THE SHAPING OF STREET-LEVEL POLICE DISCRETION IN DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT

1. THE SHAPING OF STREET-LEVEL POLICE DISCRETION IN DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT Presented at the UCI Undergraduate Research Symposium By Michael Lee May 15, 2004

2. What is Police Discretion? Traffic Stop Scenario

3. Police Discretion • Defined as "autonomy decision-making" (Black, 1968, p. 25). • Exercised “whenever the effective limits of his power leave him free to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction” (Davis, 1969, p. 4).

4. Past Research on Police Discretion • Emergence of police discretion as a research issue • The American Bar Foundation (ABF) survey in the 1950s • Variables affecting police discretion (Brooks, 1989, 2001): • Organizational structure • Neighborhood composition • Situational factors, including the offender and crime • Officer characteristics

5. Past Research on Police Discretion (continued) • Studies carried out in context of • Traffic enforcement • Domestic violence • Sexual assault • Incidents involving mentally ill persons

7. California’s War on Drugs • 257,458 of 1,390,613 arrests made in 2002 for drug offenses (CA DOJ) • Of the 155,722 inmates in state institutions, 33,252 incarcerated for drug crimes (CDC Census, as of Dec. 31, 2003) • Cost estimates = $13.1 billion annually (Estimates as of 2001 based on percentages from The Economic Cost of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the U.S., 1992, NIDA & NIAAA)

8. Discretion in Drug Law Enforcement • Discretion affected by • DeFleur (1975): • Community pressure and police perception of public demand • Offender’s demeanor • Stereotypical behavior of females • Skolnick (1975): • Pursuit of the "good pinch" and informant use • The "perception of the addict as a harbinger of violence..." (p. 120). • Manning (1980): • Unsystematic and limited information • Lack of organizational regulations

9. Hypothesis I • California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), or Proposition 36, will have a significant effect on police discretion.

10. Hypothesis II • Differences in department size and crime level will produce distinct influential factors on police discretion in drug law enforcement.

11. Hypothesis III • Police discretion in drug law enforcement is shaped by an array of factors that affect police discretion in any given situation as well as those that are exclusive to drug crimes.

12. Police Department Comparison *Based on 2002 CA Department of Justice Statistics

13. City Comparison Based on 2002 U.S. Census Bureau Statistics

14. Methodology • Convenience/snowballing sample • 10 patrol officers from each department

15. Methodology (continued) • Interviews • 30-90 minutes • Standardized questionnaire • Officers asked about general aspects of their job, use of discretion in general and in the context of drug law enforcement, and the impact of current drug policies (Proposition 36)

16. Results for Hypothesis I • Proposition 36 • officers continue to arrest; no demoralization or perception of job as social work. “I’m not a counselor or a psychologist. I just do my job. The choices are there for the offender to choose” (Officer Z, Blue City PD). “It [policy] doesn’t matter.You get comfortably numb after a while” (Officer Q, Greentown PD). “Some guys will serve a lifetime in jail one day at a time. It doesn’t matter to me” (Officer W, Blue City PD).

17. Results for Hypothesis I (continued) • Proposition 36 • Weakened police bargaining power in forming informants • Unable to use imprisonment as leverage to turn offenders into informants, since the initiative allows first- and second-time, non-violent, simple drug possession offenders the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration

18. Results for Hypothesis I (continued) • Proposition 36 • Repeat offenders increasing difficulties for law enforcement “It’s not necessarily more charges, but arresting the same guys over and over again. [Prop. 36] just puts the crooks back out on the streets” (Officer V, Greentown PD).

19. Results for Hypothesis II • Differences between the departments: • Budget issues, lack of manpower "We have very little own time because of low budgets and manpower" (Officer F, Greentown PD). • Stricter drug law enforcement “We see the results of sales, possession ,and users” (Officer B, Greentown PD). • Contact with drug offenders as medical cases

20. Results for Hypothesis III • Discretion in any given situation affected by the • Officer's experience “Someone who's been on the job for a while will know how to use discretion more than a guy who's just out of the academy" (Officer D, Blue City PD). • Severity of the offense "As it [the offense] gets more serious, discretion decreases" (Officer R, Greentown PD).

21. Results for Hypothesis III (continued) • Offender's demeanor and attitude “The ultimate goal of law enforcement is to make sure it doesn’t happen again. If the suspect's scared and has the right attitude, I can trust that he learned from the experience. On the other hand, if he has a 'screw-the-cops' mentality, he’ll have to learn from the consequences” (Officer U, Blue City PD). • Offender's prior criminal history "If the guy's on probation or parole, that's it"(Officer G, Blue City PD).

22. Results for Hypothesis III (continued) • Liability "When there's liability involved, discretion's out the window"(Officer D, Blue City PD). • Limits of the law "There's absolutely no discretion with domestic violence. The law requires documentation in all cases...it's a political hot potato"(Officer Q, Greentown PD).

23. Results for Hypothesis III (continued) • Discretion in drug law enforcement further influenced by the • Type/status/amount of drugs “A small baggie of weed is not worth the time, effort, and paperwork. Letting it go is like letting a traffic citation go” (Officer L, Greentown PD). • Status of the offender • Recreational user, habitual user, or drug seller • Juvenile “Taking kids to their parents rather than the legal system sometimes makes a bigger difference” (Officer H, Blue City PD).

24. Results for Hypothesis III (continued) • Offender's potential as an informant “I had a girl once who was under arrest for being under the influence with meth. We got her to name her source, and ended up trading one misdemeanor arrest for two felonies” (Officer E, Greentown PD). • Perceived likelihood to cause other crimes “Narcotic violations are the root of almost everything. Your DVs [domestic violence], DUI, thefts, burglaries, and so on” (Officer I, Blue City PD).

25. “To all those people who say, ‘oh, it’s just a little weed,’ this is what I’d like to show ‘em” (Officer X, Greentown PD). Courtesy of Officer X, Greentown Police Department.

26. Perspectives • Generalizability • Small sample size • Non-representative sample • Validity • Absence of corroborating data • Sensitivity of the issue

27. Acknowledgements • Dr. John Dombrink • Dr. Valerie Jenness • Glenda Kelmes, Doctoral Student • The Management and Officers at the Participating Police Departments • UCI Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program

28. For Further Information Contact Michael Lee Department of Criminology, Law and Society Department of Psychology and Social Behavior University of California, Irvine mlee6@uci.edu