Skip to main content
Workforce LibreTexts

4.2.4: The Community Era

  • Page ID
    69465
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle\sum\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle\int\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle\lim\limits} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \(\newcommand{\longvect}{\overrightarrow}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \(\newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left| #1 \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left< #1 \right|}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2} \right| \left. #2 \vphantom{#1} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\braopket}[3]{\left< #1 \vphantom{#2}\vphantom{#3} \right| #2 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#3} \left| #3 \vphantom{#1}\vphantom{#2} \right>}\)
    \(\newcommand{\qmvec}[1]{\mathbf{\vec{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\op}[1]{\hat{\mathbf{#1}}}\)
    \(\newcommand{\expect}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}\)
    \(\newcommand{\dfn}[1]{\emph{\textbf{#1}}}\)

    \(\newcommand{\avec}{\mathbf a}\) \(\newcommand{\bvec}{\mathbf b}\) \(\newcommand{\cvec}{\mathbf c}\) \(\newcommand{\dvec}{\mathbf d}\) \(\newcommand{\dtil}{\widetilde{\mathbf d}}\) \(\newcommand{\evec}{\mathbf e}\) \(\newcommand{\fvec}{\mathbf f}\) \(\newcommand{\nvec}{\mathbf n}\) \(\newcommand{\pvec}{\mathbf p}\) \(\newcommand{\qvec}{\mathbf q}\) \(\newcommand{\svec}{\mathbf s}\) \(\newcommand{\tvec}{\mathbf t}\) \(\newcommand{\uvec}{\mathbf u}\) \(\newcommand{\vvec}{\mathbf v}\) \(\newcommand{\wvec}{\mathbf w}\) \(\newcommand{\xvec}{\mathbf x}\) \(\newcommand{\yvec}{\mathbf y}\) \(\newcommand{\zvec}{\mathbf z}\) \(\newcommand{\rvec}{\mathbf r}\) \(\newcommand{\mvec}{\mathbf m}\) \(\newcommand{\zerovec}{\mathbf 0}\) \(\newcommand{\onevec}{\mathbf 1}\) \(\newcommand{\real}{\mathbb R}\) \(\newcommand{\twovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\ctwovec}[2]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\threevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cthreevec}[3]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfourvec}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\fivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{r}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\cfivevec}[5]{\left[\begin{array}{c}#1 \\ #2 \\ #3 \\ #4 \\ #5 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\mattwo}[4]{\left[\begin{array}{rr}#1 \amp #2 \\ #3 \amp #4 \\ \end{array}\right]}\) \(\newcommand{\laspan}[1]{\text{Span}\{#1\}}\) \(\newcommand{\bcal}{\cal B}\) \(\newcommand{\ccal}{\cal C}\) \(\newcommand{\scal}{\cal S}\) \(\newcommand{\wcal}{\cal W}\) \(\newcommand{\ecal}{\cal E}\) \(\newcommand{\coords}[2]{\left\{#1\right\}_{#2}}\) \(\newcommand{\gray}[1]{\color{gray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\lgray}[1]{\color{lightgray}{#1}}\) \(\newcommand{\rank}{\operatorname{rank}}\) \(\newcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\col}{\text{Col}}\) \(\renewcommand{\row}{\text{Row}}\) \(\newcommand{\nul}{\text{Nul}}\) \(\newcommand{\var}{\text{Var}}\) \(\newcommand{\corr}{\text{corr}}\) \(\newcommand{\len}[1]{\left|#1\right|}\) \(\newcommand{\bbar}{\overline{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bhat}{\widehat{\bvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\bperp}{\bvec^\perp}\) \(\newcommand{\xhat}{\widehat{\xvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\vhat}{\widehat{\vvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\uhat}{\widehat{\uvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\what}{\widehat{\wvec}}\) \(\newcommand{\Sighat}{\widehat{\Sigma}}\) \(\newcommand{\lt}{<}\) \(\newcommand{\gt}{>}\) \(\newcommand{\amp}{&}\) \(\definecolor{fillinmathshade}{gray}{0.9}\)

    During the 1960s, the U.S. experienced a tumultuous period marked by social discontent, political unrest, and heightened public protests and riots. This era was characterized by pervasive fears of crime, a prevailing culture of popular punitivism, and a spotlight on racial injustice that dominated political debates. Adding to the complexity, the nation grappled with a struggling economy, facing the challenges of “stagflation”—a unique blend of slow economic growth and rapidly rising inflationary prices, which imposed a financial squeeze on households nationwide (Ha et al., 2022; Nielsen, 2023).

    Federal Uniform Crime Reporting data from this period revealed a concerning trend: reported crimes across nearly all categories had doubled from 1960 to 1970, while violent crime rates increased even further during this tumultuous decade (Uchida, 2005). Law enforcement agencies found themselves on the front lines of a mounting crime wave, a phenomenon defying a simple, singular explanation. As a result, the 1960s and 1970s witnessed the implementation of various policy changes in response to these multifaceted challenges, signifying the conclusion of the reform era and the initiation of a transition towards the community policing era during the 1970s.

