Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement

[rambone]

Thanks to Libertarian01 for posting this. I thought it was worthy of having its own thread so more people saw it. I'm not advocating a position on the list, just that it is worth discussing.

To All,

I'm going to get a bit olde fashioned (yet again) and return to a day and an age when folks on the front line of problems came up with a great way of explaining things.

I refer to one Robert Peel. Mr. Peel came up with nine (9) principles of law enforcement. If we were to return to Mr. Peel's mindset on BOTH sides of this issue I believe we would take a giant step forward in dealing with many of the areas of friction between LE and the public that exist today. Here we go:




Peel’s Principles of Modern Law Enforcement

#1) The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.

#2) The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.

#3) The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.

#4) The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.

#5) The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

#6) The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

#7) The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.

#8) The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.

#9) The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.





After reading these in detail share with me you thoughts on whether you think things would improve or not if these concepts were pounded into the heads of police trainee's today? In my opinion we would see a dramatic shift toward a less confrontational mindset and one of greater cooperation on BOTH sides of the issue.

My personal favorite is #7.

Regards,

Doug

 

[rambone]

I have a comment about Number 5. I think it is the duty of Police to not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws. The only way freedom will survive is if all branches and levels of government assume the responsibility of upholding the constitution. If police always defer that responsibility to Congress, tyranny will thrive.

 

[kabrown]

I think that these are sound principles. I think they can be easily summed up in the motto "protect and serve." Unfortunately, some police think that the public is only there to protect and serve the police, and not the other way around.

 

[smoking357]

I have posted Sir Peel's rules in other forums only to have this writing be roundly laughed at by the resident conservatives.

Thank you for posting them here.

 

[dross]

I have a comment about Number 5. I think it is the duty of Police to not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws. The only way freedom will survive is if all branches and levels of government assume the responsibility of upholding the constitution. If police always defer that responsibility to Congress, tyranny will thrive.

I think you ask the impossible of the police. We have a Supreme Court of learned folks whose job it is to analyze the law and determine if it is unconstitutional. To ask an individual policeman to make that determination is asking too much. The practical effect will be that individual policemen will be judging each situation as if they are judges instead of enforcers.

Yes, each person must make a final decision, and "doing your job" isn't perfect cover. Yet it must provide some cover on the tricky issues of the day. Otherwise the protest is not for an individual policeman to decide not to enforce a particular law, but for scores of policemen to resign rather than enforce immoral laws, like for instance, the drug laws.

 

[rambone]

I'd settle for preventing the most horrifying and blatantly obvious infringements of the Constitution, like the Katrina gun confiscation, warrantless roadside checkpoints, confiscating citizens' gold coins, rounding citizens into internment camps, forced vaccinations in MA, etc. Instances when even someone with the most mild understanding of the Bill of Rights should recognize that something is wrong.

I certainly don't think it would hurt to spend a bit of time on the BoR as part of Police Academy training, if it is not already. We need these kinds of checks & balances, desperately.

 

[jsgolfman]

I disagree with #1. The reason for their existence is to apprehend those who break the law, not to prevent crime.

 

[dross]

I'd settle for preventing the most horrifying and blatantly obvious infringements of the Constitution, like the Katrina gun confiscation, warrantless roadside checkpoints, confiscating citizens' gold coins, rounding citizens into internment camps, forced vaccinations in MA, etc. Instances when even someone with the most mild understanding of the Bill of Rights should recognize that something is wrong.

I certainly don't think it would hurt to spend a bit of time on the BoR as part of Police Academy training, if it is not already. We need these kinds of checks & balances, desperately.

How then do you resolve a situation where an officer insists on his interpretation, even though overruled by his supervisors, his mayor, his governor, the federal government, and the Supreme Court? There have been decisions upheld by all of those that some of us here would agree violate the Bill of Rights. Or are individual officers just allowed to act their conscience?

I think the federal drug laws violate the Bill of Rights. I think it's quite obvious. Should a cop just refuse to enforce them? At some point a cop would really just have to resign, which is the check and the balance.

