How many police officers are there in the U.S.? In 2023, there were 720,652 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States, an increase from 708,001 the previous year. Within the provided time period, the number of full-time law enforcement officers was lowest in 2013, with 626,942 officers. Employment in law enforcement According to the source, law enforcement officers are defined as those individuals who regularly carry a firearm and an official badge on their person, have full powers of arrest, and whose salaries are paid from federal funds set aside specifically for sworn law enforcement. Law enforcement, particularly when it comes to officers, is a male-dominated field. Law enforcement employees can either be officers or civilians, and federal law enforcement agencies cover a wide area of jurisdictions -- from the National Park Service to the FBI.
Police in the United States The police in the United States have come under fire over the past few years for accusations of use of unnecessary force and for the number of people who are shot to death by police in the U.S. Police officers in the United States are regularly armed, and in comparison, 19 countries, including Iceland, New Zealand, and Ireland, do not regularly arm their police forces.

In 2023, there were ******* full-time law enforcement employees in California, the most out of any state in the United States.

In 2020, there was the full-time equivalent of ****** state and local police officers in the state of California. In that same year, there were ****** state and local police officers in the state of New York.

As of September 30, there were ** law enforcement officers killed in the United States in 2024. Within the provided time period, the highest number of law enforcement officers killed in the United States was reported in 2021, at ** officers.

The study was a comprehensive analysis of felonious killings of officers. The purposes of the study were (1) to analyze the nature and circumstances of incidents of felonious police killings and (2) to analyze trends in the numbers and rates of killings across different types of agencies and to explain these differences. For Part 1, Incident-Level Data, an incident-level database was created to capture all incidents involving the death of a police officer from 1983 through 1992. Data on officers and incidents were collected from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data collection as coded by the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program. In addition to the UCR data, the Police Foundation also coded information from the LEOKA narratives that are not part of the computerized LEOKA database from the FBI. For Part 2, Agency-Level Data, the researchers created an agency-level database to research systematic differences among rates at which law enforcement officers had been feloniously killed from 1977 through 1992. The investigators focused on the 56 largest law enforcement agencies because of the availability of data for explanatory variables. Variables in Part 1 include year of killing, involvement of other officers, if the officer was killed with his/her own weapon, circumstances of the killing, location of fatal wounds, distance between officer and offender, if the victim was wearing body armor, if different officers were killed in the same incident, if the officer was in uniform, actions of the killer and of the officer at entry and final stage, if the killer was visible at first, if the officer thought the killer was a felon suspect, if the officer was shot at entry, and circumstances at anticipation, entry, and final stages. Demographic variables for Part 1 include victim's sex, age, race, type of assignment, rank, years of experience, agency, population group, and if the officer was working a security job. Part 2 contains variables describing the general municipal environment, such as whether the agency is located in the South, level of poverty according to a poverty index, population density, percent of population that was Hispanic or Black, and population aged 15-34 years old. Variables capturing the crime environment include the violent crime rate, property crime rate, and a gun-related crime index. Lastly, variables on the environment of the police agencies include violent and property crime arrests per 1,000 sworn officers, percentage of officers injured in assaults, and number of sworn officers.

In 2023, 59.9 percent of full-time civilian law enforcement employees in the United States were female. Only 13.8 percent of full-time law enforcement officers were female, while 86.2 percent of law enforcement officers were male. The gender divide Law enforcement in the United States is an indisputably male-dominated profession, particularly in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). However, research has shown that female officers can have a positive impact on communities and the overall performance of a law enforcement department. For example, female officers are less likely to have to face allegations of excessive force and can reduce the use of force among other officers in the department. Law enforcement in the U.S. The number of law enforcement officers in the United States has fluctuated over the years and, and hit a low in 2013. Despite the violent crime rate in the U.S. being much lower than its high point in the 1990s, the majority of Americans report being dissatisfied with national crime control and reduction policies.

In 2020, **** percent of full-time sworn officers in local police departments in the United States were white, followed by **** percent who were Hispanic.

