Some form of state enforcement of law and security is basic to all human societies. People living in groups arrive at some notion of common norms and rules and some means to enforce them. In small tribal societies this process may be conducted in a very non-hierarchical manner with everybody having a voice in it. However, there is always an inherent conflict between group control an individual autonomy. As societies have become larger and more complex so have the systems of laws and the mechanisms for their enforcement. Systems of political and economic philosophy vary greatly in their views about the proper role for the state and its government. However, basic police power is accepted as a basic function of government by most people.
A very basic notion in systems of democratic government is that the people exercising the police power must be accountable to the public for their actions. The general political model of US government that the framers of the constitution had in mind was one of decentralization. The powers centralized in the federal government were specifically limited and those not specified were reserved for control by the states. Individual states followed a similar approach in establishing local governments in the form of counties and municipalities. General policing functions were under the control of those local governments. Community control and accountability of police has long been an American philosophical ideal.
In practice community control of police has almost always been uneven. Even in small towns there are usually some people who have more money and power than everybody else and the police are usually more responsive to their needs and priorities. In large cities the balance has always been more unequal. In post 9/11 America there have been several disturbing trends of tendencies toward a centralization and militarization of police power and of shifts from public tax supported funding and the accountability that comes with that to private corporate funding with diminishing public accountability and control.
The nationally coordinated crack down on the Occupy demonstration in 2011 gave us a glimpse of the federal control system that is being developed by Homeland Security with its fusion centers. The massive responses to the Boston Marathon bombing and to the protest in Ferguson gave us a glimpse of the federal program to equip local police with military equipment and tactics. The revelations of Edward Snowden opened a door on the vast reach of the security state operated by the NSA. These are all actions under at least the nominal control of the federal government. What I want to address here is two observed trends that go beyond centralized government control to giving control of public police functions and resources to private corporate interests.
A few days ago I wrote this diary about the situation in St. Louis that allows members of the police force to work for private security firms while wearing their official police uniforms. Today I came across an article in the LA times which indicates that the practice is becoming more widespread.
When police moonlight in their uniforms
And while the particular taxpayer arrangement in St. Louis may be unusual, the broader practice of privately hiring public police in their police uniforms isn't. Some police departments, such as St. Louis, have formal programs that set pay rates and approve potential employers. In St. Louis, such moonlighting deals may be a response to a downsized public police department that is little more than half as big as it was in 1970.
The Los Angeles Police Department and the New York Police Department, the largest in the country, are among the forces that have a formal program to oversee public police officers, in uniform, who are paid as private security. You might have seen such LAPD offices at a Dodgers or Lakers game, or at the Hollywood Bowl. In 2006, the Los Angeles City Council approved the rules that required private corporations interested in hiring off-duty police officers in uniform to contract directly with the department rather than with individual officers, as had been the case.
The Police Commission wanted greater departmental control over officers' private employment. But the rule change also gives the private employment of officers in uniform the department's stamp of legitimacy and support.
How many police departments around the country have these arrangements? Because there is no regular collection of national data on police moonlighting, it's hard to say. But this direct intermingling of private and public raises unique and troubling questions if public police are to be responsive to the communities they serve, and not just to parts of them.
This gives an insight into one of the outcomes of the libertarian mania for cutting government budgets and shrinking public services. Instead of collecting money from individuals and corporations in the form of taxes which are then subjected to some amount of public scrutiny, it makes the money that doesn't go to taxes available to take control of the void left in public services and direct them according to the interests of the wealthy. The lines between the public and the private become ever more blurry.
In addition to the federal support for increasing the reach of local police forces, there in now an increasing trend of private and corporate money flowing directly to local police departments.
Private Donors Supply Spy Gear to Cops
The article begins with the story of how the LAPD wanted to acquire of piece of state of the art intelligence software called Palantir. They could have found the money in their already sizable but that would have meant having to have the contract subject to a publicly accessible review process. Instead they turned to the Los Angeles Police Foundation which in turn solicited a $200K donation from Target Corp. The process was completed in secret. As a FORMER Target customer whose debit card information was stolen at Target, I am inclined to think the money could have been better spent.
In Los Angeles, foundation money has been used to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of license plate readers, which were the subject of a civil-rights lawsuit filed against the region's law enforcement agencies by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (A judge rejected the groups' claims earlier this year.)
Private funds also have been used to upgrade "Stingray" devices, which have triggered debate in numerous jurisdictions because they vacuum up records of cellphone metadata, calls, text messages and data transfers over a half-mile radius.
New York and Los Angeles have the nation's oldest and most generous police foundations, each providing their city police departments with grants totaling about $3 million a year. But similar groups have sprouted up in dozens of jurisdictions, from Atlanta, Georgia, to Oakland, California. In Atlanta, the police foundation has bankrolled the surveillance cameras that now blanket the city, as well as the center where police officers monitor live video feeds.
Proponents of these private fundraising efforts say they have become indispensable in an era of tightening budgets, helping police to acquire the ever-more sophisticated tools needed to combat modern crime.
The article provides a lot more detail about transactions between police foundations and private corporations. This blurring of the lines between public and private control of police functions raises serious issues. Among other things it provides one means of evading the kind of accountability for police policies and actions that citizens groups are attempting to initiate.