Law Enforcement's Role in Emergency Management
This paper reviews the literature on law enforcement's role in emergency management situations, including terrorist attacks, natural disasters, HAZMAT incidents, and public health emergencies. Drawing on a range of policy documents and scholarly sources, the paper explores four key phases of emergency management—mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery—and argues that law enforcement's emergency functions are extensions of its traditional protective roles. A central theme across the literature is the persistent failure of interagency communication, illustrated vividly by the September 11th attacks. The paper concludes that law enforcement agencies must actively cultivate open partnerships with other emergency responders to improve outcomes, reduce casualties, and accelerate community recovery.
- Introduction: Defining law enforcement's scope in emergency management
- Literature Review: Overview of varied emergency management scholarship
- Communication and Interoperability Challenges: Interagency communication failures and their consequences
- Law Enforcement Roles Across Emergency Types: Specific roles in HAZMAT, terrorism, and health crises
- Discussion: Synthesizing patterns across emergency management literature
- Conclusion: Law enforcement's evolving emergency management responsibilities
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Uses concrete, well-known case studies—the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina—to anchor abstract policy arguments in recognizable real-world events, making the analysis immediately accessible.
- Maintains a consistent thesis throughout: that law enforcement's emergency management roles are extensions of its traditional functions, and that interagency communication is the field's most pressing unresolved challenge.
- Covers a genuinely diverse range of emergency types (terrorism, HAZMAT, natural disaster, public health), which strengthens the generalizability of its conclusions.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective literature synthesis by identifying cross-cutting themes—particularly the communication breakdown problem—across sources dealing with very different emergency scenarios. Rather than summarizing each source in isolation, the author weaves them together to build a cumulative argument, showing how findings from a HAZMAT study, a tsunami preparedness report, and a 9/11 retrospective all point to the same structural weakness in emergency response systems.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a contextualizing introduction that defines the four phases of emergency management. A substantial literature review section then surveys relevant scholarship organized by emergency type. A discussion section synthesizes the patterns identified, and a conclusion ties the argument back to law enforcement's core societal function. This classic IMRD-adjacent structure suits a policy-focused literature review and guides the reader logically from problem identification through evidence to recommendations.
Introduction
Without question, emergency management situations — such as the September 11th terrorist attacks, the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, or more typical emergencies like building fires — require law enforcement agencies to take an active role in restoring order and maintaining normalcy. This does not even account for the significant role that law enforcement agencies play in preventing these kinds of disasters in the first place, when at all possible. Developing a clear understanding of the appropriate role and scope of law enforcement's involvement in an emergency management situation can be difficult at best. Conflicts of interest between other agencies — such as emergency medical services or firefighters — can complicate even the best-developed policies.
Three years after the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York City, Rashbaum and O'Donnell (2004) reported that there was still a lack of clear guidelines over which agencies should take charge in any developing emergency management situation. Disputes between the police, fire departments, and the Office of Emergency Management in New York City were significant and spoke to an undercurrent of distrust and lack of communication between these seemingly complementary agencies. The police departments in New York City clearly viewed their role in emergency management as the most crucial and believed they should be given charge of any emergency management situation, especially one involving terrorism.
Unfortunately, it is unclear to what degree this assessment is entirely correct. The role that law enforcement agencies — such as the New York City Police Department — play in emergency management situations is crucial and must be given due consideration. The successful remediation of an emergency management situation, however, requires the coordination of all available resources during the incident to most effectively deal with the situation as it unfolds, as well as during its aftermath and recovery phase. Various groups have defined emergency management in different ways; a particularly useful definition for this discussion can be drawn from the policy documents of the Randolph Township Police Department (n.d.) in New Jersey. That law enforcement agency characterizes four distinct phases of emergency management:
Mitigation: in which a hazard or threat is eliminated or reduced before it can become a significant danger.
Preparedness: in which actions are taken in preparation — such as training and education — to facilitate faster responses and better recovery methods.
Response: in which the law enforcement agency actually performs the actions that will save lives and prevent property damage.
Recovery: in which efforts are made to return the affected communities to a greater degree of normalcy.
The purpose of this study is to present an overview of some of the important literature on the subject of law enforcement's role in an emergency situation. Because the role that law enforcement plays in these types of situations can be so varied, it is important from a policy perspective to consider the relevant analysis of the subject in order to develop a clearer grasp of what effective roles law enforcement agencies can play in an emergency management situation. This examination should reveal what consensus, if any, exists on the matter of the role that law enforcement agencies should take in an emergency management situation.
Literature Review
The existing literature on the question of law enforcement's role in emergency management is quite varied. This can be attributed in large part to the reality that emergency management situations can be incredibly varied and present demands to law enforcement agencies that differ considerably from one incident to the next. For instance, the pressures placed on law enforcement agencies during the mitigation of a terrorist attack will be quite different from those same agencies' responses to a natural disaster, a HAZMAT incident, or a public health emergency. Despite these differences in circumstances, common themes emerge throughout the literature suggesting that law enforcement's role will be an extension of its traditional roles in protecting life and property in non-emergency situations.
One of the secondary persistent themes appearing in the literature on this subject is the lack of clear and effective lines of communication during an emergency management situation. The breakdown in communication has been identified both within law enforcement agencies and, perhaps more troublingly, between emergency response agencies such as EMS and firefighters. Reconciling these communication and interoperability issues is one of the major challenges for policymakers in defining the future of law enforcement's role in emergency management.
References
Cloud, R., Cohilas, A., and Lowe, B. (2006, January). Evacuation fundamentals. Fire Engineering, 159(1), pp. 111–113.
Collins, L. (2005, October). Tsunamis: a wakeup call for the U.S., part 2. Fire Engineering, 158(10), pp. 89–94.
Donahue, M. L. (1993, November). Hazardous materials training. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62(11), pp. 1–5.
Fickes, M. (2002, January). Expect the best, plan for the worst: disaster planning, prudent steps and cooperation with government law enforcement characterize the future direction of many colleges and universities in response to the September 11 terrorist attack. College Planning & Management, 5(1), pp. 22–26.
Hiller, T. (1994, September). Bomb attacks in city centers. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 63(9), pp. 13–17.
Law enforcement's concerns, need examined in preparedness study. (2004, December). Campus Crime, 14(12), p. 112.
Mountjoy, J. (2003, May). On the same wavelength: lack of communications interoperability among public safety officials. State Government News, 46(5), pp. 30–31.
North-Puma, L. (2003, February 24). How to work with law enforcement: three examples. Tradeshow Week, 33(8), p. 9.
Preparing for the crisis. (2007, Spring). Nieman Reports, 61(1), pp. 66–70.
Randolph Township Police Department. (n.d.). Law enforcement: emergency management. Randolph Township Police Department, Randolph NJ.
Rashbaum, W. K. and O'Donnell, M. (2004, April 3). Roles in disaster cause rift in city. New York Times.
Richards, E. P., Rathbun, K. C., Brito, C. S., and Luna, A. (2006, September). The role of law enforcement in public health emergencies: special considerations for an all-hazards approach. U.S. Department of Justice.
Robb, K. (2006). The role of police dispatchers in disasters and emergencies. Winston Churchill Fellowship.
Rothery, M. (2005, May). Critical infrastructure protection and the role of emergency services. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 20(2), pp. 45–50.
Vernon, A. (2006, September). Response to critical incidents. Fire Engineering, 159, pp. 5–10.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.