Law Enforcement Locations Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police). In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state. Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes of constables are included due to the fact that many constables work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 06/27/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/22/2009

These data on 19th- and early 20th-century police department and arrest behavior were collected between 1975 and 1978 for a study of police and crime in the United States. Raw and aggregated time-series data are presented in Parts 1 and 3 on 23 American cities for most years during the period 1860-1920. The data were drawn from annual reports of police departments found in the Library of Congress or in newspapers and legislative reports located elsewhere. Variables in Part 1, for which the city is the unit of analysis, include arrests for drunkenness, conditional offenses and homicides, persons dismissed or held, police personnel, and population. Part 3 aggregates the data by year and reports some of these variables on a per capita basis, using a linear interpolation from the last decennial census to estimate population. Part 2 contains data for 267 United States cities for the period 1880-1890 and was generated from the 1880 federal census volume, REPORT ON THE DEFECTIVE, DEPENDENT, AND DELINQUENT CLASSES, published in 1888, and from the 1890 federal census volume, SOCIAL STATISTICS OF CITIES. Information includes police personnel and expenditures, arrests, persons held overnight, trains entering town, and population.

Use of force is a sometimes necessary, yet often controversial, police power. Attempts to understand and explore police use of force have often been hampered by a lack of data, both nationally and internationally, with much research reliant on a very small number of datasets, often in the United States of America. This new data, collected by police forces in England and Wales and collated and published by the Home Office, represents an exciting new resource. According to the Home Office, 'these statistics cover incidents where police officers have used force and includes: the tactics used, the reason for force, the outcome, any injuries (to the officers and or the subject) and subject information (age, gender, ethnicity and disability, as perceived by the reporting officer). From April 2017, all police forces in the UK have been required to record this data. The use of force data collection is intended to hold police forces to account and to provide the public with greater information on the different types of force used and the context in which this occurs' https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-use-of-force-statistics.This project (ES/N016564/1, Less Lethal Force in Law Enforcement) involved, in part, working with various stakeholders to help advise on the creation and maintenance of a new template form for police officers to record their use of force, which in turn has resulted in the collection of new use of force data. A subset of this information, which is generated by the police and published by the Home Office, is routinely made publicly available and this record has been set up to help signpost researchers towards this resource. Further details about the broader ESRC funded project is below: Use of force by law enforcement officials, including police and correctional officers, is a highly important issue. Yet whilst the situations in which these officials use firearms, and the effects of this use, are relatively well documented and understood, this is not the case with 'less lethal' weapons and 'less lethal' force. At least three key topics around less lethal weapons remain under-researched, and this project will tackle all three directly. First we lack a basic understanding of when, why, on whom, and how often, less lethal weapons are used - and whether certain groups of people (those of a particular gender, ethnic minority, mental health status or geographical origin) are more or less likely to have less lethal force used on them. This project will see the PI work closely with the National Police Chief's Council, the Home Office and UK police forces, utilizing datasets previously unavailable to academic researchers to answer such questions. Such issues are also relevant internationally, as shown by recent debates on police less lethal force in countries as varied as Armenia, Hungary and New Zealand. Second, whilst these weapons are associated with saving lives, they have also been associated with serious injuries and fatalities. In the UK alone, several high profile deaths-including that of Ian Tomlinson and Jordan Begley-have occurred following police use of less lethal weapons. There are key questions around how so called less lethal force can impact the right to life, and their association with fatalities worldwide. Building on my PhD work focusing on injuries associated with Taser, this project will see the PI work with the UN Special Rapporteur to research the impact less lethal force has on the right to life in the UK and globally. Third, if it is important to attend to the situations in which force is used, it is also important to look at how such force is monitored and governed. This requires working with police and government to help understand what data on less lethal force should be gathered and analyzed, and working with the independent oversight bodies that monitor places of detention (including police custody) to ensure that they have the necessary research to enable them to document the LLF used by state authorities. The UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture has highlighted the need for research to assist them in addressing and monitoring less lethal weapons and other physical infrastructure found in places of detention. The PI will work with key decision makers on these issues; with the UK government on reporting, and with oversight bodies via the SPT and its network of over 40 national bodies. According to the Home Office's User Guide to Use of Force Statistics, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/945436/user-guide-police-use-of-force-dec20.pdf (pages 4 - 5): 'Officers must complete a ‘use of force report’ each time they use force tactics on an individual. The use of force reports also allow for other information to be recorded... The publication does not include force used in designated public order events, where officers may use force over a period of time against a person(s) not subsequently apprehended. In these situations, it is not feasible for officers to provide the same level of detail as for individual use of force incidents. Police forces may collect additional information at a local level, with further detail or including designated public order events".

