Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:American Journal of Police:Vol15.Issue3.1996:
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
1
POLICING OUR CAMPUSES: A NATIONAL
REVIEW OF STATUTES
Max L. Bromley
University of South Florida, Tampa
INTRODUCTION
The Problem of Campus Crime: Yesterday and Today
College campus crime and associated problems have received
considerable attention from the media, courts and legislatures during the
last ten years. Prior to the 1980s, it seems that most college campuses
were relatively free from serious crimes with the exception of the
violence which occurred on campus during the Vietnam War era.
Education historians such as Hollis (1951), Humphrey (1976), McGrane
(1963) and Wertenbacker (1946) have all described the relatively minor
crimes that characterized college campuses in the past. In contrast,
researchers such as Bromley and Territo (1990), Nichols (1986), Siegal
and Raymond (1992) and Smith (1988) describe a greater frequency of
serious crimes being committed on campus today. As Bordner and
Petersen (1983:38) have stated, “the university is like a city as far as
crime in concerned”.
Certainly, the media have focused a significant amount of
attention on campus crime issues within the last decade. Articles
appearing in USA Today (Ordovensky, 1990), the Chronicle of Higher
Education (Lederman, 1993, 1994), the New York Times magazine,
(Mathews, 1993) and the New York Times (Castelli, 1990) are examples
of lengthy feature stories that have focused on crime on campus or
security programs being developed in response to those crimes.
The courts and state legislatures have also played a role in
heightening public awareness regarding campus crime and associated
issues. Traditionally, campus decision makers have not been greatly
affected by legal factors such as new statutes or court decisions
concerning crime. While, historically, the courts resisted involving
2
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
themselves in the administration of higher education, this is no longer
the case according to Kaplin (1990). Since the mid-1970s the courts,
state legislatures and Congress have become active in responding to
campus crime issues. For example, according to Smith (1988), campus
crime victim lawsuits against colleges have become commonplace. In
well reported cases such as Duarte v. State [1979]; Peterson v. San
Francisco Community College District, 1984; Miller v. State of New
York [1984]; and Mullins v. Pine Manor College [1983], plaintiffs were
successful in winning crime liability claims filed against post-secondary
institutions. Some students who have been the victims of off-campus
crime have also tried to sue their institutions. Case examples include:
Donnell v. California Western School of Law [1988], Whitlock v.
University of Denver (1987), and Hartman v. Bethany College [1991].
While the plaintiffs in these cases were not successful, they are
indicative of the current trend in lawsuits against institutions of higher
education in the area of safety and security. As a result of these and other
lawsuits, colleges and universities now must not only acknowledge the
existence of campus crime, but must also take proactive measures to
prevent incidents from occurring or suffer the potential monetary
consequences.
Following the murder and rape, in 1986, of Jeanne Clery at
Lehigh University (Pennsylvania), her parents were successful in
winning a lawsuit against the university. The family also engaged in a
highly publicized campaign seeking the passage of legislation that would
require post-secondary institutions to make public their campus crime
statistics. Subsequently, the state of Pennsylvania, in 1988, passed the
first campus crime “Right to Know Law”. According to Griffaton (1995),
14 other states have since passed similar laws increasing the public’s
awareness of the nature and extent of campus crime. Many of these states
also passed legislation requiring educational institutions to enhance their
security policies and programs. Congress has also passed the Student
Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990, which requires campus
decision makers to make public security features and policies as well as
crime data.
As a result of this law, the US Department of Education
published a monograph highlighting exemplary campus security
programs (Kirkland and Siegal, 1994). A more comprehensive report is
due to be provided to the Congress late in 1996. Enhancing campus
security, of course, directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of
campus police.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
3
In response to the problem of serious campus crime, the role of
campus police has evolved over the last two decades to the extent that
many institutions are now served by full-service campus police
departments (Nichols, 1986). Historically, parking enforcement at many
campuses has been a responsibility of the campus police department. In
addition, many of today’s larger urban campuses have significant traffic
congestion problems. Currently, full-service campus police agencies
must be prepared to deal with more serious traffic problems (including
accident-related injuries) and implement drunk driving enforcement
programs. Bordner and Petersen (1983) have also noted that many police
officers at public institutions have the same responsibilities as their city
or county law enforcement counterparts. Atwell (1988:2) notes that “we
should be alert to the public’s expectation that campus police will treat
crimes of all types in ways very nearly identical to municipal law
enforcement agencies”.
Researchers such as Sloan (1992) and Peak (1988, 1995), have
conducted descriptive studies in order to better understand the
organizational similarities between campus and local police departments.
However, relatively little has been done to examine the state statutes
which provide the basis of campus police power and authority. In order to
better understand the extent to which campus police agencies are able to
deal with serious crime problems, it is appropriate to further review the
source of their police powers. The work of Gelber (1972) remains the
only extensive examination of this issue. The purpose of the present study
is to provide a more current and detailed analysis of campus police
statutes throughout the country.
Three general questions guided this inquiry:
(1)
How have the states responded statutorily in their efforts to
provide professional campus police/security on colleges and
universities?
(2)
What are the common elements of current campus police statutes?
(3)
What trends can be described with respect to the current statutes?
METHODOLOGY
In the summer of 1994, campus police statutes were sought for
each of the 50 states. Once specific statutes were identified, copies were
4
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
sent to members of the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrations in each state to verify that they were
current. Follow-up phone calls were made to these individuals as
necessary. Finally, assistance in the verification process was obtained
from the National Association of College and University Attorneys. The
data and subsequent analyses that follow do not reflect laws passed or
amendments occurring after October 1994.