As a people, we can't elect enough politicians and appoint judges who respect the Bill of Rights, yet you're suggesting that the lowest guy on the justice system totem pole carry the load for something that we can't get a majority of the nation to agree upon? I agree with your sentiment, I submit your suggestion is unworkable.

 

[JBusch8899]

I have a comment about Number 5. I think it is the duty of Police to not enforce blatantly unconstitutional laws. The only way freedom will survive is if all branches and levels of government assume the responsibility of upholding the constitution. If police always defer that responsibility to Congress, tyranny will thrive.

I think you ask the impossible of the police. We have a Supreme Court of learned folks whose job it is to analyze the law and determine if it is unconstitutional. To ask an individual policeman to make that determination is asking too much. The practical effect will be that individual policemen will be judging each situation as if they are judges instead of enforcers.

Yes, each person must make a final decision, and "doing your job" isn't perfect cover. Yet it must provide some cover on the tricky issues of the day. Otherwise the protest is not for an individual policeman to decide not to enforce a particular law, but for scores of policemen to resign rather than enforce immoral laws, like for instance, the drug laws.

Law enforcement swear, or affirm an oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution; ergo not to enforce unconstitutional laws, hence laws which are by definition, unlawful.

Arguably, the greatest asset law enforcement has at their disposal, is the ability to turn their head and ignore the specific acts of those who violate an unconstitutional law. No person is compelled to obey a law or order that is unlawful, as the Nuremberg Trials poignantly affirmed that even the extreme circumstances of war, there is a line not to cross.

Furthermore, in matter of Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the infliction of lethal force against a nonviolent fleeing felon to secure him, violates the 4th Amendment, despite the fact that such action was accepted as lawful at the time of the drafting and ratification of said amendment.

I disagree with #1. The reason for their existence is to apprehend those who break the law, not to prevent crime.

The rationale of law enforcement, is to act as a deterrent to criminal and other, illegal activity (ie: jaywalking, traffic law, spitting on the sidewalk); as well as provide a means to bring persons who violate the law to justice. As much as this may appear a paradox: The law means nothing without at least some level of concern for violating same, lest even generally good and normally law abiding people, wouldn't think twice of breaking the law for their own purpose.

 

[jsgolfman]

The law and subsequent actions are the deterrent, not the police officer.

 

[JBusch8899]

The law and subsequent actions are the deterrent, not the police officer.

Very true. However, the police are the instrument of the executive branch of government to enforce the law, and as such are the lawful agents of, and representative of the law.

 

[jsgolfman]

I agree, but the premise of the tenet was there reason for existence is to prevent crime.

 

[JBusch8899]

I agree, but the premise of the tenet was there reason for existence is to prevent crime.

I understand that, as I disagreed with the tenant as written as well.

The real world dictates nothing can be entirely prevented, much less crime, as human nature obstructs such absolutes. Deterrence is the best result that anyone can hope.

 

[Eddie]

Two things that I would like to see change in police work that I think would really help are:

1. Stop keeping score. It should not matter one bit how many arrests, traffic citations or whatever an officer does during their shift. Whether it is done by quotas or shift reports or however, placing an emphasis on making an arrest as opposed to solving a problem scews the officer's perception of events in favor of arresting when maybe giving someone a break would be just as effective. Giving an award to the guy with the most OWI arrests for example rewards volume of arrests and ignores the guy who spends his time checking every business in his beat signs of breaking and entering but doesn't happen to catch anybody. Sure, punish the guy who does nothing and hangs out at the 7-11 all night, but don't treat arrests as if they are points on a scoreboard.

2. Take the badge and gun away once in a while. Not for a vacation either. Force our officers to just go out and be with the normal folks a few weeks out of the year, pay them but let them work with the street department or parks and rec or anything else that doesn't involve being an enforcer of something. Make them rub elbows with the regular guys and see things from their perspective. I know this one would be a lot harder to sell than the first idea since it would cost money. (Cops off duty would require more cops or overtime money to replace them.) But I bet you'd see a lot more humane officers and a lot less burn out if you forced them to take a break from their duty/power once in a while.