In 2022, a total of 226 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in the United States. This is a significant decrease from the year before, when 458 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty in the United States.

Snapshot img

Police And Law Enforcement Equipment Market Size 2025-2029

The police and law enforcement equipment market size is forecast to increase by USD 1.51 billion, at a CAGR of 6.7% between 2024 and 2029.

The market is witnessing significant growth, driven by the increasing prioritization of public place protection in the wake of heightened security concerns.The law enforcement equipment market continues to evolve, driven by the ever-changing needs of various sectors. Mobile data terminals enable officers to access real-time information, enhancing response times and decision-making capabilities. Night vision equipment and thermal imaging cameras expand the scope of investigations, particularly in low-light conditions.
Speed detection devices and radar systems ensure road safety, while DNA analysis tools aid in forensic investigations. Emergency response vehicles are equipped with advanced communication systems and dispatch console systems for efficient coordination. Shot detection systems and taser deployment systems prioritize officer safety. Cybersecurity solutions protect sensitive data, and criminal database systems facilitate effective investigations.

Major Market Trends & Insights

North America dominated the market and accounted for a 41% share in 2023.
The market is expected to grow significantly in Europe region as well over the forecast period.
Based on the End-user, the police segment led the market and was valued at USD 1.74 billion of the global revenue in 2023.
Based on the Product, the lethal and non-lethal weapons segment accounted for the largest market revenue share in 2023.

Market Size & Forecast

Market Opportunities: USD 3.92 Billion
Future Opportunities: USD 1.51 Billion
CAGR (2024-2029): 6.7%
North America: Largest market in 2023

What will be the Size of the Police And Law Enforcement Equipment Market during the forecast period?

Explore in-depth regional segment analysis with market size data - historical 2019-2023 and forecasts 2025-2029 - in the full report.
Request Free Sample

Protective gear, including ballistic vests, shields, and helmets, safeguards officers during high-risk situations. Evidence collection techniques, such as fingerprint scanners and digital forensics tools, ensure accurate and timely collection and analysis of evidence. Remote sensing technology, UAVs/drones, and facial recognition software expand the reach and capabilities of law enforcement agencies. Riot control equipment and surveillance systems deter and respond to civil unrest. Crime prevention strategies, including body-worn cameras, license-plate scanning, and conducted energy weapons (CEWs), promote transparency and accountability. Key communication tools, such as communications/radio systems, enable secure real-time coordination in the field.For instance, a large metropolitan police department implemented a digital evidence management system, resulting in a 30% increase in the number of cases solved. For instance, a large metropolitan police department implemented a digital evidence management system, resulting in a 30% increase in the number of cases solved. Tactical gear and thermal imaging are also increasingly utilized for enhanced operational readiness in low-visibility conditions.

This trend is further fueled by the integration of technology into law enforcement, such as the use of social media for investigative purposes and web real-time communication. However, the market faces challenges due to the lack of infrastructure and resources, which can hinder the adoption and effective implementation of advanced technologies and equipment.

As the demand for enhanced security solutions continues to rise, companies must navigate these challenges to capitalize on the market's potential and provide innovative, cost-effective solutions to meet the evolving needs of law enforcement agencies.

How is this Police And Law Enforcement Equipment Industry segmented?

The police and law enforcement equipment industry research report provides comprehensive data (region-wise segment analysis), with forecasts and estimates in 'USD million' for the period 2025-2029, as well as historical data from 2019-2023 for the following segments.

End-user

  Police
  Court
  Law enforcement agencies and others


Product

  Lethal and non-lethal weapons
  Surveillance systems
  Communication systems
  Personal protective equipment and others


Type

  Body armor
  Handguns
  Batons
  Restraints
  Riot shields


Geography

  North America

    US
    Canada


  Europe

    France
    Germany
    Italy
    UK


  APAC

    China
    India
    Japan
    South Korea


  Rest of World (ROW)

By End-user Insights

The global police segment within the broader security technology market is undergoing continuous evolution, driven by the integration of advanced digital technologies into public safety operations. As law enforcement agenc

Graph and download economic data for Employed full time: Wage and salary workers: Police and sheriff's patrol officers occupations: 16 years and over: Men (LEU0254598700A) from 2000 to 2019 about police, occupation, full-time, males, salaries, workers, 16 years +, wages, employment, and USA.

