Police Authority and Practices
| Published date | 01 January 1962 |
| Date | 01 January 1962 |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271626233900108 |
| Author | Richard C. Donnelly |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
90
Police
Authority
and
Practices
By
RICHARD
C.
DONNELLY
Richard
C.
Donnelly,
J.S.D.,
New
Haven,
Connecticut,
is
Professor
of
Law
at
the
Yale
Law
School.
He
is
a
coauthor
with
Professor
J.
Goldstein
and
Professor
Schwartz
of
a
casebook
on
Criminal
Law
and
has
contributed
articles
in
various
law
reviews.
ABSTRACT:
Law
enforcement
requires
a
sensitive
and
wise
discretion
in
police
decisions
whether
or
not
to
invoke
the
criminal
process
when
law
violators
are
uncovered.
As
an
administrative
and
moral
necessity,
the
policeman
informally
judges
and
settles
more
cases
than
he
takes
to
court.
There
are
many
rules
of
law
limiting
the
power
of
arrest
and
impos-
ing
duties
on
police
officers
after
arrests
are
made.
Arrests
with
and
without
warrant
raise
constitutional
questions
as
to
probable
cause
and
reasonable
cause
respectively.
After
ar-
rest,
appearance
before
a
magistrate
must
follow
without
un-
necessary
or
unreasonable
delay,
requirements
variously
de-
fined
by
the
different
jurisdictions.
Police
practices
sometimes
depart
from
prevailing
rules
of
arrest,
and
the
courts
must
exer-
cise
particular
vigilance,
especially
in
such
matters
involving
individual
liberties
as
search
and
seizure,
wire
tapping
and
eavesdropping,
use
of
informers,
interrogation
of
suspects,
and
the
like.
Generally,
the
federal
courts
tend
to
be
stricter
than
the
state
courts
about
the
admissibility
of
evidence,
giving
rise
to
wide
divergencies
and
ambiguities.
Technological
sophisti-
cation
has
increased
in
scope
and
reliability
the
means
of
ob-
taining
evidence.
In
the
use
of
these
techniques,
controls
must
be
exercised
to
protect
individual
and
other
democratic
guaran-
tees
at
the
same
time
that
civil
order
is
maintained.—Ed.
91
I N
the
United
States,
there
is
not
a
i
single
police
system.
Instead,
there
are
many
police
agencies
with
a
wide
variety
of
organizational
patterns
func-
tioning
at
different
levels
of
government.
They
differ
greatly
in
quality,
size,
and
jurisdiction.
They
frequently
overlap
and
lack
machinery
for
the
co-ordina-
tion of
their
efforts.’
The
strata
of
police
service
corre-
spond
roughly
to
the
major
levels
of
government.
There
are,
for
example,
the
police
agencies
of
the
federal
gov-
ernment.
The
largest
and
best
known
is
the
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
(FBI).
Others
are
the
Secret
Service,
the
Narcotics
Bureau,
the
Post
Office
Inspection
Department,
the
Bureau
of
Customs,
and
the
Immigration
Service.
The
rapid
growth
of
these
agencies
re-
flects
the
expanded
scope
of
federal
criminal
law.
Police
forces
are
maintained
also
by
each
of
the
states.
A
few
states
re-
strict
their
forces
to
enforcing
traffic
laws
or
investigating
crimes
committed
on
state
highways.
An
increasing
num-
ber
of
them
perform
general
police
duties
throughout
the
state,
although
primary
emphasis
is
placed
upon
rural
protection.
It
is
at
the
local
levels
of
government
that
the
greatest
variety
of
police
units
appear.
This
is
due
chiefly
to
the
di-
versity
of
types
of
local
government,
to
their
overlapping
jurisdiction
and
their
complex
interrelationships.
It
is
also
at-
tributable
to
the
tendency
of
local
gov-
ernment
units
to
set
up
competing
police
agencies-some
of
them
with
restricted
police
authority-within
a
single
local
area.
For
example,
each
of
the
over
3,000
counties
have
sheriffs
and
deputy
sheriffs,
and
a
few
have
a
special
county
police
force
that
either
duplicates
the
sheriff’s
police
jurisdiction
or
virtually
displaces
it.
In
addition,
there
are
the
police
forces
of
nearly
4,000
cities
and
over
20,000
townships.
As
a
result
of
this
farrago,
there
are
about 40,000
separate
and
distinct
pub-
lic
police
agencies
in
the
United
States.
The
great
majority
consist
of
one,
two,
or
three
men
who
are
employed
on
a
part-time
basis.
Many
are
compen-
sated
solely
by
fees,
are
selected
with-
out
regard
to
physical
or
mental
quali-
fications,
are
untrained
and
unsuper-
vised,
are
ill-equipped
and
undisciplined.
At
the
other
pole
are
the
police
of
some
of
the
large
cities,
some
of
the
counties
and
states,
and
the
FBI.
They
reflect
new
and
constructive
influences
at
work,
and
some
of
them
have
reached
a
degree
of
proficiency
comparable
with
the
best
in
the
world
today.
There
is
a
trend
in
the
United
States
toward,
the
integration
and
centraliza-
tion
of
police
forces.
There
is
also
a
growing
professionalization
within
po-
lice
ranks
that
will
insure
greater
re-
ceptivity
to
administrative
reforms
and
new
organizational
ideas.
However,
the
overriding
diversity
and
fragmentation
should
be
considered
in
evaluating
po-
lice
behavior
and
judicial
efforts
to
con-
trol
police
practices.
The
policeman’s
lot
is
indeed
a
diffi-
cult
one.
He
is
charged
with
applying
and
enforcing
a
multitude
of
laws
and
ordinances
in
a
degree
or
proportion
and
in
a
manner
that
maintain
a
deli-
cate
balance
between
the
liberty
of
the
individual
and
a
high
degree
of
social
protection.
His
task
requires
a
sensi-
tive
and
wise
discretion
in
deciding
whether
or
not
to
invoke
the
criminal
process.
He
must
not
only
know
whether
certain
behavior
violates
the
law
but
also
whether
there
is
probable
cause
to
believe
that
the
law
has
been
violated.
He
must
enforce
the
law,
yet
he
must
also
determine
whether
a
particular
vio-
lation
should
be
handled
by
warning
or
arrest.
He
is
not
expected
to
arrest
1
The
standard
study
of
the
police
is
SMITH,
POLICE
SYSTEMS
IN
THE
UNITED
STATES
(1940).
See
also
TAPPAN,
CRIME,
JUSTICE
AND
CORREC-
TION
273
(1960).
To continue reading
Request your trial