Police Policy and Rulemaking - The Need for Definition

• NCJ Number: 80099
• Journal: Journal of Police Science and Administration Volume: 9 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1981) Pages: 261-271
• Author(s): F A Schubert
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 11 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article discusses the confusion surrounding police policies, rules, and procedures governing police discretion and proposes a set of criteria as a model for the development of police directives designed to regulate police discretionary behavior.

Abstract

Police departments have made little progress in regulating police discretion because police administrators who attempt to address discretionary issues often find themselves in direct contradiction with local statutes and ordinances. Other reasons are ambiguity as to who is in charge of policymaking (the police chief or the mayor) and lack of administrative support. Wide disagreement exists regarding the nature of police rules and policy, although procedures pertaining to the manner in which activities are performed have been more consistently defined. However, in practice, the lines which differentiate the three have become so blurred that there is little value in trying to maintain distinctions. Therefore, a model is proposed to aid in the development of police directives to help regulate police discretionary behavior. The model stipulates that the directive should address major issues and problems, including decisions about the choice of objectives and priorities, intervention, investigative methods, and disposition. In addition, the directive should be clear and specific, articulate goals, and specify the decisionmaking authority. The directive also should confine discretion, limiting it by considerations of officer safety, departmental goals, law, and officer effectiveness and efficiency. In structuring discretion in the directive, police management needs to consider three categories of problems: routine problems, significant substantive issues, and significant procedural issues. Finally, the directive should provide for policy and procedure review. A total of 18 footnotes and about 25 references are included.