Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volume 48 | Issue 6 Article 13

1958

St. Louis County Department of Police--A Study inFunctional Consolidation, TheGordon E. Misner

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationGordon E. Misner, St. Louis County Department of Police--A Study in Functional Consolidation, The, 48 J. Crim. L. Criminology &Police Sci. 652 (1957-1958)

JOHN J. HARRIS

Figure 3

"d" and "1", and the slim "h" in most of thesignatures.

This last series "Dye" (figure 5) was picked be-cause of the Greek "e". It is an eye catcher, andthe differences between the rest of the signaturesmight go unnoticed.

There are over 2,300,000 signatures on file at theLos Angeles County Voters Registration. Becauseof the limited writing in each signature it is onlypractical to compare handwriting of persons withthe same name. Results might be even more en-lightening, if Smith's handwriting could be com-pared with Brown's and Jones's.

CONCLUSIONS

Since some people write quite a bit alike, thefollowing suggestions might be kept in mind, inaddition to the age old rule of always obtainingplenty of specimen writing.

1. Certain "highly identifying" letter forms arenot necessarily so identifying. Caution should be

exercised placing too much emphasis on one pticular feature in a writing.

2. When comparing these so-called "higiidentifying" characters in two writings, thmust correspond just as the other letters (Greek "e's" can be made in a dozen different wa:

3. The importance of considering movem(and manner (line quality) in a handwriting idenfication problem is emphasized.

4. Slight but persistent differences in slant, sishading, letter forms, and movement between tspecimens of handwriting is a strong indicatithat they are by different writers.

5. In examining a handwriting problem, cthe number of suspects be limited or must it betermined that one suspect, and only one in all Ination, wrote the document?

6. People who write alike have a great natupotential in imitating one another's writing. Atherefore, it is important to examine the hatwriting of all parties involved.

HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE WRITE ALIKE 651

Figure 5P-tgure 4

THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE

A Study in Functional Consolidation

GORDON E. MISNER

The author is an Assistant Professor, Police School, San Jose State College, where he was ap-

pointed to the faculty in 1956. He had previously served on the staff of the Manin County Sheriff'sOffice, California from 1951 to 1955. In 1952 he received an M.A. degree from the University ofCalifornia and in 1956 published a Survey of the Police Resources of Marin Cotinty, California.-EDITOR.

On November 2, 1954, the voters of St. LouisCounty, Missouri took an important step in thedirection of unifying the multifarious nature ofpolice organization in their county and bringingsome semblance of administrative order to an areaafflicted with the frustrations of competing andoften overlapping jurisdictions. Replacing thesheriff system of the county with a professionaland non-political county police department, thevoters accepted the challenge and removed someof the devisive effects of police organization basedupon the traditional "home rule" pattern. Prior tothe establishment of the new department, policeeffort throughout the county was dissipated by theproliferation of 97 separate agencies and the citi-zens of the unincorporated sections of the countyoften suffered from inefficient and politically-motivated enforcement of the law. In an areasuch as St. Louis County, organization was thevery key to solution, and the St. Louis CountyDepartment of Police represents one of the mostimportant developments in county police or-ganization in recent history.

County departments of police certainly do notrepresent new types of police organization.' Thecharacter and the substantive features of the St.Louis County department do represent, however,certain innovations in county law enforcement.Developments in St. Louis County may present auseful pattern for police organization in othermetropolitan or highly urbanized areas. Briefly,the voters of St. Louis County revised some of thenormal concepts of "home rule" government.Leaving intact the major principles of "homerule" law enforcement, the voters of the county

I Variations of county police departments are to befound in Nassau County, N. Y., Baltimore and Mont-gomery Counties, Md., Fairfield and Arlington Coun-ties, Va., among others.

65:

approved the establishment of a County Depart-ment of Police with county-wide police powers.They approved the removal of law enforcementfrom the vicissitudes and uncertainties of countvpolitics. In an amendment to the county charter,the voters deprived the Sheriff and the Constablesof their normal law enforcement powers. And in anattempt to bring to the county a uniform andprofessional system of law enforcement, the votersapproved many sound principles of governmentand police administration.

