Creating Law Enforcement: Citizens Take Charge

Citizen involvement in law enforcement is not a new concept, with a history of vigilantism in the US. However, the authority of citizens and community groups to combat crime is limited. Self-defence groups can face serious legal problems, as there is no intermediary status between citizen and policeman. Citizens, even with police approval, do not receive the same protection as police officers and are liable for tort actions for wrongful death or injury.

Vigilantism vs self-defence groups

Citizen involvement in law enforcement is not new, and there have been at least 326 vigilante movements in the past two centuries of American history. However, the authority of citizens and community groups to combat crime is currently quite limited. Unless a citizen is deputised or admitted to low-power police auxiliaries, they have no law enforcement powers beyond those of an ordinary citizen.

Recent self-defence groups differ from more classic vigilante groups in that they have not killed or taken the law into their own hands. Instead, their primary functions have been the surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police. They thus more closely resemble the early anti-horse-thief societies which amplified law enforcement through pursuit and capture, but did not try to substitute for it by administering summary punishments.

Self-defence groups in Mexico have performed most of the public safety functions usually associated with the police, including the establishment of checkpoints, arrests, the staging of perfunctory “trials”, the use of corporal punishment, and, in some cases, enforcing the penalty of forced labour by criminal suspects held in makeshift jails. Some of these groups have been deputised, operating either independently or alongside government forces. However, the government is still responsible for abuses or violations of law committed by the vigilantes.

Over time, self-defence groups may establish themselves as permanent citizen-soldier forces, operating independently of the federal government. This has already happened in some places in Mexico, where self-defence groups are resisting government authority and refusing to disband.

Citizen's power in law enforcement

Citizen involvement in law enforcement is not new to the American scene. There have been at least 326 vigilante movements during the past two centuries of American history. Vigilante groups are different from self-defence groups, which are more recent and tend to focus on surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police.

Self-defence groups face serious legal problems. There is no intermediary status in American society between the role of citizen and that of policeman. Unless a citizen is deputized or admitted to the low-power police auxiliaries, they have no law enforcement powers beyond those of the ordinary citizen. Citizens' power in law enforcement is severely limited, with potentially serious penalties for its usurpation.

Citizens, even those with police approval, do not receive the same de facto protective blanket. They are fully liable to tort actions for wrongful death or injury. Police errors are routinely excused as justifiable, given the margin of error thought to be required in the performance of a dangerous and difficult job.

Substantial benefits can occur from cooperation between the police and the private sector, but legal consequences must be considered. Some courts have held that prearranged plans and joint activity between the public and private sector can lead to a finding that the entire activity is regulated by constitutional norms such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Police powers and private citizens

Citizen involvement in law enforcement is not new to the American scene. There have been at least 326 vigilante movements in the past two centuries of American history. However, the authority of citizens and community groups to combat crime is currently quite limited. Unless a citizen is deputised or admitted to low-power police auxiliaries, they can have no law enforcement powers beyond those of the ordinary citizen.

There is no intermediary status in American society between the role of citizen and that of policeman. Citizens, even those with police approval, do not receive the same de facto protective blanket as police officers. Instead, they are fully liable to tort actions for wrongful death or injury. There can be serious legal consequences for citizens who take on law enforcement powers.

Recent self-defence groups differ from more classic vigilante groups in that they, for the most part, have not killed or taken the law into their own hands. Instead, their primary functions have been the surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police. They thus more closely resemble the early anti-horse-thief societies which amplified law enforcement through pursuit and capture, but did not try to substitute for it by administering summary punishments.

Substantial benefits can occur from cooperation between the police and the private sector. However, some courts have held that prearranged plans and joint activity between the public and private sector can lead to a finding that the entire activity is regulated by constitutional norms such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Community groups and the police

Citizen involvement in law enforcement is not new to the American scene. In his discussion of the tradition of vigilantism in America, Brown distinguishes between two types of such efforts. The first appeared prior to 1856 in areas where settlement preceded effective law enforcement. The concerns of this type of vigilantism were primarily horse thieves, counterfeiters, outlaws, and badmen. The enforcement, that is, of consensually formulated standards of peace and law.

Recent self-defence groups differ from more classic vigilante groups in that they, for the most part, have not killed or taken the law into their own hands. Instead, their primary functions have been the surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police. They thus more closely resemble the early anti-horse-thief societies which amplified law enforcement through pursuit and capture, but did not try to substitute for it by administering summary punishments. Recent groups have performed largely deterrent functions and have not usually held street trials or meted out alley justice. But the fact that they have chosen to involve themselves as private citizens in police work has meant that the issue, if not the substance, of vigilantism has recurred with them.

The authority of citizens and community groups to combat crime is currently quite limited. Although substantial benefits can occur from cooperation between the police and the private sector, legal consequences both to the police and to private individuals and groups must be considered. Some courts have held that prearranged plans and joint activity between the public and private sector can lead to a finding that the entire activity is regulated by constitutional norms such as the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Citizens, even those with police approval, do not receive the same de facto protective blanket. Instead, they are fully liable to tort actions for wrongful death or injury. In almost all cities, police errors (and, too often, abuses not stemming from errors) are routinely excused as justifiable, given the margin of error thought to be required in the performance of a dangerous and difficult job. There is no intermediary status in American society between the role of citizen and that of policeman. Unless a citizen, however concerned, is deputized or admitted to the low-power police auxiliaries, he can have no law enforcement powers beyond those of the ordinary citizen. And the citizen's power in law enforcement is severely circumscribed, with potentially serious penalties for its usurpation.

Citizen involvement in the law-enforcement process

There is no intermediary status in American society between the role of citizen and that of policeman. Unless a citizen is deputized or admitted to a low-power police auxiliary, they have no law enforcement powers beyond those of an ordinary citizen. Citizens' power in law enforcement is severely limited, and there are potentially serious penalties for its usurpation.

Recent self-defence groups differ from classic vigilante groups in that they have not killed or taken the law into their own hands. Instead, their primary functions have been the surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police. They more closely resemble the early anti-horse-thief societies, which amplified law enforcement through pursuit and capture, but did not substitute for it by administering summary punishments.

Citizens, even those with police approval, do not receive the same de facto protective blanket. They are fully liable to tort actions for wrongful death or injury.

Frequently asked questions