    Transitional Years (1960s-1970s)

    During the transformative period of the 1960s and 1970s, law enforcement underwent a deliberate evolution, prompted by the recognition of the limitations inherent in existing policing methods. Rather than merely reacting to crime after the fact, reformers pushed for policing that addressed its social and economic roots. The result was the community policing era, which marked a departure from reactive, centralized models toward decentralized, proactive, and community-oriented approaches (Uchida, 2005).

    Central to the ethos of the community policing era was a dual focus: not only on crime control but also on the cultivation of positive relationships between law enforcement agencies and the local communities they served. This marked a departure from traditional practices, emphasizing collaboration and engagement over a strictly punitive approach.

    Technological advancements in the 1960s and 1970s, such as computers and the establishment of the 9-1-1 emergency response number, introduced efficiencies to law enforcement. However, these innovations paradoxically contributed to a growing divide between law enforcement and the community. Despite the improvements in police efficiency, the advent of these technologies raised concerns about the potential detachment between officers and the populations they served (Spelman & Brown, 1981). Nevertheless, the use of computers facilitated a more nuanced evaluation of policing strategies.

    clipboard_ec87fd24da8045a70e70151a4539f93e6.png
    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Over time, the introduction of innovative technologies continues to shape methods and practice of law enforcement agencies.
    Photo Credit: City of Boston Archives, CC BY 2.0

    Amid these technological changes, the DOJ played a pivotal role by collaborating with police departments across the country, offering support, and disseminating research and technical assistance. Simultaneously, federal and state governments invested significant resources, allocating millions of dollars to the creation and support of criminal justice education programs.

    Research and investigations conducted during this era exposed the ineffectiveness of several common policing practices, which had a detrimental impact on the relationship between law enforcement and local communities. Studies revealed that the mere act of patrolling in cars did not necessarily deter crime (Kelling et al., 1974), that evidence collection at crime scenes lacked efficacy without assistance from witnesses (Chaiken et al., 1977), and even with the implementation of 9-1-1, rapid response to a crime scene did not always translate to swift arrests (Spelman & Brown, 1981).

    Federal Influence and Impact

    Significant federal changes unfolded during this transformative period, reshaping the legal landscape and influencing law enforcement practices. The interventions at the federal level during this era were multifaceted, involving several crucial legal rulings, legislative acts, and the establishment of commissions. These initiatives collectively aimed to fortify constitutional protections, promote equality, and address systemic issues within the criminal justice system. The heightened scrutiny over law enforcement practices contributed to establishing the groundwork for a more accountable and just legal framework, fostering a path towards a fairer and more inclusive society.

    The 1960s was a pivotal era characterized by influential U.S. Supreme Court rulings that bolstered citizens’ protections and curtailed police discretion. Notable among these rulings are Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which are central to the safeguarding of individual rights. While exceptions were established through rulings like Terry v. Ohio (1968), these cases collectively ushered in a new era of legal scrutiny over police conduct.

    Furthermore, the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pictured in Figure 7.19 below, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 marks significant milestones in the pursuit of equality and inclusion. These legislative measures, beyond addressing workplace discrimination, were crucial factors for the broadening of employment opportunities among women and minority groups, thus, contributing substantially to the advancement of a more diverse and inclusive American workforce.

    In the years that followed, the American federal government continued to reinforce its commitment to fostering an equitable society through the introduction of pivotal disabilities acts. Among these acts were the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975, originally called the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). These legislative measures constitute significant milestones in the recognition and protection of rights for individuals with disabilities. They established a crucial foundation for subsequent legislation and initiatives dedicated to promoting equal opportunities, ensuring access to education, and safeguarding against discrimination for people with disabilities in the U.S.

    The intensifying conflicts and escalating tensions between the police and communities in the 1960s necessitated comprehensive investigations into police corruption and strained relations between law enforcement and minorities. In response, the federal government took decisive action, establishing several commissions during the 1960s and 1970s with the goal of improving understanding and implementing changes in approach to enhance the struggling American criminal justice system. Among the more noteworthy commissions were the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, the Knapp Commission, and the Office of Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).

    President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice

    In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson responded to mounting concerns about crime and the urgent need for comprehensive criminal justice reform by establishing The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Entrusted with the task of scrutinizing challenges within the American criminal justice system and proposing reforms, the commission conducted a thorough two-year investigation, culminating in the release of its seminal report, Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967). This landmark document comprised over 200 recommendations aimed at enhancing the criminal justice system. Noteworthy contributions from the report include the initiation of the community policing approach, the establishment of a national 9-1-1 emergency response hotline, advancements in police training and professionalism, inspiration for the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the creation of the LEAA. The commission’s profound impact resonated across subsequent criminal justice policies, significantly influencing the trajectory toward the community policing era (Diegelman, 1982).