 

[UncleMike]

Law enforcement swear, or affirm an oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution; ergo not to enforce unconstitutional laws, hence laws which are by definition, unlawful.

Arguably, the greatest asset law enforcement has at their disposal, is the ability to turn their head and ignore the specific acts of those who violate an unconstitutional law. No person is compelled to obey a law or order that is unlawful, as the Nuremberg Trials poignantly affirmed that even the extreme circumstances of war, there is a line not to cross.

My oath stated that I would "Protect and Defend The Constitution of The United States and The State of Indiana" and "enforce" the laws of The State of Indiana. It did not allow my personal discretion to enter into my enforcement of laws, Felonies in particular, that I don't like.
Officers who "turn their heads" and ignore serious crimes, as prohibited by law, are usually charged with "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer" and at least fired, and often, arrested, tried, and jailed for such actions.
To expect individual Officers to bear the burden of being Constitutional Scholars is ludicrous.
The Nuremberg War Crime Trials do NOT apply to Civilian Police Authority in ANY manner whatsoever. The trials were strictly to enforce International Law concerning the waging of War.
Sorry if I sound upset, but expecting Civilian Police to adhere to "what seems fair" is unrealistic at best.
Mike

 

[UncleMike]

Two things that I would like to see change in police work that I think would really help are:

1. Stop keeping score. It should not matter one bit how many arrests, traffic citations or whatever an officer does during their shift. Whether it is done by quotas or shift reports or however, placing an emphasis on making an arrest as opposed to solving a problem scews the officer's perception of events in favor of arresting when maybe giving someone a break would be just as effective. Giving an award to the guy with the most OWI arrests for example rewards volume of arrests and ignores the guy who spends his time checking every business in his beat signs of breaking and entering but doesn't happen to catch anybody. Sure, punish the guy who does nothing and hangs out at the 7-11 all night, but don't treat arrests as if they are points on a scoreboard.

2. Take the badge and gun away once in a while. Not for a vacation either. Force our officers to just go out and be with the normal folks a few weeks out of the year, pay them but let them work with the street department or parks and rec or anything else that doesn't involve being an enforcer of something. Make them rub elbows with the regular guys and see things from their perspective. I know this one would be a lot harder to sell than the first idea since it would cost money. (Cops off duty would require more cops or overtime money to replace them.) But I bet you'd see a lot more humane officers and a lot less burn out if you forced them to take a break from their duty/power once in a while.

Point #1 is RIGHT ON!!!!
The "Administrators" are the ones who benefit by the "tally system" of Law Enforcement. They can point to all of the "enforcement contacts" and justify keeping their cushy jobs while the "Working Cops" get the blame for being "Gestapo" agents.
During my last two years on the road I refused to be a part of the "arrest for pay" game. Consequently I did not get a raise those two years. I decided that it was better to be seen as an ally of the Public as opposed to being a tool to further the careers of the "Upper Echelon".
(Most stress in Law Enforcement comes from The Brass.)
I NEVER ignored a serious Misdemeanor or Felony, but I didn't play the "gotcha" game that some Officers seem to engage in.
As for "decommissioning" Officers for a period of time.
It sounds good in theory, but is totally impractical in real life.
Officers are "on duty" all day, every day, and to interrupt that cycle would cause immense problems with their perception of when, and where, to enforce the laws. They have to be "keyed up" to prevent crime at all times as a method of protecting The Public, which is supposed to be their primary function.
Mike

 

[rambone]

As a people, we can't elect enough politicians and appoint judges who respect the Bill of Rights, yet you're suggesting that the lowest guy on the justice system totem pole carry the load for something that we can't get a majority of the nation to agree upon? I agree with your sentiment, I submit your suggestion is unworkable.

The fact that all the other branches are not respecting the Bill of Rights is exactly why I proposed it. The executive branch should not receive immunity when it comes to abiding by the Constitution.

