The 1990s: the time for aggressive police officers.

In the wake of the Rodney King incident and other similar occurrences throughout the Nation, some police administrators have been hurrying to weed out their more aggressive field police officers. These administrators fear that the trend to video tape police activity on the streets may reveal some unpleasant realities in their respective departments. Consequently, self-motivated, eager street officers find themselves being "promoted" to desk jobs, administrative duty, property and identification sections, and other "off-street" assignments, where concerned administrators believe they will be less likely to harm their department's reputation.

In their place, administrators assign police officers with average talent and abilities to patrol duties--those who are low-key and who handle little more than routine calls for service. Administrators believe that these steady, stable officers will still handle their responsibilities, but will less likely involve themselves in controversy or self-initiated action, thereby diminishing the probability of a confrontation and the glare of subsequent media attention. Unfortunately, this philosophy is both flawed and tragic.

The 1990s is not the time to place "average" police officers on the streets. Rather, administrators should field their most talented and most experienced police officers, even if they are the most aggressive. The complexity of police work and the sheer volume of crime today require "go-getters" with sound judgment.

What is an Aggressive Police Officer?

Perhaps this discussion should begin by describing what aggressive police officers are not. These officers are not quick-tempered or power-hungry. They do not use their badge as a means to flaunt their authority or as a shield to justify unacceptable behavior.

On the contrary, aggressive police officers are compassionate and respectful, even to lawbreakers. They understand current search and seizure case law and the concept of probable cause. They are well-versed in interview and interrogation techniques and can recognize someone under the influence of drags almost instantly. Most important, they enjoy their work and clearly demonstrate the desire to get criminals off the street.

Aggressive police officers are curious, even suspicious, but remain keenly sensitive to even the most subtle detail of every situation they confront. They possess intuition, or a sixth sense, that other officers recognize and appreciate. They do their jobs, whatever the assignment, without violating anyone's civil rights, because they always work within the parameters of the law. Above all, they exhibit extraordinary judgment and utmost respect for the community.

Aggressive police officers are sometimes called "super cops," and they are desperately needed on today's crime-ridden streets. They are a blessing to law-abiding citizens of all races, creeds, colors, religions, and nationalities who are tired of living in fear.

Knowing what constitutes aggressive officers raises two important questions. First, are aggressive police officers--those possessing the attributes listed above--self-made or are they groomed by others? And, second, if a need exists to field this type of police officer, and I believe crime statistics prove this need, then why are police administrators transferring, or in other ways limiting, their most valuable assets? The answers may lie within the supervisors and leaders of the organization and their ability to do their jobs.

Supervision or the Lack Thereof

Any military aficionado knows that sergeants represent the backbone of the military and generals, the brains. All intervening ranks serve as communicators and implementors of policy from the top. Those in the ranks below sergeants get the job done; they actually do what the generals command.

The fact that sergeants are the leaders and/or supervisors of line personnel makes their jobs critical to the success of any tactical operation. If they possess no supervisory ability or their supervisory ability is disjointed, weak, or misguided, the most brilliant battle plans devised by generals are doomed to failure.

The same holds true in the law enforcement profession. The sergeant and the chief are the two most critical positions in a police department. They ultimately determine the quality of the field police officer.

A strong sergeant, one who motivates, trains, and leads, plays an integral role in the development of police personnel. Those who do not tolerate excessive force, racism, or mediocrity from subordinates, but expect nothing short of hard, aggressive police work, are truly a community's best friend.

These field supervisors teach aggressive officers that the only way not to fear video cameras, the media, or anyone or anything is just "to do the right thing." Simply put, officers must be taught to work within the law and to give due respect to the people they serve, including those arrested and cited.

Sergeants should continually remind officers to understand the job, to enjoy it, not to take their roles too seriously, and above all, not to let individual egos get in the way of doing the job right. Field supervisors who convey these messages to hard-working patrol officers instill confidence during times of public police bashing.

This is not the time for sergeants to caution, retard, or hamper good, aggressive police work. Rather, the time has come to recognize and reward such work and to turn the spotlight on those officers who make an impact on the crime and violence that is so commonplace and out of control in America today.

This, then, answers the first question. Good, aggressive street officers are seldom self-made. They require guidance, direction, training, and education. In other words, they need to be molded by a strong sergeant who, in my opinion, is the second most critical factor in an organization to ensure a desired patrol force. The other factor, and the one I consider the most critical, is the leader of the organization--the chief or sheriff.

Leader or Political Player

Field supervisors, or sergeants, work under an "umbrella of policies" issued by leaders of organizations, or to return to the military analogy, the generals. Unfortunately, there are few Norman Schwartzkopfs--that is, bold individuals who know how to lead--in law enforcement. Instead, too often, some members of the commanding ranks are politically fearful generals who have difficulty making hard operational decisions. These generals rarely make waves, but they also fail to get the job done.

Law enforcement today desperately needs leaders who are not afraid to empower, as well as to train properly, their supervisors and officers. Political chess players at the level of police chief or sheriff are counterproductive to achieve the desired levels of community safety and to enhance the quality of life.

A leader must insist on strong supervision and aggressive police officers, but not tolerate unprofessional conduct. This is what citizens demand and deserve from police professionals. Only then will the leaders set forth the policies needed to achieve success.

Conclusion

Just as aggressive police officers working under weak supervisors can become sources of concern so too can strong supervisors working under weak leaders be rendered useless. Now more than ever before, citizens demand the most from their police departments. People want to take the bars off their windows and doors and still feel safe in their communities. They want police officers on the street who are as aggressive as the law allows, while being compassionate, caring, courteous, and friendly. They want strong supervisors and bold leaders to direct the thin blue line that separates civilization from anarchy.

This is not the time for caution. Rather, the time has come to train, educate, motivate, support, and effectively lead the aggressive street police officer. To accept less is to invite more turbulent times ahead.

Sound Off provides a forum for criminal justice professionals to express alternative views on accepted practices or to address emerging, and perhaps controversial, issues. Law Enforcement provides this platform to stimulate thought within the law enforcement community and to encourage administrators to consider new ways of addressing such issues. However, ideas expressed in Sound Off are strictly those of the author; their appearance in Law Enforcement should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI.