Police Use of Discretion: A Participant Observation Study of Game Wardens

Abstract

This study extends inquiry on police discretion by examining the situational and organizational factors influencing game wardens' arrest/summons decisions. Data were collected by participant observation and interviews. Situational and organizational factors seldom, if at all, evident from previous studies were discovered to influence wardens discretion, example, officers' demeanor, professional courtesy, judges, plea bargains, regional directives, and department policy. Danger, authority, and efficiency are important elements of an occupational ideology that may be shared by police and wardens. Theoretically, “police culture” writ large, may be an important source of the patterns of discretion across police organizations.

The author thanks the game wardens who participated in this study, and special thanks to Warden Steve Shires who started the ball rolling by including me in his enforcement practices and relationships with other wardens both on and off the job. Thanks also to my colleagues Fletcher Linder and Steve Poulson for their critiques of this manuscript. This work was supported by the James Madison University Program of Grants for Faculty Educational Leaves.

Notes

¹Access to the game wardens in the study region was obtained by a phone call to the Lieutenant who heads the Education and Training Division of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. He enthusiastically endorsed this research project and wrote a letter granting this researcher permission to participate in the full range of enforcement activities. A copy of this letter was sent to the Captain of the study region. This researcher made a copy of this letter and a statement of the research purpose available to each warden who then signed an agreement to participate. Participation was voluntary, and each warden was informed that they could end their participation at any time.

²The decoy is a mounted deer with styrofoam under the hide and changeable antlers. A warden hidden some distance from the decoy controls the neck, head, and tail mechanically. The decoy is strategically positioned to ensure visibility from oncoming vehicles, but with a sufficient distance and cover to suggest authenticity.

³In Virginia it is unlawful to hunt over bait. Also, a bear must field dress at a minimum of 100 lbs.

⁴According to Virginia Game, Inland Fish and Boat Laws, 1998, Section 29-1-551, “Assessment of value of game or fish unlawfully taken,” the unlawful taking of bear, deer, turkey, wild bird, wild animal, or fish during the closed season or exceeding bag or creel limits shall be accompanied by a replacement cost. The Director of the DGIF sets the dollar value. Among others, the replacement costs include: bear, $1,000; deer, $500; turkey, $500; otter, $500; mink, $75; raccoon, $75; beaver, $50; rabbit, $25; squirrel, $10; and trout, $10.

⁵This procedure is much the same as David Sudnow's “normal crimes,” which allow for the efficient processing of cases by public defenders. Sudnow (1965:21) states, “I shall call normal crimes those occurrences whose typical features, e.g., the ways they usually occur and the characteristics of persons who commit them (as well as the typical victims and typical scenes), are known and attended to by the P.D. (public defender).”