RESULTS
The results of this study provide a profile of state laws pertaining
to campus police.
Types of Institutions Covered by Statute
Forty-four states have statutes which make specific reference to
campus policing, with the vast majority relating to public institutions
only. Two states, North Carolina and Texas, have separate statutes
granting police powers at public and private institutions of higher
education. In contrast, both public and private institutions are granted
police authority by the same statute in four states (Indiana, Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Virginia). Eight states provide police powers for personnel
working at community colleges (Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee).
Location of Statute
Given the rather unique nature of university communities, it was
interesting to determine where the laws describing campus police were
located within various statutory categories. For example, of the statutes
that were found that granted campus police authority, the vast majority
are located in a category related to education. However, Arkansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Texas locate campus police
authority outside of the area of education.
For example, campus security powers in Arkansas are described
in a statute that also grants authority to those officers responsible for
providing protection at state parks and other institutions. By comparison,
campus police in Massachusetts are appointed under a statute that grants
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
5
“special police officer” status to officers at educational institutions as
well as hospitals.
Typical Sections/Elements within Campus Police Statutes
The present study did not reveal a single-model concept with
respect to elements typically found within campus police statutes.
However, the following sections are often found: appointing authority,
jurisdiction, police powers and police officer qualifications/training
requirements. Examples of the variation in the content of these sections is
described in the section that follows.
APPOINTING AUTHORITY
Typically, the institution’s chief executive officer (president or
chancellor) or the governing board (regents, trustees, etc.) is designated
as the appointing authority for campus police. Exceptions to this trend are
found only in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The Colonel
of State Police in Massachusetts and the Superintendents of State Police
in New Jersey and Rhode Island are identified in their respective statutes
as having responsibility as appointing authority for campus police
officers. For example, the Massachusetts statute states: “The colonel may,
upon such reasonable terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him,
at the request of an officer of a college, university, other educational
institution or hospital licensed pursuant to section fifty-one of chapter
one hundred and eleven appoint employees of such college, university,
other educational institution or hospital as special state police officers.
Such special state police officers shall serve for three years, subject to
removal by the colonel and they shall have the same power to make
arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or
upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college,
university, or other institution or hospital”.
Jurisdiction
The physical jurisdiction of any law enforcement department is
very important since it defines the geographic boundaries for the exercise
of police powers. Defining the jurisdiction of a campus police department
6
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
is no less important, but sometimes it is more difficult. For example, cities
and counties are usually well-defined political entities that are confined to
specific contiguous geographic parameters. Thus, the jurisdiction of the
police agencies in these communities is fairly straightforward.
By contrast, the boundaries of many of today’s college campuses
are not easily defined. For example, an institution may own or lease
properties located apart from what may be viewed as the “main campus”
boundaries. Also, the extent to which state legislatures are willing to
statutorily authorize campus police to exercise police powers away from
campus grounds was of interest in the current inquiry. Jurisdictions were
characterized as either “limited” or “extended”. A limited jurisdiction was
defined as one wherein officers were limited to campus property or
properties specifically under the control of the institution. A jurisdiction
was defined as extended if the police were able to exercise their authority
beyond campus properties.
Statutes in 21 states were classified as limited and statutes in 22
states categorized as extended. The statute in one state made no mention
of jurisdiction.
An example of a limited statute is Florida’s which states: “The
university police are hereby declared to be law enforcement officers of
the state and conservators of peace with the right to arrest, in accordance
with the laws of the state, any person for violation of state law or
applicable county or city ordinance when such violations occur on any
property or facilities which are under the guidance, supervision,
regulation, or control of the state university system”.
Georgia provides an example of an extended jurisdiction statute
which reads as follows: “Campus means the grounds and buildings owned
or occupied by a college or university or the grounds and buildings of a
school or training facility operated by or under the authority of the State
Board of Education. The term campus shall also include any public or
private property within 500 yards of the property of an educational facility
and one quarter of a mile of any public street or public sidewalk
connecting different buildings of the same educational facility when the
property or buildings of the educational facility are located within any
county of this state having a population of 400,000 or more”.
Perhaps the broadest jurisdiction for campus police is found in
Wyoming. In that state, campus police are appointed under the general
peace officer statute, which affords them statewide jurisdiction and police
arrest powers1.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
7
Police Powers
Another important element dealt with in state statutes concerns
the nature and scope of police powers granted to campus officers. More
specifically, do campus police officers possess the same law enforcement
powers, including arrest, as those granted to law enforcement officers of
local government? In all states that had enacted a campus police statute,
campus police had virtually the same powers as their municipal
counterparts.
Following are three examples of statutory language that describe
the similarity between campus police power and that of local law
enforcement. First, in Maryland law, “Officers (referring to campus
police) shall have all the powers of peace and police officers in
Maryland”. In the Michigan law, “Public safety officers shall be
considered peace officers of the state and so have the authority of police
officers”. Finally, in Oklahoma, “Campus police officers commissioned
pursuant to this act have the same powers, liabilities and immunities as
sheriffs or police officers within their jurisdiction”.
Police Officer Qualifications and Training
Currently, there is no single set of national standards regarding the
hiring qualification and training required for campus law enforcement
officers. Police officer selection and subsequent training requirements
were specified in the statutes of 27 states but were not mentioned or made
reference to in the remaining 17. This does not imply that there were no
qualifications or training requirements for campus officers covered by
those statutes, just that cross-reference to another statute was not apparent.
It also appears as if the size of the institution may be associated
with the qualifications of campus police personnel. As a matter of fact, a
recent survey of campus police chiefs revealed that 91 percent of those
campuses serving more than 15,000 students (predominantely public
colleges and universities) employed certified officers (IACLEA, 1995).