In principle, the citizens of the county haverealized the following important gains:

1. Law enforcement by the county departmentis maturely responsive to the voters, through theirelected representatives;

2. The voters are assured a continuity of lawenforcement policy through the medium of a bi-partisan five-member Board of Police Commis-sioners;

3. The chief law enforcement officer of thecounty has been removed several steps from thepolitical process and chosen solely upon his pro-fessional experience and training;

4. Rigid and sensible employment standardsand a merit system have been adopted, thus pro-tecting the non-political character of law enforce-ment;

5. Incorporated areas are able to contract withthe County Department for the provision ofpolice services, thus effecting tax savings and moreimportantly, reassuring county-wide uniformityof law enforcement policy;

6. Through a unique plan for deputization, itis possible for members of municipal police agen-cies to be deputized and to receive county lawenforcement powers. In return for this authority,they must agree to adopt certain policies of theCounty Department and to submit their opera-

ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEP IRTMENT

tions to periodic scrutiny of the County Depart-ment; and,

7. Finally, in an effort to achieve more uniformcrime reporting throughout the County, theSuperintendent of the County Department ofPolice has been given the responsibility for thecompilation of county-wide crime statistics.

The important results which the establishmentof the St. Louis County Department of Policehas already achieved and has still to achieve werenot accomplished overnight, however. Each stagein the development of the Department is illu-minating and interesting to students of police ad-ministration. Furthermore, while limited to thepolice field, developments in St. Louis Countyoffer interesting and provocative possibilities tostudents of other governmental functions.

LEGAL STEPS TOWARD A SOLUTION

Citizen dissatisfaction with the traditional con-cept of county law enforcement was brought to ahead by an unfortunate incident involving mem-bers of the Sheriff's staff. On July 15, 1953, whilegathered at a Sheriff's picnic, the county's ChiefDeputy Sheriff was shot, following an argumentby another deputy sheriff. Subsequent investiga-tion disclosed that the dispute centered arounddivision of reward money. Further, investigatorsfrom the Missouri Attorney General's office dis-covered other unhealthy conditions existing in thecounty Sheriff's office. Heavy press play of theincident in the news and editorial columns of theSt. Louis Post Dispatch and other papers helped tokindle interest in an attempt to remodel countylaw enforcement. Research by a citizens commis-sion into the general pattern of law enforcementin St. Louis County disclosed weaknesses not onlyin the Sheriff's office, but in the general county-wide pattern of police organization.2

On July 15, 1953, the St. Louis County Councilpassed a resolution establishing the Citizens Com-mission on Law Enforcement in St. Louis County.This Committee, headed by Arthur B. Shepley,Jr., held exhaustive hearings and submitted itsfinal recommendations some ten months later. Inthe enabling resolution, the County Councilauthorized the Citizens Commission to:

study... the overall structure of law enforcement2 Cf. Citizens Commissions on Law Enforcement in

St. Louis County, A REPORT ON THE MUNICIPALPOLICE DEPARTMENTS IN ST. LoLns COUNTY, andREPORT OF THE CITIZENS COmmissION ON LAW EN-FORCFMENT IN ST. LOUIS COUNTY, hereinafter referredto as the CrrIzENs Co~imissiox REPORT.

[in the county] and report to the Council its findings,including any recommendations such Commission maychoose to make with reference to the improvement of thesys~tn of law enforcement in St. Louis County and itsincorporated areas .... 3

The Citizens Commission was not limited, there-fore, to recommend reform in the existing struc-ture of law enforcement. Rather, it was given the"go ahead" even to recommend a radical departurefrom the traditional concepts of county police or-ganization.

Furthermore, the Citizens Commission was em-powered by the Council, not only to examine lawenforcement in the unincorporated areas of'thecounty, but also to examine the system of law en-forcement in the municipalities. Implicit in theresolution which established the Commission wasthe hint that there was a relationship between theadministration of law enforcement in the in-corporated and in the unincorporated areas. Sev-eral of the initial meetings of the Commissionwere specifically directed to the securing of com-ments and suggestions of both county and mu-nicipal officials. In addition to information gainedduring hearings, the Commission had access to theresearch resources of the Governmental ResearchInstitute of St. Louis, and called in Bruce Smithas professional consultant. Grant H. Buby ofthe Governmental Research Institute was sent toexamine the structure of the county police depart-ments of Baltimore County, Maryland, and ofNassau County, New York.

