social observation study, we divide our focus into two distinct

parts. First, we statistically model the arrest/nonarrest decision-making process

across 729 police–citizen encounters relying on a host of theoretically relevant situ-

ational predictors. The second part of the study focuses on descriptively detailing

alternate actions that police utilize in lieu of arrest, as well as potential explanations