Typical language is found in the Tennessee statute which states: “All
security officers employed pursuant to this section must meet the
minimum certification requirements of the Peace Officers Standards and
Training Commission”. Likewise, in Florida’s statute, “University police
shall meet the minimum standards established by the Criminal Justice
Standards and Training Commission and Chapter 943”.
8
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Other Statutory Features
While not necessarily present in most statutes, several specific
features were found in many of the state laws authorizing campus police.
Several examples are described in the following sections of this paper.
Hot Pursuit
Authority for campus police to continue the pursuit off-campus of
persons suspected of committing campus crimes was clearly granted in
nine statutes. For example, in Louisiana, “In the discharge of their duties
on campus or while in hot pursuit, on or off the campus, each university
or college police officer may exercise the power of arrest”.
In the Maryland law, “…the police officer may not exercise these
powers on any other property unless: engaged in a fresh pursuit of a
suspected offender”. Finally, the language in Nevada’s statute allows
campus officers to exercise their power and authority, “when in hot
pursuit of a violator leaving such a campus or area”.
Mutual Aid Agreements
Today, many local police departments and sheriff’s offices have
entered into mutual aid or interlocal agreements with neighboring law
enforcement agencies. These agreements allow departments to share
enforcement resources in times of need. Given the fact that many campus
police departments may be dependent on external law enforcement
resources for support, the current study also examined “mutual aid”
language in the campus police statutes.
Specific reference was made to campus/local police agreements
in only nine statutes. In some statutes, the emphasis was placed on
campus police being able to expand their jurisdiction beyond institutional
boundaries through agreements with local law enforcement agencies. For
example, in Indiana, “...additional jurisdiction may be granted by
agreement with the Chief of Police of the municipality or Sheriff of the
county or the appropriate law enforcement agency where the property is
located, dependent on the jurisdiction involved”.
In Pennsylvania, the statute allows campus police, at the request of
local city mayors, to assist municipal police, “…and under the direction of
local law enforcement authorities, to exercise these powers and perform
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
9
those duties conferred within this section within the municipality for the
limited purpose of aiding local authorities in emergency situations”.
External Law Enforcement Agency Authority on Campus
As reported in an earlier section, campus police statutes generally
provide campus officers with the same powers of arrest and authority
granted to local police and sheriffs. The current study found that ten of the
statutes included language specifying that local law enforcement
authorities could exercise their police powers on college or university
campuses. Apparently, the legislatures of these states wanted to assure
local law enforcement officials that campuses would not be exempt from
local police authority.
As noted in Delaware’s statute, “Provisions of this statute do not
reduce, nor restrict the jurisdiction of other duly appointed peace officers
who are empowered to enforce federal or state laws or applicable county
or city ordinances on the property of the University of Delaware”. Note
that this statute also includes a reference to federal law enforcement.
The Rhode Island statute uses somewhat different terminology to
achieve the same end: “Appointment of special officers (e.g., campus
police) hereunder shall in no way limit the powers, authority and
responsibility of state police and police of the various cities and towns to
enforce state law and municipal ordinances on property owned by the
educational institutions”. The Arkansas statute states that, “none of the
present jurisdictional powers or responsibility of the county sheriffs or
city police over the land or property of institutions or persons on the land
shall be ceded to the security officers of state institutions. The
appointment or designation of institutional security officers shall not be
deemed to supersede, in any way, the authority of the state police or the
county sheriffs, or that of the peace officers of the jurisdiction within
which the institution, or portions of it, shall be located”.
Bonding and Equipment Requirements
Fifteen statutes listed specific requirements for campus police
officers such as bonding or made mention of specifications for campus
police with respect to uniforms, badges or vehicles to be used.
For example, in Kansas the statute states that, “Every university
police officer shall while on duty, wear and publicly display a badge of
10
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
office, except that no such badge shall be required to be worn by any plain
clothes investigator or departmental administrator, but any such person
shall present proper credentials and identification when required in the
performance of such officer’s duties”.
The New Jersey campus police statute requires “Each policeman
when on duty, except when employed as a detective to wear in plain view a
name plate and a metallic shield or device with the word ‘Police’ and the
name or style of the institution for which he is appointed inscribed thereon”.
In the Louisiana law, a bond requirement is specified requiring that
“…each such police officer shall execute a bond in the amount of $10,000
in the favor of the state, for the faithful performance of his duties. The
premium on the bond shall be paid by the employing institution”.
The campus police statute for Kentucky mentions emergency
vehicles. “Vehicles used for emergency purposes by the safety and
security department of a public institution of higher education shall be
considered as emergency vehicles and shall be equipped with blue lights
and sirens and shall be operated in conformance with the requirements of
KRS Chapter 189”.
Rule Enforcement by Campus Police
While the present study focused on specific, traditional police
powers and responsibilities granted through campus police statutes,
additional regulatory and enforcement requirements were also found in
several laws. These noted specific tasks required of some campus police
officers that may not have a parallel in local law enforcement agencies.
For example, several statutes specify that campus police are responsible
for the enforcement of institutional rules or regulations in addition to
criminal law enforcement.
In North Dakota, the statute states, “…the board of higher
education shall provide for the administration and enforcement of its
regulations and may authorize the use of the special policemen to assist in
enforcing the regulations in the law on the campus of a college or
university…”. The Utah campus police statute states, “Members of the
police or security department of any college or university also have the
power to enforce all the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board
of Regents as related to the institution”.