Concerning the more effective utilization of thepolice resources of St. Louis County, the CitizensCommission examined several alternative pro-posals. A summary of these alternatives is, asfollows.

1. The establishment of a joint or unified St. Louis[Cityl-County Police Department for the entire St.Louis metropolitan area;

2. Compulsory consolidation of all police depart-ments in St. Louis County;

3. An integrated police department for St. LouisCounty, embracing all unincorporated areas and inaddition those municipalities in the County wishingvoluntarily to avail themselves of the services andfacilities of the County police department;

4. Strengthening of the present St. Louis CountySheriff's Office.'

3 CITIZENS CommissION REPORT p. 1, italics added.4 Ibid., T. 12.

19581

GORDON E. MISNER

The Citizens Commission's members were keenlyaware:

of the responsibility vested in it to recommend changesin County law enforcement procedures which (1)would markedly improve existing conditions, (2)could readily be effectuated, and (3) would compriseso practical a solution as to warrant general accept-ance.5

In view of the above considerations, therefore,members of the Commission could not conscien-tiously recommend either the proposal for a unifiedSt. Louis City and County Police Department orthe proposal for compulsory consolidation of thepolice departments of St. Louis County.

... from the viewpoint of ideal police administration'proposals for both ... only had much to commendthem. Under both proposals, a single police administra-tion would have responsibility for, and sole jurisdictionover, police activities and services in a large metro-politan area .... 6

But each was unacceptable to members of the Com-mission, for there was involved in each of themboth legal and political questions which would notyield themselves to early solution. 7

Neither did the members of the Commissionfeel that the proposal to strengthen the Sheriff'sOffice was acceptable. There was unanimousagreement:

that the Commission should not consider possible meansof further improving the operation and organization ofthe Sheriff's Office, since any such proposal could notremedy the inherent weakness of that office or of the Sheriffsystem generally-namely, its deetive and inetitablypolitical character.'

Interestingly enough, provisions of the 1945 Mis-souri Constitution permitted the members of theCommission to give serious consideration to cur-tailing the activities and responsibilities of theSheriff. Steps to alter that office would not requireConstitutional amendment. Under the 1945 Con-stitution, the Sheriff was no longer a ConstitutionalOfficer. Instead of limiting forms of county or-ganization to those provided by Constitution,alternative forms of county government were pro-vided by general law. It might be said, therefore,

5 Ibid., p. 14.6 Ibid., p. 12.7In this connection, the work of the St. Louis

Metropolitan Survey is interesting.8 CnTzENs CoMMIssIoN REPORT, p. 12; italics added.' MissouRI CoNsTrrTON, 1945, Article VI, Sect. 9.

that the foresight of the delegates to the 1945Constitutional Convention made possible the es-tablishment of the St. Louis County Departmentof Police.

Finding three of the four alternative proposalsunacceptable, the Citizens Commission recom-mended the establishment of an integrated countypolice department for the unincorporated areas ofthe county. This recommendation took the fol-lowing form:

(1) Amendment of the Home Rule Charter ofSt. Louis County to provide for the establishmentof a County Department of Police with all thepolice powers and duties then vested either in theSheriff or in the Constables;

(a) Provision to be made for the voluntary con-tracting between the County and themunicipalities for the provision of policeservices;

(b) Provision to be made for the deputization ofcertain municipal police officers by theCounty;

(2) Appointment by the County Supervisor ofa bi-partisan five-member Board of Police Com-missioners;

(3) Provision for Civil Service protection tomembers of the Department;

(4) Provision for disability and retirementbenefits for members of the Department; and,