Sparked by high-profile confrontations between police and citizens in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere, many commentators have criticized the excessive militarization of law enforcement. We investigate whether surplus military-grade equipment acquired by local police departments from the Pentagon has an effect on crime rates. We use temporal variations in US military expenditure and between-counties variation in the odds of receiving a positive amount of military aid to identify the causal effect of militarized policing on crime. We find that (i) military aid reduces street-level crime; (ii) the program is cost-effective; and (iii) there is evidence in favor of a deterrence mechanism.

Law Enforcement Locations Any location where sworn officers of a law enforcement agency are regularly based or stationed. Law Enforcement agencies "are publicly funded and employ at least one full-time or part-time sworn officer with general arrest powers". This is the definition used by the US Department of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics (DOJ-BJS) for their Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey. Although LEMAS only includes non Federal Agencies, this dataset includes locations for federal, state, local, and special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement agencies include, but are not limited to, municipal police, county sheriffs, state police, school police, park police, railroad police, federal law enforcement agencies, departments within non law enforcement federal agencies charged with law enforcement (e.g., US Postal Inspectors), and cross jurisdictional authorities (e.g., Port Authority Police). In general, the requirements and training for becoming a sworn law enforcement officer are set by each state. Law Enforcement agencies themselves are not chartered or licensed by their state. County, city, and other government authorities within each state are usually empowered by their state law to setup or disband Law Enforcement agencies. Generally, sworn Law Enforcement officers must report which agency they are employed by to the state. Although TGS's intention is to only include locations associated with agencies that meet the above definition, TGS has discovered a few locations that are associated with agencies that are not publicly funded. TGS deleted these locations as we became aware of them, but some may still exist in this dataset. Personal homes, administrative offices, and temporary locations are intended to be excluded from this dataset; however, some personal homes are included due to the fact that the New Mexico Mounted Police work out of their homes. TGS has made a concerted effort to include all local police; county sheriffs; state police and/or highway patrol; Bureau of Indian Affairs; Bureau of Land Management; Bureau of Reclamation; U.S. Park Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; U.S. Marshals Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This dataset is comprised completely of license free data. FBI entities are intended to be excluded from this dataset, but a few may be included. The Law Enforcement dataset and the Correctional Institutions dataset were merged into one working file. TGS processed as one file and then separated for delivery purposes. With the merge of the Law Enforcement and the Correctional Institutions datasets, the NAICS Codes & Descriptions were assigned based on the facility's main function which was determined by the entity's name, facility type, web research, and state supplied data. In instances where the entity's primary function is both law enforcement and corrections, the NAICS Codes and Descriptions are assigned based on the dataset in which the record is located (i.e., a facility that serves as both a Sheriff's Office and as a jail is designated as [NAICSDESCR]="SHERIFFS' OFFICES (EXCEPT COURT FUNCTIONS ONLY)" in the Law Enforcement layer and as [NAICSDESCR]="JAILS (EXCEPT PRIVATE OPERATION OF)" in the Correctional Institutions layer). Records with "-DOD" appended to the end of the [NAME] value are located on a military base, as defined by the Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) military installations and military range boundaries. "#" and "*" characters were automatically removed from standard fields that TGS populated. Double spaces were replaced by single spaces in these same fields. Text fields in this dataset have been set to all upper case to facilitate consistent database engine search results. All diacritics (e.g., the German umlaut or the Spanish tilde) have been replaced with their closest equivalent English character to facilitate use with database systems that may not support diacritics. The currentness of this dataset is indicated by the [CONTDATE] field. Based on the values in this field, the oldest record dates from 08/14/2006 and the newest record dates from 10/23/2009

This is five years of police use of force data for all 468 New Jersey municipal police departments and the New Jersey State Police compiled by NJ Advance Media for The Force Report.

When police punch, pepper spray or use other force against someone in New Jersey, they are required to fill out a form detailing what happened. NJ Advance Media filed 506 public records requests and received 72,607 forms covering 2012 through 2016. For more data collection details, see our Methodology here. Data cleaning details can be found here.

We then cleaned, analyzed and compiled the data by department to get a better look at what departments were using the most force, what type of force they were using, and who they were using it on. The result, our searchable database, can be found at NJ.com/force. But we wanted to make department-level results — our aggregate data — available in another way to the broader public.

Below you'll find two files:

• UOF_BY_DEPARTMENTS.csv, with every department's summary data, including the State Police. (This is important to note because the State Police patrols multiple towns and may not be comparable to other departments.)
• UOF_STATEWIDE.csv, a statewide summary of the same data.