Finally, Tennessee’s campus police statute states, “When properly
commissioned and qualified in accordance with policies of the Board of
Regents and the Board of Trustees, the security officers shall have all the
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
11
police powers necessary to enforce all state laws as well as rules and
regulations of the Board of Regents and the Board of Trustees”.
Miscellaneous Features of Campus Police Statutes
The current study revealed a number of miscellaneous features
found in several state statutes that provide insight into the unique role
played by members of campus law enforcement departments. For
example, the statute in Alabama includes a section that prohibits campus
police officers from entering a classroom for the purpose of enforcing
traffic or parking citations.
The campus police statute in Illinois directs the state to provide
liability insurance for the University of Illinois police officers. The
Indiana campus police statute includes a clause that allows governing
bodies of the respective institutions to expressly forbid police power to be
granted, if they so choose. This statute also has a provision that allows
campus police to remove persons from buildings or campus grounds
whenever such persons refuse to leave after being requested to do so.
The campus police statute in Kansas specifically authorizes the
University of Kansas Medical Center police facility to make emergency
transports of medical supplies and transplant organs.
The Maryland statute which grants police authority also allows
the Board of Regents to authorize presidents of the constituent
institutions to make use of campus security forces or building guards
instead of a campus police force if they so desire. A separate statute in
Maryland allows the governor to appoint “special policemen” for private
four-year institutions and community colleges if deemed necessary2.
According to the Massachusetts statute, “special state police
officers” may be appointed at the request of the college or university by
the Colonel of the State Police. These officers are appointed for three
years and are subject to removal by the Colonel. They may also be
reappointed after three years.
A rather unique feature found in the Michigan state statute directs
the governing Board of Control to establish a public safety department
oversight committee comprised of faculty, students and staff. This
committee receives and addresses grievances by persons against public
safety officers and it may also recommend to the institution disciplinary
actions against the police officers.
The campus police statutes in Michigan and Nevada require
campus crime statistics to be compiled and published. Nevada’s statute
also requires a statement of policy for each campus police department
12
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
regarding “use of force” and the equipment authorized for use by its
officers in carrying out that policy.
The Virginia statute includes a unique feature that allows the
governing boards of institutions of higher education to establish, equip
and maintain auxiliary police forces. Members of the auxiliary police
forces shall have the same authority as campus police officers when
called on for assistance. These auxiliary officers must comply with the
same requirements as the campus law enforcement officers as established
by the Department of Criminal Justice Services.
Finally, the campus police statute in West Virginia provides that
campus security officers also have the authority to assist local peace
officers with traffic control on public highways in and around premises
owned by the state of West Virginia. This is allowed whenever such
traffic is generated as a result of an athletic event or other activity
conducted or sponsored by state institutions of higher education and
when such assistance has been requested by local peace officers.
Other Provisions for Granting Campus Police Authority
In South Carolina, police officers at public institutions derive
their authority from a statute that primarily covers state constables3. For
the states of Hawaii and Idaho, statutory reference is made only to the
broad powers granted to their respective Board of Regents without
mention of campus police. Likewise, no campus police statutes for the
states of Nebraska, South Dakota or Arizona were found.
The Connecticut statute covers state colleges and universities
only. Therefore, as a private institution, Yale University is not granted
police powers under the statute. However, Yale police officers receive
their police authority from another state statute, specifically Public Act
83-466 Section 3. This statute allows the city of New Haven,
Connecticut, to appoint persons designated by Yale University to act as
Yale University police officers4.
In Idaho there is no specific campus police statute, only a law that
describes the broad administrative powers granted to the Board of
Regents. Campus police departments at higher education institutions
have no police authority; however, the University of Idaho and Boise
State University contract for law enforcement services with their local
police departments5.
In addition to the statute in North Carolina which provides for
campus police at public institutions of higher education, private
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
13
institutions may appoint police officers under the “Company Police Act”.
Under this statute, private educational institutions may apply to the
Attorney General of the state and be certified as a company police
agency. Individual applications for the company police officer must also
be sent to the Attorney General.
DISCUSSION
The current study revealed wide variations in the statutes
granting campus police authority throughout the United States. As with
other laws, it appears that state legislatures often enact campus police
statutes to solve or attempt to solve specific problems at a given time.
For example, the increases in the number of automobiles on campus
probably led to the inclusion of language such as that found in
Mississippi’s statute that specifically requires the regulation of vehicular
traffic and parking on campuses. Provisions that allow the removal of
trespassers from campus facilities may have resulted from the Vietnam
War era during which many campus police statutes were initially
enacted. Legislatures have also been sensitive to the proper balance of
police authority between campus law enforcement departments and their
local counterparts. Gelber (1972) noted that historically many campuses
required their officers to be deputized by local police authorities. A
number of statutes also included language granting local police
departments authority on campus.
In addition to granting full police authority to many campus
police departments, statutes frequently reflected the regulatory role
played by many campus police departments. Part of the history and
tradition of campus law enforcement is reflected in statutory language
that requires campus law enforcement officers to be university “rule
enforcers” as well as “law enforcers”.
Campus police statutes vary greatly in length and specificity.
Several of the statutes were very detailed while others were extremely
concise and more limited in their scope. For example, Oklahoma and
Virginia have rather lengthy comprehensive statutes covering several
pages. In contrast, the campus police statute from the state of Minnesota
is one paragraph in length.
There has been considerable progress in the professionalization of
campus policing since Gelber’s 1972 study which noted that only 27
states had passed laws granting police authority; as of this writing, 44
14
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
states have passed such laws. The present study found the majority of
states granting police authority to officers at public institutions.
Furthermore, the powers of campus police at these institutions are
generally equivalent to that of their local law enforcement counterparts.
