Creating Law Enforcement: Citizen-Led Policing?

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

Vigilantism

Citizens who take on law enforcement roles without proper authorisation face serious legal problems. In most places, there is no intermediary status between citizen and policeman, and citizens have no law enforcement powers beyond those of the ordinary citizen. Citizens who overstep these boundaries can face serious penalties.

Self-defence groups

However, self-defence groups face potentially serious legal problems. Unless a citizen is deputized or admitted to the low-power police auxiliaries, they have no law enforcement powers beyond those of an ordinary citizen. Citizens' powers in law enforcement are severely limited, and there can be serious penalties for overstepping these boundaries. For example, citizens, even those with police approval, do not receive the same protective blanket and are fully liable for tort actions for wrongful death or injury.

While there can be substantial benefits from cooperation between the police and private citizens, legal consequences for both parties must be considered. Some courts have held that prearranged plans and joint activity between the public and private sectors 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

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.

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 those of the ordinary citizen. And the citizen's power in law enforcement is severely circumscribed, with potentially serious penalties for its usurpation. 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.

Citizen involvement in the law-enforcement process

While citizens are able to engage in both reactive and proactive actions concerning crime, their authority to combat crime is limited. Citizens do not receive the same protective status as police officers and are fully liable to tort actions for wrongful death or injury. There is no intermediary status between the role of citizen and that of policeman, and citizens who take on law enforcement powers beyond those of the ordinary citizen face potentially serious legal problems.

However, substantial benefits can occur from cooperation between the police and private citizens or groups. For example, recent self-defence groups have performed largely deterrent functions and have not usually held street trials or meted out alley justice.

Community groups

Self-defence groups, or recent self-defence groups, have been involved in the surveillance and protection of their own communities, often as an ancillary group to the regular police. They have performed largely deterrent functions and have not usually held street trials or meted out alley justice. However, they have chosen to involve themselves as private citizens in police work, which has raised the issue of vigilantism.

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

Frequently asked questions