POLICE WORK AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

Police work and law enforcement Routine police activities Earlier reference was made to the way in which police activity is adapted to the kind of society that is to be policed. There are features common to the work of police in differing societies that are founded upon similar technology. Yet within the same society, at times within the same police force, there are variations in the policies of police chiefs. One police administrator, because of his personal beliefs or because of his perception of public opinion, may allocate more officers for the investigation of vice than of fraud, may allocate more or fewer officers for traffic control or crime prevention. A police chief may instruct officers not to bother about prostitution, provided it is confined to a given locality. Thus, the police in different neighbourhoods may follow different patterns of policing. Within the framework of enforcement policy, police work is divided into various branches. The largest number of officers is usually allocated to uniformed patrol, either on foot or with motor transport. Studies of the activities of police on patrol indicate that only a small portion of their time goes to the making of arrests or to initiating formal actions under the criminal law. Moreover, whether one examines the types of calls for service that police receive, the calls to which police are dispatched, or the activities that police initiate on their own, it is clear that the majority of police activities consist of providing emergency services, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and providing other services. Police and courts One of the most important ways in which police are held accountable for the manner in which they perform their duties is through the courts. In France (and in countries with similar juridical procedures) the police making inquiries are under the direction of the investigating magistrate, whose task it is to decide whether there is a case for trial and, if so, what it is. The French think it improper that police should inquire into a citizen's activities without his knowledge that they are doing so and without these investigations being under judicial control. The British and American procedure is very different. Anyone may prosecute. The judge listens to the prosecution's argument and evidence that the accused has broken a particular law, and he listens to the defense. Then he decides between them. If he finds the case proved, he then inquires into the accused's previous record and determines the sentence. Should it happen that the defendant has broken a law but not the one he is accused of having broken, the case must be dismissed. If the accusatorial system is to function justly, the police must bring all cases of lawbreaking before the courts. It is for the court to decide whether they merit punishment. However, in practice, the police exercise considerable discretion as to whom they will prosecute. There are three chief arguments in favour of police discretion. First, it has not been possible to draft and keep up-to-date a criminal code that unambiguously encompasses all conduct intended to be made criminal and none other; there are technical offenses or offenses that public opinion no longer regards as culpable. Second, those charged with enforcing the law do not have sufficient resources to enforce all the laws all the time, so that enforcement must be selective. Third, to bring a technical offender to court may, in practice, unduly damage that person's reputation. The courts control police activities in other ways. In Britain a set of publicized Judges' Rules outlines safeguards for accused persons while under investigation. If in court it can be proved that the police failed at the proper points to warn a person that he was under suspicion of having committed a particular offense and that any statement he might make could be given in evidence, then the prosecution might fail. In the United States the Supreme Court has held that an accused need not answer police questions and that he has a right to consult a lawyer before questioning; if he cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one must be provided. In other decisions, police have been prevented from submitting at a trial any evidence that was obtained by unreasonable search and seizure.