Police powers, while lacking a precise legal definition, represent the fundamental ability of a government to enact laws compelling its citizens to act in the interest of public welfare. This concept extends beyond the typical image of police officers maintaining order, encompassing a broad range of governmental regulatory authority. The U.S. Supreme Court case Berman v. Parker, in 1954, illustrated this, stating that “public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order… are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power,” while acknowledging the difficulty in definitively outlining its scope. Understanding how the constitution guides law-enforcement practice and policy is crucial for maintaining a balance between public safety and individual liberties.
The Tenth Amendment is pivotal in delineating police power within the United States. This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, to the states or the people. Essentially, the federal government’s authority is limited to powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, while states retain general police power. This division is a cornerstone of American federalism.
State regulatory authority is broad, primarily limited by the state constitution, powers exclusively held by the federal government, the Takings Clause, and the incorporation of fundamental federal rights through the Fourteenth Amendment.
A compelling example of police power in action is the 1850 New Jersey Supreme Court case, American Print Works v. Lawrence. The court upheld the authority of an officer to destroy buildings to prevent the spread of fire, even without compensation for destroyed goods within. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1872, validated a New Orleans law mandating slaughterhouses relocate to the city’s outskirts for public health and cleanliness as a legitimate exercise of police power. Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad, an 1854 Vermont Supreme Court case, validated that Vermont law required railroads to fence their lines and maintain cattle guards at farm crossings, or else they were strictly liable for damages to the animals, was a valid exercise of police power. This historical context demonstrates how the constitution guides law-enforcement practice and policy by setting the boundaries for state actions.
Contemporary jurisprudence continues to affirm the extensive nature of state police power. The 2019 California Supreme Court case, T-Mobile, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco, asserted that local police power encompasses broad authority to determine appropriate land uses for public health, safety, and welfare, including establishing aesthetic conditions. In 2014, Abdow v. Attorney General, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts affirmed that a state’s police power is so fundamental that the Legislature cannot surrender its broad authority to regulate matters within its core police power, including gambling regulation and the prerogative to ban previously legal forms of gambling.
In summary, police powers, as guided by the Constitution, are fundamental to a government’s ability to protect its citizens. The Tenth Amendment reserves considerable power to the states, allowing them to regulate for the public good, while the Fourteenth Amendment and other constitutional provisions set limits to protect individual rights. This framework underscores the ongoing tension and careful balancing act inherent in law-enforcement practice and policy. Understanding how the constitution guides law-enforcement practice and policy ensures a society where public safety and individual liberties are both respected.