Frequently, campus police statutes also establish minimum selection and
training standards for campus law enforcement officers similar to those
required of local police.
The typical campus police statute today specifies that the ultimate
appointing authority for campus police rests with the governing body or
chief executive officer of the college or university. This is a situation
parallel to the mayor or the city manager in a municipal setting, who also
has the ultimate responsibility for supervising the police department.
Many of the legislatures recognized that campus police may have need to
exercise their police powers beyond the immediate geographic
boundaries of the institution and included appropriate provisions. Given
the mobility of today’s criminals, it is somewhat surprising that specific
authority to engage in “hot pursuit” was not included in more campus
police statutes. In contrast, more statutes included language specifying
bonding or equipment requirements (15) than the number allowing
campus police departments to enter into mutual aid agreements with local
law enforcement agencies (9).
Today’s college campuses are often cities within cities and as such
are vulnerable to serious crimes. The tens of thousands of students,
faculty and visitors and the multi-million dollar investments in campus
facilities and equipment require a professional level of police protection.
Furthermore, litigation and recent federal and state legislation make it
incumbent on campus executives to deal proactively with issues relating
to campus crime and campus policing. Therefore, it would seem that
consideration should be given to the enactment of comprehensive campus
police statutes that provide the foundation for a professional response.
This review of contemporary statutes provides an opportunity to examine
the features that may be relevant in developing a model campus police
statute. Based on the current review, it is suggested that a model statute
include elements such as: appointing authority, jurisdiction, police officer
qualifications and training requirements in compliance with standards
required for other law enforcement officers.
Consideration should also be given to including sections on the
extension of police powers and jurisdiction under prescribed
circumstances, the ability to enter into mutual aid agreements with local
law enforcement agencies and the authority to engage in hot pursuit of
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
15
violators who commit crimes on campus. States that do not provide
police authority for officers working at private institutions or community
colleges could consider doing so. For example, in Oklahoma, campus
police departments at private institutions are considered “public”
agencies for the limited purposes of law enforcement. Finally, a model
statute should provide the governing board or chief executive officer of
institutions of higher education with the option of establishing security
departments that do not have sworn officers. However, if that option is
chosen, the statute should mandate that local law enforcement officials be
called to the campus to investigate all crimes once reported.
NOTES
The author would like to express appreciation to Dr Max Dertke for his review of
this manuscript and very helpful comments. Also Ms Michelle Whitcomb was
very helpful in locating statutes. Josh Martin of the National Association of
College and University Attorneys was also of great help. Finally, various
members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators were of great assistance in this project.
This is a revision of a paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their
insightful and helpful comments.
1.
According to a follow-up phone interview with Lt Tim Banks of the
University of Wyoming, campus police are appointed as “peace officers” of
the state and as such have jurisdiction throughout the entire state.
2.
This information regarding private institutions and community colleges was
verified by Captain Richard Duran of the University of Maryland Police
Department.
3.
Chief Carl Stokes of the University of South Carolina provided the
information regarding constable powers in his state.
4.
This information was forwarded from Chief Allan R. Guyette, Chief of
Police, Yale University.
5.
Stephen A. Chatterton, the Director of Security and Safety at Idaho State
University, supplied this information regarding the state of Idaho.
16
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
REFERENCES
Atwell, R.M. (1988), Memorandum Regarding Campus Security, American
Council on Education, Washington, DC.
Belkmap, J. and Erez, E. (1995), “The victimization of women on college
campuses: courtship violence, date rape and sexual harassment”, in Fisher, B.S.
and Sloan, J.S. (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Bordner, D.C. and Petersen, D.M. (1983), Campus Policing: The Nature of
University Work, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Bromley, M.L. and Territo, L. (1990), College Crime Prevention and Personal
Safety Awareness, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Castelli, J. (1990), “Campus Crime 101”, The New York Times Education Life,
4(November):1.
Gelber, S. (1972), The Role of Campus Security in the College Setting, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Griffaton, M. (1995), “State level initiatives and campus crime”, in Fisher, B.S.
and Sloan, J.J. III (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Hollis, D.W. (1951), The University of South Carolina. Vol. I. South Carolina
College, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Humphrey, D.C. (1976), From King’s College to Columbia 1746-1800,
Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (1995),
Campus Crime Report, 1991-1993, IACLEA, Hartford, CT.
Kaplin, W.A. (1990), The Law of Higher Education, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bassey
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Kirkland, C. and Siegel, D. (1994), Campus Security. A First Look at Promising
Practices, Office of Educational Research, US Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Lederman, D. (1993), “Colleges report 7,500 violent crimes on their campuses in
first annual statements required under federal law”, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 20(January):A32-A43.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
17
Lederman, D. (1994), “Crime on the campus”, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 3(February):A33.
McGrane, R.C. (1963), The University of Cincinnati: A Success Story in Urban
Higher Education, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Mathews, A. (1993), “The campus crime war”, The New York Times Magazine,
7(March):38-47.
Nichols, W.D. (1986), The Administration of Public Safety in Higher Education,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Ordovensky, P. (1990), “Students easy ‘prey’ on campus”, USA Today,
3(December):1A.
Peak, K. (1988), “Campus law enforcement. A national survey of administration
and operation”, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 19(5):33-5.
Peak, K. (1995), “The progressionalization of campus law enforcement:
comparing campus and municipal law enforcement agencies”, in Fisher, B.S. and
Sloan, J.J. III (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Siegel, D. and Raymond, C. (1992), “An ecological approach to violent crime on
campus”, Journal of Security Administration, 15(2):19-29.