    National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission)

    Established in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, commonly known as the Kerner Commission, undertook an investigation into the causes of racial unrest and urban riots that marked the earlier part of the decade. Chaired by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner, the commission released its seminal findings later that year, encapsulated in the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968), also known as the Kerner Report. The report unequivocally identified systemic racism and socioeconomic inequality as predominant factors fueling social unrest, famously declaring in its introduction: “Our Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal” (p. 1). Instrumental in fostering an understanding of structural racism as the primary factor propelling social inequality, the report shifted the narrative, redirecting blame for social unrest away from urban Black communities. Moreover, the Kerner Report underscored the far-reaching negative impacts of racial segregation on various socioeconomic aspects, including employment, education, and housing, leading to a troubling cycle of poverty and crime in Black neighborhoods nationwide. The report also critically portrayed police not just as government actors of authority, but as symbols of repression, racism, and brutality. Urging the nation to address these root causes, the Kerner Commission proposed comprehensive social and economic reforms to prevent future civil disorders. Its findings highlighted the urgent need to confront racial injustice and set the foundation for subsequent discussions on racial and economic disparities in the United States.

    Commission to Investigate Alleged Police Corruption (Knapp Commission)

    The Knapp Commission, officially the Commission to Investigate Alleged Police Corruption, was established in 1970 in response to widespread allegations of corruption within the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Led by its chairman, federal judge Whitman Knapp, the commission set out to investigate and uncover corrupt practices among police officers. The commission’s collaborative efforts exposed systemic corruption, ranging from bribery and extortion to narcotics-related misconduct within the police force. The Knapp Commission’s findings were published in the landmark The Knapp Commission Report on Police Corruption (1973), commonly known as the Knapp Report, which unveiled extensive corruption throughout the entire NYPD and proposed essential reforms to tackle this pervasive issue. Notably, the report coined the terms “grass eaters” to reference officers accepting gratuities and small bribes such as from tow-truck drivers, gamblers, or construction workers, and “meat eaters” for those seeking opportunities to exploit criminals or criminal organizations for substantial sums (Armstrong, 1995). This report had a lasting impact on police practices, leading to increased scrutiny, internal reforms, and changes in the oversight of law enforcement agencies.

    Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

    In response to the escalating crime rates and public unrest in the 1960s, there was a recognized need to bolster crime control efforts. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), established in 1968 under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act during the Johnson administration, emerged as a pioneering federal agency. Directed by J. Edgar Hoover, it became the first major program channeling federal aid—totaling approximately $7.5 billion between 1969 and 1980—to local and state law enforcement agencies (Diegelman, 1982). The LEAA aimed to modernize and professionalize policing by offering financial and technical support for training, equipment, and criminal justice programs. The agency sought to enhance state-level law enforcement practices, address rising crime, conduct research, and promote collaborative efforts between federal, state, and local authorities. However, the LEAA faced criticism for unrealistic expectations, poor fiscal management, and bureaucratic inefficiencies, coupled with an inability to demonstrate a tangible reduction in crime. Public concerns about the militarization of police forces further contributed to its dissolution in 1982 as part of broader government reorganization efforts, marking the conclusion of a pivotal era in federal support for law enforcement initiatives.

    Impactful Moments in Criminal Justice: Pivotal 20th Century Court Rulings that Shaped Police Procedure

    Case Year

    Rulings’ Impact on Police Procedure:

    Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

    Established the Exclusionary Rule, prohibiting federal courts from admitting illegally obtained evidence through search and seizure by federal police officers.

    Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

    Expanded the scope of the Exclusionary Rule to encompass state police and courts.

    Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

    Mandated law enforcement to inform individuals in custody of their rights, including the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the protection against self-incrimination.

    Katz v. U.S. (1967)

    Broadened the scope of the Fourth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV) by delineating a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

    Terry v. Ohio (1968)

    Granting officers the authority to conduct a search of a person for weapons based on reasonable suspicion.

    Martinez-Fuerte v. U.S. (1976)

    Affirming the constitutionality of police checkpoints and declaring them not to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment (U.S. Const. amend. IV) .

    Michigan v. Summers (1981)

    Affirming that officers possess the authority to briefly detain occupants of a residence when executing a warrant to search for contraband.

    Edwards v. Arizona (1981)

    Once a suspect in custody invokes their right to counsel, officers must promptly cease any questioning.

    Michigan v. Long (1983)

    Extended the parameters of the “protective sweep,” enabling officers to search car compartments in the proximity of the suspect even after the suspect has been detained.

    Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

    Establishing that the use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect is deemed unconstitutional unless the officer possesses probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat to death or serious bodily injury to the officer or the public.

    Graham v. Conner (1989)

    Mandated the application of the “objective reasonableness” standard in evaluating claims of excessive force by law enforcement.

    Wilson v. Arkansas (1995)

    Unless it increases the risk of injury or the destruction of evidence, officers are obligated to adhere to the “knock and announce” procedure, providing a reasonable amount of time before entering a residence with a search warrant.

    Weeks v. U.S. (1914)

    Established the Exclusionary Rule, prohibiting federal courts from admitting illegally obtained evidence through search and seizure by federal police officers.


    This page titled 4.2.4: The Community Era was last modified on Sat, 26 Sep 2026 19:45:08 GMT and is shared under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Antoniette Aizon.