For more details on individual columns, see the data dictionary for UOF_BY_DEPARTMENTS. We have also created sample SQL queries to make it easy for users to quickly find their town or county.

It's important to note that these forms were self-reported by police officers, sometimes filled out by hand, so even our data cleaning can't totally prevent inaccuracies from cropping up. We've also included comparisons to population data (from the Census) and arrest data (from the FBI Uniform Crime Report), to try to help give context to what you're seeing.

What about the form-level data?

We have included individual incidents on each department page, but we are not publishing the form-level data freely to the public. Not only is that data extremely dirty and difficult to analyze — at least, it took us six months — but it contains private information about subjects of force, including minors and people with mental health issues. However, we are planning to make a version of that file available upon request in the future.

Data analysis FAQ

What are rows? What are incidents?
Every time any police officer uses force against a subject, they must fill out a form detailing what happened and what force they used. But sometimes multiple police officers used force against the same subject in the same incident. "Rows" are individual forms officers filled out, "incidents" are unique incidents based on the incident number and date.

What are the odds ratios, and how did you calculate them?
We wanted a simple way of showing readers the disparity between black and white subjects in a particular town. So we used an odds ratio, a statistical method often used in research to compare the odds of one thing happening to another. For population, the calculation was (Number of black subjects/Total black population of area)/(Number of white subjects/Total white population of area). For arrests, the calculation was (Number of black subjects/Total number of black arrests in area)/(Number of white subjects/Total number of white arrests in area). In addition, when we compared anything to arrests, we took out all incidents where the subject was an EDP (emotionally disturbed person).

What are the NYC/LA/Chicago warning systems?
Those three departments each look at use of force to flag officers if they show concerning patterns, as way to select those that could merit more training or other action by the department. We compared our data to those three systems to see how many officers would trigger the early warning systems for each. Here are the three systems: - In New York City, officers are flagged for review if they use higher levels of force — including a baton, Taser or firearm, but not pepper spray — or if anyone was injured or hospitalized. We calculated this number by identifying every officer who met one or more of the criteria. - In Los Angeles, officers are compared with one another based on 14 variables, including use of force. If an officer ranks significantly higher than peers for any of the variables — technically, 3 standards of deviation from the norm — supervisors are automatically notified. We calculated this number conservatively by using only use of force as a variable over the course of a calendar year. - In Chicago, officers are flagged for review if force results in an injury or hospitalization, or if the officer uses any level of force above punches or kicks. We calculated this number by identifying every officer who met one or more of the criteria.

What are the different levels of force?
Each officer was required to include in the form what type of force they used against a subject. We cleaned and standardized the data to major categories, although officers could write-in a different type of force if they wanted to. Here are the major categories: - Compliance hold: A compliance hold is a painful maneuver using pressure points to gain control over a suspect. It is the lowest level of force and the most commonly used. But it is often used in conjunction with other types of force. - Takedown: This technique is used to bring a suspect to the ground and eventually onto their stomach to cuff them. It can be a leg sweep or a tackle. - Hands/fist: Open hands or closed fist strikes/punches. - Leg strikes: Leg strikes are any kick or knee used on a subject. - Baton: Officers are trained to use a baton when punches or kicks are unsuccessful. - Pepper spray: Police pepper spray, a mist derived from the resin of cayenne pepper, is considered “mechanical force” under state guidelines. - Deadly force: The firing of an officer's service weapon, regardless of whether a subject was hit. “Warning shots” are prohibited, and officers are instructed not to shoot just to maim or subdue a suspect.