Sloan, J.J. (1992), “Campus crime and campus communities: an analysis of campus
police and security”, Journal of Security Administration, 15(2):31-45.
Smith, M.C. (1988), Coping with Crime on Campus, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Wertenbaker, T.J. (1946), Princeton 1746-1896, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
CASES
1.
Donnell v. California Western School of Law, 246 Cal. Rptr. 199 (1988).
2.
Duarte v. State, 151Cal. Rptr. 727 (1979).
3.
Hartman v. Bethany College, 778 F. Supp. 286 (1991).
4.
Miller v. State of New York, 467N.E.2d493 (1984).
5.
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449N.E.2d331 (1983).
18
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
6.
Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 685P.2d1193
(1984).
7.
Whitlock v. University of Denver, 744 p. 2d 54 (1987).
FEDERAL STATUTE
Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (Public Law 101-542).
Appendix:
LIST OF OFFICIAL CODE COMPILATIONS TO WHICH
CITATIONS REFER
Code of Alabama
Revised Statutes of Nebraska
Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated
Alaska Statutes
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
Annotated
Arkansas Code Annotated
New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Annotated California Code
New Mexico Statutes Annotated
Colorado Revised Statutes
McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of
Connecticut General Statutes
New York Annotated
Annotated
North Carolina General Statutes
Delaware Code Annotated
North Dakota Century Code
Official Florida Statutes
Ohio Revised Code Annotated
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
Oklahoma Statutes Annotated
Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated
Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated
Idaho Code
Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated
Annotated Indiana Code
General Laws of Rhode Island
Illinois Annotated Statutes
Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976
Iowa Code Annotated
South Dakota Codified Laws
Kentucky Revised Statutes
Tennessee Code Annotated
Louisiana Statutes Annotated
Texas Codes Annotated
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
Utah Code Annotated
Annotated Code of Maryland
Vermont Statutes Annotated
Annotated Laws of Massachusetts
Code of Virginia 1950 Annotated
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated
Revised Code of Washington
Minnesota Statutes Annotated
Annotated
Mississippi Code Annotated
West Virginia Code Annotated
Annotated Missouri Statutes
Wisconsin Statutes Annotated
Montana Code Annotated
Wyoming Statutes
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
19
Table A1
FEATURES OF CAMPUS POLICE STATUTES
State
Statute
Covers
Statute
Citation
AL
Public
AK
Power
Same as
Other PD
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Jurisdiction
Chapter 22 – Yes
Section 16-22-1
Education
President
Limited
Public
Section
14.40.043
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
AR
Public
Subchapter 3 Yes
Section
25-17-304
Other
President
Extended
AZ
No Campus Police Statute
CA
Public
Article 3
Yes
Section 89560
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
CO
Public
Article 7
Yes
Section 24-7-101
Other
President
Limited
CT
Public
Section
10a-142
Yes
Education
President
Limited
DE
Public
Chapter 51 Yes
Section 5104
Education
University
Extended
FLa
Public
Chapter
240.268
Yes
Education
University
Limited
GA
Public
Chapter 8
Yes
Section 20-8-1
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
HI
No Campus Police Statute
ID
No Campus Police Statute
IL
Public
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
IN
Public,
154
Private and Section
J.C.
20-12-3.5-1
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
IA
Public
Section
262.13
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Not
Mentioned
KS
Public
Section
76-726
Yes
Education
President
President
Extended
KY
Public
Section
164-950
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
LA
Public and Section
Private
1805
Yes
Education
President
Limited
ME
Public
Chapter 532 Yes
Section 8-A
Other
Governing
Board
Limited
MD
Public
Section
13-201
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
110 ILCS
30517A
Yes
Yes
20
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Table A1
CONTINUED
Power
Same as
Other PD
State
Statute
Covers
Statute
Citation
MA
Public
MI
Public
MN
Public
MS
Public
MOb
Public
Section 22C Yes
Section 63
Section
Yes
390.1511
Section
Yes
137.12
Chapter 105, Section
37-105-9
Yes
CH. 172.350 Yes
MT
Public
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
Section
Yes
20-25-321
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Section
Yes
CC
281.0351
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Section 18-A: Yes
Private
6-4.2
Public
Section
Yes
29-5-2
Public
Section
Yes
355-1
Public and Section 116-40.5
Private
Section
74-E-2
Yes
Public
Section
Yes
15-10-17.1
Public and Section
Yes
CC
3345-04
Public
Section
Yes
Private and 360.15
High Schools
Public
Section
Yes
352.360
Public and 71 P.S.