(5) Establishment of a County Jail Warden. 10

The final recommendations of the Citizens Com-mission represented the crystalization of manyideas and concepts. Rather than emotional reactionto the exposure of unhealthy conditions in countylaw enforcement, the recommendations of theCitizens Commission stemmed from an exhaustiveand painstaking analysis of the current law en-forcement pattern. The prescription of the Com-mission sought to reconcile law enforcement reali-ties with the problems of a growing urban county.The recommendations were designed to neutralizeas much as possible the divisiveness and the in-effectiveness which often results from police or-ganization along traditional lines. Seeking torecognize the essence of the non-political characterof law enforcement, the recommendations weredesigned to remove county police employees fromthe capriciousness of a political system and to

10 CITIZENS CoMMIssION REPORT, p. 5. The lastrecommendation was never enacted into law. TheDepartment is awaiting legislation establishing aretirement and disability fund, and the departmentoperates under a merit system.

[Vol. 48

ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

make them responsive to the public through a non-political, professional police administrator. Com-menting editorially, the St. Louis Post Dispatchstated:

What the growing urban county needs now is a pro-fessional police force, well trained, protected by civilservice, and directed clearly apart from politics. That isexactly what the Citizens Commission proposed.

If the County Council approves the Citizens Com-mission plan, county voters will be asked to vote on acharter amendment. The choice will be between anefficient police and the sheriff's system. The outcomeshould not be in doubtn

Since 1950, St. Louis County had been operatingunder a liberal home rule charter. Furthermore,broad provisions of the Missouri Constitutionprovided an environment favorable to functionalconsolidation. The Constitution gave municipaland other political units broad discretionarypowers to merge and to consolidate functions andpolitical units. For example:

Any municipality or political subdivision of this statemay contract and cooperate with other municipalitiesor political subdivisions thereof, or with other statesor their municipalities or political subdivisions, or withthe United States, for the planning, development,construction, acquisition or operation of any publicimprovement, or for a common service in the mannerprovided by law.u2

The Missouri Constitution further provided:

[A county home rule charter] may provide for thevesting and exercise of legislative power pertainingto public health, police and traffic, building construc-tion, and planning and zoning, in the part of the countyoutside incorporated cities; and it may provide orauthorize its governing body to provide, the termsupon which the county shall perform any of the servicesand functions of any municipality, or political sub-division in the county, except school districts, whenaccepted by a vote of a majority of the qualifiedelectors voting thereon in the municipality or sub-division, which acceptance may be revoked by likevote.13

There were, therefore, no constitutional questionsto be resolved or to block even temporarily theaccomplishment of the recommendations of theCitizens Commission.

The final report of the Commission was released11 ST. Louis POST DISPATCH, July 29, 1954.12

MissoURI CoNsTmunTIoN, Article VI, Sect. 16.13 Ibid., Article VI, Sect. 18c.

on April 28, 1954. On August 25th, the CountyCouncil approved the recommendations in theform of an ordinance which placed the matter ofCharter amendment before the people. Citizensorganized an "Information Drive" through whichto explain the proposed police organization to thevoters. In November, the voters gave their over-whelming approval to the charter amendment bya vote of 123,976 to 25,834.

DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Concerning the distribution of police powers andduties, the charter amendment provided:

All powers and duties of the offices of Sheriff andConstables of the County with respect to preservationof order, prevention of crimes, and misdemeanor,apprehension and arrest, conserving the peace, andother police and law enforcement functions other thanthose relating to civil actions and the detention, care,custody, and control of persons and prisoners in theCounty Jail, provided by law, shall be vested in andperformed by the Superintendent of Police and theDepartment of Police of the County as hereinafterprovided, and the Sheriff and Constables of the Countyshall have no power or duties with respect to the sameexcept when called 'upon by the Superintendent ofPolice as hereinafter provided.14

Concerning the.vital question of police control,the amendment to the Charter provided:

(a) The Board of Police Commissioners shall consist offive citizens of the State of Missouri, resident free-holders of the County for not less than three (3) yearsnext preceding their appointment and thirty (30)years or more of age. Not more than three members ofthe Board shall belong to the same political party,and none shall hold any other public office in theCounty or elsewhere, members of the organized militiaor reserved corps of the Armed Services and notariespublic excepted. The members of said Board shall beappointed by the County Supervisor with the approvalof a majority of the entire County Council. 5

The amendment to the Charter also provided atwenty-day waiting period between the date themember was approved and the date he tookoffice. This procedure permitted sufficient timeduring which the appointment might be chal-lenged.

