SAGE Journal Articles
Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.
Abstract: Nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foot patrolmen did not have friendly contact with all citizens on their beats. Police-citizen relations were sometimes hostile or simply anonymous. Beats embraced large, socially divided populations, which did not always agree on police priorities. This article explores street-level police-citizen relations in New York City in the early twentieth century using disciplinary records, police-oriented newspapers, autobiographies, and other sources. Police-citizen contacts were selective. Merchants, shopkeepers, watchmen, and janitors shared common interests with police, which were strengthened by exchange of goods, services, the use of space, and sympathy and conversation. Police became especially attentive to their concerns about crime and disorder. Few other citizens could establish such links with beat patrolmen. Officers’ relationships on their beats were influential but had significant built-in biases, reinforcing the enforcement of law and control of disorder in ways congruent with the needs and views of neighborhood notables.
Abstract: The war on drugs has resulted in numerous policing reforms, partly a function of policy established through the court system. In Illinois v. Caballes (2005), the Supreme Court held that a canine sniff of a vehicle’s exterior is not a ‘‘search,’’ but acknowledged that a prolonged detention could result in a Fourth Amendment violation. This study examines the universe of federal appellate court decisions involving canine sniffs postdating the Caballes decision—a period spanning more than 4 years. Results show that court decisions have largely focused on motorist stops, while only a minority of cases has involved canine sniffs of residences. Additionally, courts have usually held that a canine sniff occurring during a prolonged vehicle stop is not an unreasonable seizure. However, in limited contexts police questioning and the extent of the roadside detention can result in a Fourth Amendment violation. Although one’s home is generally afforded the highest level of constitutional protection, appellate courts have ruled that canine sniffs of residences are less intrusive than technologically assisted searches. On the whole, findings reveal an overall suppression rate of 10%. Policy implications surrounding the use of canines in vehicle stops and residential searches are addressed