Yes
CC
Section 646
Private
Chapter 2.1 Yes
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Other
Other-Colonel
State Police
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Governing
Board
Education Other – Chief
Superintendent
Education Governing
Board
Education Governing
Board
Education Governing
Education
Education
Other
Education
Other
Other
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
University
Jurisdiction
Limited
Extended
Extended
Limited
Limited
Extended
Extended
Extended
Limited
Extended
Extended
Limited
Limited
Extended
Limited
Limited
Other – Supt. Extended
and State
Police
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
SC
Private
4 year
Chapter 116 Yes
Section 59
and 23-1-60
Education
Governing
Board
21
Extended
Table A1
CONTINUED
State
Statute
Covers
Power
Same as
Other PD
Statute
Citation
SD
TN
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Chapter
Yes
CC
49-7-118
TX
Public and Section
Yes
Private
51.203 2.123
UT
Public
Section
Yes
53B-3-104
VT
Public
Chapter 75 Yes
Section 2283
VA
Public and Chapter 17 Yes
Private
Section 22-232
WA
Public
Chapter
Yes
28B.10.550
WI
Public
Chapter
Yes
36.11
W.VA Public
18B-4-5
Yes
WY
Public
Chapter 2
Yes
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Education
Governing
Extended
Board
Governing
Extended
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing and Circuit
Court
Extended
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Extended
University
Extended
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Other
Jurisdiction
Table A2
ITEMS MENTIONED IN STATUTE
State
Mutual
PO
Hot
Aid with
Qualify/ Pursuit Other
Training Allowed PD
Enforce
Campus
Rules
Local PD Bond
Uniforms,
Campus Requirement Badges,
Access
For PO
Vehicles
AL
No
Yes
No
No
No
AK
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
AR
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
CA
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
CO
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
CT
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
DE
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
FL
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
GA
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Table A2
CONTINUED
State
Mutual
PO
Hot
Aid with
Qualify/ Pursuit Other
Training Allowed PD
Enforce
Campus
Rules
Local PD Bond
Uniforms,
Campus Requirement Badges,
Access
For PO
Vehicles
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
MA
MI
MO
MN
MS
MT
NV
NJ
RI
SC
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WI
W.VA
WY
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
POLICING OUR CAMPUSES: A NATIONAL
REVIEW OF STATUTES
Max L. Bromley
University of South Florida, Tampa
INTRODUCTION
The Problem of Campus Crime: Yesterday and Today
College campus crime and associated problems have received
considerable attention from the media, courts and legislatures during the
last ten years. Prior to the 1980s, it seems that most college campuses
were relatively free from serious crimes with the exception of the
violence which occurred on campus during the Vietnam War era.
Education historians such as Hollis (1951), Humphrey (1976), McGrane
(1963) and Wertenbacker (1946) have all described the relatively minor
crimes that characterized college campuses in the past. In contrast,
researchers such as Bromley and Territo (1990), Nichols (1986), Siegal
and Raymond (1992) and Smith (1988) describe a greater frequency of
serious crimes being committed on campus today. As Bordner and
Petersen (1983:38) have stated, “the university is like a city as far as
crime in concerned”.
Certainly, the media have focused a significant amount of
attention on campus crime issues within the last decade. Articles
appearing in USA Today (Ordovensky, 1990), the Chronicle of Higher
Education (Lederman, 1993, 1994), the New York Times magazine,
(Mathews, 1993) and the New York Times (Castelli, 1990) are examples
of lengthy feature stories that have focused on crime on campus or
security programs being developed in response to those crimes.
The courts and state legislatures have also played a role in
heightening public awareness regarding campus crime and associated
issues. Traditionally, campus decision makers have not been greatly
affected by legal factors such as new statutes or court decisions
concerning crime. While, historically, the courts resisted involving
2
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
themselves in the administration of higher education, this is no longer
the case according to Kaplin (1990). Since the mid-1970s the courts,
state legislatures and Congress have become active in responding to
campus crime issues. For example, according to Smith (1988), campus
crime victim lawsuits against colleges have become commonplace. In
well reported cases such as Duarte v. State [1979]; Peterson v. San
Francisco Community College District, 1984; Miller v. State of New
York [1984]; and Mullins v. Pine Manor College [1983], plaintiffs were
successful in winning crime liability claims filed against post-secondary
institutions. Some students who have been the victims of off-campus
crime have also tried to sue their institutions. Case examples include:
Donnell v. California Western School of Law [1988], Whitlock v.
University of Denver (1987), and Hartman v. Bethany College [1991].
While the plaintiffs in these cases were not successful, they are
indicative of the current trend in lawsuits against institutions of higher
education in the area of safety and security. As a result of these and other
lawsuits, colleges and universities now must not only acknowledge the
existence of campus crime, but must also take proactive measures to
prevent incidents from occurring or suffer the potential monetary
consequences.
Following the murder and rape, in 1986, of Jeanne Clery at
Lehigh University (Pennsylvania), her parents were successful in
winning a lawsuit against the university. The family also engaged in a
highly publicized campaign seeking the passage of legislation that would
require post-secondary institutions to make public their campus crime
statistics. Subsequently, the state of Pennsylvania, in 1988, passed the
first campus crime “Right to Know Law”. According to Griffaton (1995),
14 other states have since passed similar laws increasing the public’s
awareness of the nature and extent of campus crime. Many of these states
also passed legislation requiring educational institutions to enhance their
security policies and programs. Congress has also passed the Student
Right to Know and Campus Security Act of 1990, which requires campus
decision makers to make public security features and policies as well as
crime data.
As a result of this law, the US Department of Education
published a monograph highlighting exemplary campus security
programs (Kirkland and Siegal, 1994). A more comprehensive report is
due to be provided to the Congress late in 1996. Enhancing campus
security, of course, directly relates to the duties and responsibilities of
campus police.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
3
In response to the problem of serious campus crime, the role of
campus police has evolved over the last two decades to the extent that
many institutions are now served by full-service campus police
departments (Nichols, 1986). Historically, parking enforcement at many
campuses has been a responsibility of the campus police department. In
addition, many of today’s larger urban campuses have significant traffic
congestion problems. Currently, full-service campus police agencies
must be prepared to deal with more serious traffic problems (including
accident-related injuries) and implement drunk driving enforcement
programs. Bordner and Petersen (1983) have also noted that many police
officers at public institutions have the same responsibilities as their city
or county law enforcement counterparts. Atwell (1988:2) notes that “we
should be alert to the public’s expectation that campus police will treat
crimes of all types in ways very nearly identical to municipal law
enforcement agencies”.
Researchers such as Sloan (1992) and Peak (1988, 1995), have
conducted descriptive studies in order to better understand the
organizational similarities between campus and local police departments.
