Describe a program designed to improve police-prosecutor relationships. What does research say about the effectiveness of such programs? Do you think they are effective? Why or why not?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Police and prosecutors in several jurisdictions have adopted strategies to improve coordination and communication among themselves (Buchanan 1989). In Indianapolis, for example, the prosecutor has funded a computer message system that enables attorneys in the office to transmit notes, case dispositions, and subpoenas directly to police officers at their work locations. In Alameda County, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland, "street jump" narcotics officers and prosecutors consult frequently, both in person and over the telephone, to build cases that meet the requirements of the search-and-seizure law. A few agencies have gone further, institutionalizing teamwork and making communication between investigators and prosecutors a top priority. In Multnomah County, Oregon, the Organized Crime/Narcotics Task Force has brought together 12 investigators from several area agencies and two prosecutors from the district attorney's office, instituting daily informal contact about the progress of pending cases. Moreover, prosecutors act as consultants to the police during the investigative phase. Thus, investigators can get answers to difficult legal questions in a few minutes, just by walking down the hall. Programs like these indicate that, despite a long history of difficulties, some agencies apparently are bridging the gap. No research to date has systematically evaluated these programs to indicate their overall effectiveness. Until such research is conducted, no predictions can be made about which programs are likely to be effective in other communities.