All such appointments shall become effective twenty

1 4 HOME RULE CHARTER FOR ST. Louis CouNTY,MISSOURI, Article II, Sect. 4.10.

15 Ibid., Article II, Sect. 4.40.

1958]

GORDON E. MISNER

(20) days after such approval unless disapproved priorthereto by a majority of the Circuit Judges of theCounty.

Each member of the Board shall... serve... aterm of three years....

Any member of the Board may be removed forcause from office by the County Supervisor with theapproval of a majority of the entire County Coun-cil .... 1 ,

That the Board was to concentrate its attentionon the policy level of the Department of Police andleave the day-to-day operation of the Departmentto the Superintendent is illustrated by the clear

delineation of their respective duties. The Boardwas delegated the following powers and duties:

(1) to appoint as Superintendent of Police a personqualified and experienced in police administration andlaw enforcement.... (2) to hear and determineappeals from decisions of the Superintendent of Policeon disciplinary matters arising in the Department;(3) to formulate standards for observance by PoliceDepartments of municipalities of the County, in orderto secure deputization of their personnel by the Super-intendent; (4) to promulgate, upon recommendationof the Superintendent of Police, a manual of rules andregulations for the qualifications, conduct, and dis-cipline of personnel of the Department of Police andits operations; (5) to have such other powers andduties with respect to police administration and lawenforcement as the Council may by Ordinance pro-vide."

As a substitute for the politically chosen, andoften politically oriented office of Sheriff, thecharter amendment provided for the selection of aprofessionally trained and experienced adminis-trator. It provided that:

The Superintendent of Police shall be head of the De-partment of Police and be responsible to the Boardfor the operation of the Department ... and for theefficient and effective administration and performanceof the duties, powers and functions of suppression ofcrime and other policing and law enforcement, in-cluding traffic control, in the County .... 18

To insulate the Superintendent from political con-

siderations, the Administrative Code of St. LouisCounty further provided that each member of theBoard of Police Commissioners take an oath affirm-

ing that in every case of appointment or removal

of the Superintendent of Police, no action based

1 Ibid.17 bid.is Ibid., para. (c).

upon the political opinion of the individual wouldbe taken. The oath was also designed to protectmembers of the Department from action basedupon their individual political opinions. 19

The charter amendment provided that the newSt. Louis County Department of Police would be-come effective July 1, 1955. It also provided thatthe Superintendent should be appointed by theBoard not later than April 1, 1955. Colonel AlbertE. DuBois was appointed as the Department'sfirst Superintendent. Appointed as Deputy Super-intendent, with primary responsibility for train-ing, was Lt. Raymond W. Hensley, on leave ascommander of the training academy of the KansasCity Police Departmentm

The chronology of action taken during the or-ganizational period of the department should beof interest to students of police administration.Police departments normally evolve over con-siderable periods of time; rarely are they organizedin the span of two short months! The responsibility"for adopting regulations concerning operation andorganization of the Department rested with theBoard of Police Commissioners. The regulationsapproved comprised two sections: the first dealingwith departmental organization, details of per-sonnel administration, minimum standards foremployment, details of the merit system, and acode of discipline and ethics; the second sectionconsisted of thirty pages outlining a comprehensiveorder of medical standards. Included in the firstsection of the regulations was the so-called "Grand-father's Clause," giving the conditions underwhich members of the Sheriff's and Constable'soffices could join the new department.21

The Code of Discipline and Ethics specificallyoutlined the standards of official and unofficialconduct expected of members of the Department,and vested in the Superintendent judgment indisciplinary matters, subject to appeal to theBoard. It provided that ". . . an offense againstthis Code may be punished by discharge or suchlesser punishment deemed appropriate by theSuperintendent ... ." Such lesser punishmentmight consist of the following:

(a) Reduction in rank and pay(b) Suspension without pay(c) Fine19 Sect. 23.03.20 Deputy Superintendent Hensley was elevated to

the post of Superintendent on June 21, 1956, upon theresignation of Colonel DuBois.