In this dissertation, I compare the founding and early evolution of police forces in three American cities—Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Francisco---from 1832 to 1915. Most modern police histories focus on a single city, but using sources from these three cities allows me to tell a broader story. American urban policing developed quickly, with many cities establishing their own police forces between 1830 and 1860. These forces developed amidst a national—and transnational—conversation about policing, which shaped their rise. These cities built their official police forces at different stages of urban development. Philadelphia was well-established by the advent of official police forces in America, Chicago was an up-and-coming urban center when leaders set up their police department, and San Francisco’s police force was created the same year the city was chartered. Despite these differences, the national conversation about policing—both inside and outside of departments—shaped these cities’ forces so strongly that we see more convergence than variation on everything from record-keeping to electric technology. I argue that the day-to-day work of the patrolman walking his beat is central to understanding the structure and function of these police forces during this period. Despite the differences among these cities, each devoted the overwhelming majority of their police resources to foot patrol. I divide the dissertation into two sections. Part 1, from 1832-1880, discusses the formation of these three police forces, their early histories, and their relationships to one another. In Part 2, from 1880-1915, I suggest the profusion of authorized works of police history in the 1880s marked a new era for these American forces. During this period, police leaders worked to distinguish themselves as professionals with clear aims and specialized knowledge. They claimed to provide valuable urban resources in the fight against crime and held this up as their forces’ core function. In doing so, they tried to set limits on expanding police duties and lobbied for increased resources. They built bureaucracies to control their subordinates and added technical departments in the interests of tackling “serious crime.” This increased the tension between their stated purpose and the continuing predominance of foot patrol in everyday police practice.

The primary table for all public data on complaints, including dates, locations and the outcomes of closed complaints received since the year 2000. The dataset is part of a database of all public police misconduct records the Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) maintains on complaints against New York Police Department uniformed members of service received in CCRB's jurisdiction since the year 2000, when CCRB's database was first built. This data is published as four tables: Civilian Complaint Review Board: Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Complaints Against Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Allegations Against Police Officers Civilian Complaint Review Board: Penalties A single complaint can include multiple allegations, and those allegations may include multiple subject officers and multiple complainants. Public records exclude complaints and allegations that were closed as Mediated, Mediation Attempted, Administrative Closure, Conciliated (for some complaints prior to the year 2000), or closed as Other Possible Misconduct Noted. This database is inclusive of prior datasets held on Open Data (previously maintained as "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Received," "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Complaints Closed," and "Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) - Allegations Closed") but includes information and records made public by the June 2020 repeal of New York Civil Rights law 50-a, which precipitated a full revision of what CCRB data could be considered public.

In 2020, there were ****** local police departments in the United States, the most out of any type. Furthermore, there were ***** Sheriff's offices in that same year nationwide.

Under what conditions can citizens hold government officials accountable for their behavior? I examine accountability over the police, a pervasive face of the state as experienced by most people. Like elected politicians, police enjoy significant discretion, limited oversight, power, and corruptibility. Continued problems of police violence and disparate treatment, especially against Black Americans, have shown the importance of accountable policing. Using calls for service records, election returns, survey data, and case studies, I explore challenges of political accountability across the highly varied 18,000 police department in the United States. The police are both a nationally salient social group – evaluated differently by partisans in a national media environment – as well as a locally-provided government function that tens of millions of Americans encounter regularly. This decentralization complicates improvements to policing policies by limiting the impacts of reform activism to particular cities and by misaligning activism with local conditions (Chapter 1). Millions of Americans regularly call the police to manage a swathe of urgent problems. Examining whether citizens punish street-level bureaucrats for misbehavior by withdrawing from demands for police intervention, I find that daily demands for policing services remain steady after well-publicized police abuse (Chapter 2). Absent exit, change requires political action. One manifestation of the varieties of American policing is between elected and appointed police leadership. I show that each approach has problems: elected sheriffs seem too steady in their offices – over which they enjoy almost unfettered control and significant incumbency advantage – while appointed police chiefs are constrained by unions, politicians, and the public (Chapter 3). Drawing on case studies of immigration enforcement in county jails, I show that nationally salient issues can impinge on the domains of county Sheriffs and increase interest and energy in local elections – aligning policies with preferences through a process I term “redirected nationalization” (Chapter 4). An additional problem is that police officers are themselves political agents who can resist change. By analyzing their nearly universal support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, and the status of police as a salient cleavage in American electoral politics, I show a strong affinity between police union and right-wing politics rooted in the sense that police are “under siege” by Black Lives Matter and calls for reform (Chapter 5). This uniform conservative orientation of police culture clashes with the array of problems the police manage, which frequently include homelessness and mental illness (Chapter 6, co-authored with Jacob Brown). I conclude that, where possible, it is better to unbundle the multifaceted police role, with specialized civil servants responding to classes of problems (Chapter 7). However, the decentralization of policing in the United States and the ambiguity of many calls for services will complicate unbundling. Hence, there remains a need to cultivate a police culture sensitive to the range of problems police encounter and, longer term, to ameliorate the social conditions which drive reliance on police services.