![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Order maintenance policing is often equated with the term ‘zero tolerance,’ which implies that officers exercise little discretion when enforcing minor offenses. Few researchers, however, have explored the extent to which order maintenance actually limits officer discretion and creates a zero‐tolerance atmosphere. This paper draws on field observations of police officers in NYPD – a department with a reputation for its order maintenance strategy – to explore officer decision making when enforcing minor offenses. Ethnographic data suggest that while officers acknowledge the importance of maintaining order, they possess and utilize a high degree of discretion when managing minor offenses.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Catherine Coles, George Kelling, Terance Miethe, and Michael Wagers for their helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. He also thanks NYPD personnel for their support and assistance. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research provided funding that made the research possible.
Notes
1. NYPD was asked to aid researchers in the selection of six precincts from the possible 76 police precincts. This purposive sampling technique held several advantages over a probability sample. The research team wanted six precincts that represented a variation in neighborhoods throughout the city. Rather than drawing a random sample, it was determined that NYPD personnel were in a better position to point to precincts that represent different types of neighborhoods in the city and that experienced important changes during the 1990s as far as crime, disorder, and police practices. The final sample included the 6th Precinct (Greenwich Village in South Manhattan), the 34th Precinct (Washington Heights in North Manhattan), the 43rd Precinct (the Soundview and Parkchester sections of the Bronx), the 67th Precinct (Flatbush in South Brooklyn), the 75th Precinct (East New York in North Brooklyn), and the 114th Precinct (the Astoria section in North Queens). NYPD officials selected this sample based on the precincts’ varied political and social problems, but it cannot be stated for certain why NYPD suggested these precincts over others. It should be noted, however, that NYPD officials did not avoid troubled beats or precincts under political scrutiny. Two of the selected precincts (the 67th and 75th) are historically among the leaders in violent crime in the city. A third precinct, the 43rd, was selected for the sample shortly after becoming the location of the Amadou Diallo shooting – a politically charged incident that received intense local and national media attention (the incident involved the death of an unarmed man at the hands of four NYPD officers).
2. The observer was a graduate student who was working on the project as part of his doctoral dissertation. He was trained and supervised by members of his doctoral committee with experience in ethnographic and field research.
3. Given the limited resources and time available for the research, it was important to maximize the observer’s opportunities to examine order maintenance activities. The observer, therefore, was usually placed with a proactive unit that was assigned to the precinct but not responsible for responding to calls for service. These units varied slightly in terms of their primary focus, ranging from violence prevention to vice enforcement, but all were considered to have ‘order maintenance’ as a core function.
4. Although invited to view the observer’s notes at any time, at no point on any ride‐along did officers request to view the notes.
5. An ‘activity’ was operationally defined as: any action by officers that deviated from general, random patrol that (a) involved an encounter with another individual beyond casual conversation between officers or radio communiqués, and/or (b) lasted more than 30 seconds. The determination of whether an officer ‘deviated from general, random patrol’ involved a subjective judgment on the part of the observer. When an encounter was involved (in whatever form), the deviation from patrol was usually obvious, which is why all encounters were recorded as ‘activities.’ However, when officers deviated from general patrol for purposes other than communication, the ‘deviation’ was not always obvious to the observer (for example, surveillance activities where no individual was encountered). The choice of a ‘30‐second’ rule for non‐encounter type activities, therefore, was used so that the observer could confirm that the officers were indeed ‘doing something’ other than general patrol.
6. The full classification strategy for these activities, along with a more detailed description of the classification categories, can be found in Appendix 1.
7. Vertical patrols refer to directed foot patrols in high‐rise apartment buildings where officers start at the ground floor and walk their way to the top.
8. The high percentage of activities that involved an encounter with a citizen where the individual was suspected of a legal infraction is not surprising. Most of the ride‐alongs were with proactive units that sought to stop and prevent specific types of criminal and disorderly behaviors. The units’ mandates, therefore, often brought them into contact with individuals who were performing (or seeking to perform) these behaviors.
9. Warrant checks are often run when someone is stopped for a minor offense – an activity that was not routinely practiced prior to Bratton’s administration. If a warrant check comes back positive, the officer on‐scene often does not know why the warrant was issued – this information is typically obtained during the booking process. In each of the five cases referred to here, the on‐scene officers were not aware of the reason for the warrant.
10. Without identification, officers cannot run warrant checks.
11. NYPD policy states that when officers stop and question individuals concerning criminal activity (whether or not the end result is an arrest), the officers are required to fill out a field investigation report (called a ‘250’ report).
12. A prostitution reverse‐sting refers to an initiative employed by several precincts that is designed to reduce solicitation for prostitutes. An undercover officer disguised as a prostitute stands on a street corner and waits to be solicited by a ‘john.’ Once a signal is given, other officers move in and make the arrest. Publicity is often attached to these initiatives, which have become popular with community groups that have traditionally had problems with ‘curb‐crawlers’ in their neighborhoods.
13. The Trespass Affidavit Program is a community policing and prosecution initiative developed in response to indoor drug dealing and drug use. To participate in the Program, landlords sign into a formal agreement with the police and the prosecutor’s office. The agreement essentially states that only tenants and their guests are allowed in the building. Should the police find anyone else in the building that cannot provide a legitimate reason for being there, the individual can be arrested for criminal trespass.
14. The observer did not get the impression from most officers that they were under great organizational pressure to make arrests or issue citations, however, this may be because most ride‐alongs were with officers in special units. Because of their mandates, special units often proactively place themselves in situations where they observe more illegal activity than patrol officers, and therefore have more opportunities to make arrests or issue citations. In a sense, officers in special units may have the luxury of ‘picking and choosing’ which offenses to officially enforce.
15. Several studies examining crime trends in NYC have noted an increase in arrests/citations for minor crimes during the implementation of order maintenance strategies (see Greene, Citation1999; Kelling & Sousa, Citation2001).
16. During ride‐alongs, NYPD officers typically reported a good relationship with the surrounding communities and indicated that, for the most part, the public was supportive of police order maintenance practices. Officers generally believed that criticism of the police was often the result of a few activists and ‘professional protesters.’ The reality of this perceived support from the community cannot be determined with the available data. However, many officers believed that the public would complain significantly if the police stopped enforcing ‘minor’ offenses in their communities.
17. Eterno’s analysis (Citation2001) of NYPD suggests the potential of assertive order maintenance leading to an increase in police abuse of power. He therefore encourages departments with order maintenance strategies to implement proactive policies designed to prevent misconduct and enhance due process considerations.
18. A ‘violation of the law’ includes a felony, misdemeanor, or legal violation for which one can be arrested or receive a summons.