21 St. Louis County Department of Police, DE-PARTMENTAL REGULATIONS, Sect. 1, para. 5.2.

(VCol. 48

ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

(d) Reprimand(e) Admonishment(f) Loss of accumulated compensatory time

off, or any portion thereof.Regarding the equipment for the new depart-

ment, the charter provided that:

All records, equipment and other property and thingsof whatsoever nature now used in connection with orrelating to police duties and law enforcement of anyoffice of the County, the powers and duties of whichare now or shall hereafter be assigned to the Depart-ment of Police shall be transferred and delivered tothat Department as of the effective date of this Sec-tion."

This equipment consisted of twenty automobiles,filing equipment, and some records, six shotguns,a camera, four resuscitators, radio equipment, andother items of office furniture.Y

At 12:01 A.M., July 1, 1955, the St. LouisCounty Department of Police became an opera-tional reality. At that time, Colonel DuBois be-came responsible for the policing of the unin-corporated areas of the county. In addition, theSuperintendent provided police service to thoseincorporated areas which did not then possesspolicing agencies. The Department's personnelconsisted for the most part of fifty-three formerdeputy sheriffs and deputy constables.25 The regu-lations of the Department afforded reasonabletenure and permanent rank, but they also providedfor temporary promotions during the organiza-tional period. 26 Pending merit system tests andexaminations, therefore, rank was often made andloqt rapidly. All ranks in the Department are nowpermanent.

Present personnel of the Department consist ofthe following:

Commissioned (Sworn) Personnel:1 Superintendent1 Deputy Sup't5 Lieutenants

13 Sergeants75 Police Officers

95 Commissioned Personnel18 Civilian Personnel

113 Total

22 Ibid., para. 7.31.21 Ho,.rm RULE CfARTER, Sect. 49.40.21 St. Louis County Department of Police, ANNUAL

REPORT, 1955-56, p. 3.25 As of May, 1957, thirty-nine of these officers

remained on the Department's staff.26 DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS, para. 3.1.

The plan of the St. Louis County Departmentof Police included two rather unique features.These were, first, the program for the deputizationof municipal police officers; second, the plan bywhich the Department may provide police serviceto municipalities on a contract basis. Regardingthe first, Missouri law does not grant to municipalpolice officers the right of "hot pursuit" outsidethe confines of their jurisdictions in the case ofviolations of municipal ordinances. Under theplan developed in St. Louis County, the officersof selected municipal departments may be depu-tized by the Superintendent and be given county-wide jurisdiction when in "hot pursuit" or whencalled upon by the Superintendent to render aid.The standards governing such deputization carryfurther the philosophy implicit in the reorganiza-tion: namely, that law enforcement, by its verynature, must remain free of partisan considera-tions and influences. Under the standards fordeputization, each municipal department desiringto secure and retain such deputization shall:

(a) Be free from political influence inimical to properlaw enforcement; that is to say, the department and itspersonnel must be free to do a conscientious job of lawenforcement without hindrance by political pressuresor considerations.

(§) Not employ or retain any person as a member ofits department who has been convicted of a felony or amisdemeanor, other than a misdemeanor considerednot infamous, or any person who knowingly suppliedmisleading or incorrect information in his applicationor made a false oath in connection with his deputization.

(c) Within the limitations of its financial resourcesand manpower requirements, make conscientious effortto secure for the personnel of its department adequatetraining and to that end to participate, insofar aspossible, in the training courses offered by or under theauspices of the St. Louis County Police Department.

(d) Cooperate with the St. Louis County PoliceDepartment in establishing uniform crime reportingprocedures... Y

Implicit, therefore, in the deputization programis the municipal police department's acceptance ofthe same standards which govern the County De-partment. The County Department is enabled tointroduce a modicum of uniformity and stand-ardization into the operations of municipal de-partments throughout the county. In the case ofmunicipal areas, a dual jurisdiction already exists

2 St. Louis County Department of Police, PRO-CEDURES FOR THE DEPUTIZATION OF COMMISSIONEDPERSONNEL OF M.\LNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, p. 1.

1gs81