Limits to Police Discretion Just as Every

¶ … Limits to Police Discretion

Just as every law environment situation is unique, so too are the police officers that make the decisions concerning how these situations will be resolved. Some police officers appear to have a natural-born knack for knowing how to amicably resolve even seemingly intractable disputes while others routinely incarcerate their suspects with little or no effort made to determine if alternative dispositions might have been more appropriate. The level of discretion afforded police officers has also been the focus of interest following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and officers on the beat are now expected to be active participants in the war on terrorism as well. In this environment, identifying optimal levels of discretion for police officers who are confronted with an infinite number of different types of threats to their own safety as well as the safety of the general public therefore represents a timely and valuable enterprise. This goal, though, is complicated by the fact that it is impossible to describe every potential type of threat police officers will encounter during their careers and to formulate appropriate responses in advance, and police officers will likely follow the department's policies concerning discretion to the extent that they do not endanger their lives. As trained and sworn law enforcement authorities, police officers expect to be entrusted with some level of discretion in the exercise of their duties, otherwise they would just be so many automatons on the street with no ability to make the types of decisions that characterize good community policing. Conversely, police officers who have been afforded too much discretion in the exercise of their duties may intentionally or inadvertently become "loose cannons" who routinely let the bad guys go in return for a good reputation or information. In either extreme, the best interests of the community are not being served, and the individual police officers are being subjected to working conditions that are not conducive to following standard protocols and departmental policies. Police officers should be provided with a high degree of discretion in cases involving juvenile offenders, for example, because these cases have several alternative dispositions available to them that might not be available for adult offenders, including releasing the offenders into the custody of their parents or adult caregivers. In some cases, this level of discretion is highly appropriate and is conducive to improved community relations and does in fact serve the best interests of the community. In sharp contrast, there are some other areas involved fundamental constitutional rights where there is little or no room for discretion. For example, Weinstein and Quinn (2008) report that, "It had been understood that only very limited situations permitted warrantless intrusions upon a person's privacy. Valid consent obtained from the person whose privacy interest was at stake as well as exigent circumstances were among the recognized exceptions" (p. 37). Even here, though, the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for some level of discretion on the part of the police officers who are on the scene. According to Weinstein and Quinn, "The reality is that police encounters on the street are incredibly rich in diversity. . rang[ing] from wholly friendly exchanges of pleasantries or mutually useful information to hostile confrontations of armed men involving arrests, or injuries, or loss of life. Sometimes split-second responses are required by law enforcement agents. The dangers of a mistake led the Supreme Court to the conclusion that greater discretion should be vested in the officer on the beat" (1999, p. 37). Therefore, even in cases that involve fundamental constitutional rights, police officers should possess some level of discretion in the exercise of their duties because of the harsh realities that are associated with law enforcement in the 21st century.