 SOUND OFF: THE 1990s--THE TIME FOR AGGRESSIVE POLICE OFFICERS 

                               By

                            Tom Gabor
                           Lieutenant
           Culver City, California, Police Department


     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 drugs 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.
