Police Discretion

Patrick Keranen
Criminal Justice 1010
11/20/14

Police discretion has been a controversial issue for a very long time. What gives policemen the
right to interpret the laws of our justice system? Currently, cops on the street utilize their own judgment
to enforce the law on disobeying parties. It has been a tradition that could result in more effective
police work and thinning the herd of individuals to be processed through the United States Justice
System. This gray area has some conflicting attributes, however. I will describe why it is necessary
for police officers to exercise their own judgment and why it makes the justice system more effective
overall.
The police force consists of individuals who are a part of society. No police officer is on duty 24
hours a day, seven days a week. They are, however, still a police officer when they go home and act as
a normal member of society. This simple fact is key in utilizing police discretion. In order for a
policeman to uphold the law, they must also be vulnerable to the same laws every citizen has to obey.
Policemen within society are exposed to the general, moral goals of the public, and have a better
understanding of justice within our diverse culture. It would be ineffective for those policeman to
strictly and unwaveringly enforce the laws set in place by our governments (Brown, 1981 pg. 37). One
reason is that our court system would be flooded by law-breakers guilty of petty crimes. Instead of
focusing on the vast majority of jay-walkers, speeding violations and such, our justice system needs to
focus on crimes that are hazardous to the general public and, if not pacified, will destroy people,
property and public lands.
Total enforcement is simply not possible, nor would it be effective. The front line police force is
restricted in many ways, such as privacy, search and seizure procedures and interrogation (Goldstein,
1960 pg. 554). This obstructs the police officer's ability to fight and deter every crime. Therefore, it is
up to the officer to decide if a crime is worth the time and manpower to pursue and prosecute an
individual who breaks the law. It is also impractical to arrest every individual who is suspected of such
crimes. Beyond the manpower requirement, the general public may begin to revolt against such
overbearing police action and cause a larger issue to come about.

So, we have established that police have the ability to enforce or not enforce a crime. Other than
budget and manpower issues, there are other reasons to not fully prosecute a guilty individual.
Sometimes coercion can be powerful enough to persuade a guilty individual to assist in the prosecution
of a much larger crime (Goldstein, 1960 pg. 562). For example, someone accused of possessing drugs
can lead the police to the drug dealer. The justice system has allowed for a reduced sentence in such
cases if the drug abuser cooperates with authorities to apprehend much more dangerous suspects. This
approach has been effective in the past but is highly regulated by the courts and the brass or police
administration.
To fully understand the extent of police discretion, we must divulge into the higher authorities
with the police. The street patrolmen are under the discretion of the governor, mayor and the chief of
police. Then, the patrolmen have their own discretion within. The overall judgment on arresting
individuals is based on the current moral standing of society. This morality largely influences the
discretion of the higher police authorities, and therefore influences the decisions of the front line
policemen (Brown, 1981 pg. 36). The greater good is often a topic disputed within the upper police
echelon. At times, it may be more effective not to pursue a guilty party right away due to the fact that
such parties could lead opportunities to arrest more individuals and really get to the core of the crime.
This puts a ton of pressure on the officers patrolling the streets, as they have to exercise their own
discretion on top of the whims of the brass. Those policemen have the best idea of the moral standards
within the community as well. They live it. They are citizens. They see what society is becoming
everyday. This allows the policemen to be flexible in their decisions to arrest someone, pursue a
probable cause and even use deadly force if needed (Brown, 1981 pg. 50).
Another interesting issue with police discretion is using undercover tactics. Obviously,
undercover policemen need to exercise cautionary discretion in the line of duty. A police officer
investigating a large drug operation is not going to bust somebody smoking marijuana on the street

corner. Undercover operations have become more prudent in effective police work over the last few
decades, and their covert tactics have change quite a bit as well (Marx, 1988 pg. 9). They have become
more and more effective in apprehending suspects by using disguised police officers to infiltrate illegal
operations that are dangerous to society. This would not be possible without the innate ability to
exercise discretion.
Police discretion has it's drawbacks, however. It will never be 100% effective because it is
exposed to human flaw. Every police officer is different. Though they may be trained in the same
procedures and practices, they will differ in their levels of discretion. At a specific traffic stop, for
example, officers are canvassing the cars for a fugitive. If someone pulls up to the officers with a
broken tail light or a missing license plate, are the officers allowed to search the individuals and
investigate the vehicle? The level of suspicion may vary with different officers with varying
experiences. In 1997, there was a case in Utah where a man was stopped at a checkpoint. Police
officers caught him trying to throw drugs out of the window in an attempt to not be charged for
possession. The officers searched the man and the vehicle and the man was ultimately prosecuted.
However, the argument in his appeal included that the search was a violation of the Fourth Amendment
and the traffic stop was not intended to search for drugs (State vs DeBooy, 2000). Were the policemen
right in their investigation? I think the officers were justified.
The absence of discretion would result in a justice system that is too rigid. Even the laws and
declarations our founding fathers invented centuries ago are open to interpretation. They key aspect for
discretion to work is having skilled and moral police officers. I'd like to compare this situation to the
movie Robocop. While being purely science fiction, it's a great example for discretion in the form of
a cyborg. The general public doesn't want a robot to uphold the law. Why? We don't won't an entity that
we can't relate to enforcing our actions. However, we also need an effective approach to prosecuting
dangerous criminals. Without the human side of Robocop, he would simply be a machine with a strict
interpretation of the law and his duty (Robocop, 1984). This interpretation is necessary to keep the

justice system from being flooded, to take down larger criminal activities and to protect the officers
themselves.

Works Cited
Brown, M. (1981). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Goldstein, J. (1960). Police Discretion not to Invoke the Criminal process.

State v. DeBooy, 996 P.2d 546, 2000 U.T. 32 (Utah 2000)

Robocop [Motion picture on VHS]. (1987). USA: Orion Pictures.