I think it would be great if cops were at least given a little more explanation that if a "law" is "unlawful" it must be ignored. I don't think that is emphasized enough. They take their oath to uphold the constitution, but then are told to enforce the laws no matter if they fall outside the constitution or not. Seems kind of silly.

My oath stated that I would "Protect and Defend The Constitution of The United States and The State of Indiana" and "enforce" the laws of The State of Indiana. It did not allow my personal discretion to enter into my enforcement of laws, Felonies in particular, that I don't like.

If the law and the Constitution contradict each other, you are the last line of defense for upholding the law before tyranny is enforced. This has happened, this does happen, and this will happen again. Not all laws are worth enforcing.

How then do you resolve a situation where an officer insists on his interpretation, even though overruled by his supervisors, his mayor, his governor, the federal government, and the Supreme Court? There have been decisions upheld by all of those that some of us here would agree violate the Bill of Rights. Or are individual officers just allowed to act their conscience?

Law enforcement swear, or affirm an oath, to uphold and defend the Constitution; ergo not to enforce unconstitutional laws, hence laws which are by definition, unlawful.



Arguably, the greatest asset law enforcement has at their disposal, is the ability to turn their head and ignore the specific acts of those who violate an unconstitutional law. No person is compelled to obey a law or order that is unlawful, as the Nuremberg Trials poignantly affirmed that even the extreme circumstances of war, there is a line not to cross.

This is along the lines of what I was thinking. I am by no means asking cops to make up their own laws or anything like that. But if it is obviously wrong, then ignore it. There are plenty of outdated and unnecessary laws that get ignored all the time, that still remain on the books. It is not a bad thing that cops don't try to enforce irrelevant laws.

Officers who "turn their heads" and ignore serious crimes, as prohibited by law, are usually charged with "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer" and at least fired, and often, arrested, tried, and jailed for such actions.
To expect individual Officers to bear the burden of being Constitutional Scholars is ludicrous.

You must acknowledge that sometimes the law is worth taking a stand against. It has happened throughout history and will happen again. If the law says that all people of Japanese descent must be rounded up and put into concentration camps, would you participate? Because that happened in America in the 1940s. If the law says to go house-to-house and round up people's guns, would you participate? Because that happened in America a couple years ago.

Sometimes the law represents tyranny and evil. Enough of our forefathers died to protect liberties, to cause me to have some deep respect for it. If it came down to it, I would have to stand by my deep convictions of believing in liberty and would ignore laws I knew were wrong, no matter what the consequences. If it came down to keeping my job.... or keeping my honor and protecting liberty in my country, then I will choose the latter. No job is worth losing my soul over.

Sorry if I sound upset, but expecting Civilian Police to adhere to "what seems fair" is unrealistic at best.
Mike

I'm not asking cops to judge every law. But there may be a time when you are really challenged between your keeping your conscience and upholding the "law." I'm just trying to cause people to think. Some laws are wrong.

 

[Eddie]

I'm not asking cops to judge every law. But there may be a time when you are really challenged between your keeping your conscience and upholding the "law." I'm just trying to cause people to think. Some laws are wrong.

This is why I say to just stop keeping score. A LEO should always feel free not to make an arrest. There should be nothing wrong, if they were uncertain, with just writing a report and forwarding it to the prosecutor. If on the other hand they were certain that an arrest was the wrong action, then they should be free to let someone go.


Officer discretion is a very useful tool that has been slowly replaced with zero tolerance. When we treat human beings like game animals and say "How many speeders did you catch?" or "How many drunks did you get?" we lose track of the concept that for the average person an arrest is a life altering event.

 

[JBusch8899]

2. Take the....... gun away once in a while.

While your intent is nothing but admirable, police officers are citizens and as such, entitled to their right to protect themselves as well. Taking away one's firearm, strips away that right.

 

[Eddie]

While your intent is nothing but admirable, police officers are citizens and as such, entitled to their right to protect themselves as well. Taking away one's firearm, strips away that right.

Good point. I should have said "take the badge and the duty" away once in a while.