However, relatively little has been done to examine the state statutes
which provide the basis of campus police power and authority. In order to
better understand the extent to which campus police agencies are able to
deal with serious crime problems, it is appropriate to further review the
source of their police powers. The work of Gelber (1972) remains the
only extensive examination of this issue. The purpose of the present study
is to provide a more current and detailed analysis of campus police
statutes throughout the country.
Three general questions guided this inquiry:
(1)
How have the states responded statutorily in their efforts to
provide professional campus police/security on colleges and
universities?
(2)
What are the common elements of current campus police statutes?
(3)
What trends can be described with respect to the current statutes?
METHODOLOGY
In the summer of 1994, campus police statutes were sought for
each of the 50 states. Once specific statutes were identified, copies were
4
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
sent to members of the International Association of Campus Law
Enforcement Administrations in each state to verify that they were
current. Follow-up phone calls were made to these individuals as
necessary. Finally, assistance in the verification process was obtained
from the National Association of College and University Attorneys. The
data and subsequent analyses that follow do not reflect laws passed or
amendments occurring after October 1994.
RESULTS
The results of this study provide a profile of state laws pertaining
to campus police.
Types of Institutions Covered by Statute
Forty-four states have statutes which make specific reference to
campus policing, with the vast majority relating to public institutions
only. Two states, North Carolina and Texas, have separate statutes
granting police powers at public and private institutions of higher
education. In contrast, both public and private institutions are granted
police authority by the same statute in four states (Indiana, Louisiana,
Oklahoma and Virginia). Eight states provide police powers for personnel
working at community colleges (Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Nevada,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee).
Location of Statute
Given the rather unique nature of university communities, it was
interesting to determine where the laws describing campus police were
located within various statutory categories. For example, of the statutes
that were found that granted campus police authority, the vast majority
are located in a category related to education. However, Arkansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Texas locate campus police
authority outside of the area of education.
For example, campus security powers in Arkansas are described
in a statute that also grants authority to those officers responsible for
providing protection at state parks and other institutions. By comparison,
campus police in Massachusetts are appointed under a statute that grants
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
5
“special police officer” status to officers at educational institutions as
well as hospitals.
Typical Sections/Elements within Campus Police Statutes
The present study did not reveal a single-model concept with
respect to elements typically found within campus police statutes.
However, the following sections are often found: appointing authority,
jurisdiction, police powers and police officer qualifications/training
requirements. Examples of the variation in the content of these sections is
described in the section that follows.
APPOINTING AUTHORITY
Typically, the institution’s chief executive officer (president or
chancellor) or the governing board (regents, trustees, etc.) is designated
as the appointing authority for campus police. Exceptions to this trend are
found only in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. The Colonel
of State Police in Massachusetts and the Superintendents of State Police
in New Jersey and Rhode Island are identified in their respective statutes
as having responsibility as appointing authority for campus police
officers. For example, the Massachusetts statute states: “The colonel may,
upon such reasonable terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him,
at the request of an officer of a college, university, other educational
institution or hospital licensed pursuant to section fifty-one of chapter
one hundred and eleven appoint employees of such college, university,
other educational institution or hospital as special state police officers.
Such special state police officers shall serve for three years, subject to
removal by the colonel and they shall have the same power to make
arrests as regular police officers for any criminal offense committed in or
upon lands or structures owned, used or occupied by such college,
university, or other institution or hospital”.
Jurisdiction
The physical jurisdiction of any law enforcement department is
very important since it defines the geographic boundaries for the exercise
of police powers. Defining the jurisdiction of a campus police department
6
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
is no less important, but sometimes it is more difficult. For example, cities
and counties are usually well-defined political entities that are confined to
specific contiguous geographic parameters. Thus, the jurisdiction of the
police agencies in these communities is fairly straightforward.
By contrast, the boundaries of many of today’s college campuses
are not easily defined. For example, an institution may own or lease
properties located apart from what may be viewed as the “main campus”
boundaries. Also, the extent to which state legislatures are willing to
statutorily authorize campus police to exercise police powers away from
campus grounds was of interest in the current inquiry. Jurisdictions were
characterized as either “limited” or “extended”. A limited jurisdiction was
defined as one wherein officers were limited to campus property or
properties specifically under the control of the institution. A jurisdiction
was defined as extended if the police were able to exercise their authority
beyond campus properties.
Statutes in 21 states were classified as limited and statutes in 22
states categorized as extended. The statute in one state made no mention
of jurisdiction.
An example of a limited statute is Florida’s which states: “The
university police are hereby declared to be law enforcement officers of
the state and conservators of peace with the right to arrest, in accordance
with the laws of the state, any person for violation of state law or
applicable county or city ordinance when such violations occur on any
property or facilities which are under the guidance, supervision,
regulation, or control of the state university system”.
Georgia provides an example of an extended jurisdiction statute
which reads as follows: “Campus means the grounds and buildings owned
or occupied by a college or university or the grounds and buildings of a
school or training facility operated by or under the authority of the State
Board of Education. The term campus shall also include any public or
private property within 500 yards of the property of an educational facility
and one quarter of a mile of any public street or public sidewalk
connecting different buildings of the same educational facility when the
property or buildings of the educational facility are located within any
county of this state having a population of 400,000 or more”.
Perhaps the broadest jurisdiction for campus police is found in
Wyoming. In that state, campus police are appointed under the general
peace officer statute, which affords them statewide jurisdiction and police
arrest powers1.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
7
Police Powers
Another important element dealt with in state statutes concerns
the nature and scope of police powers granted to campus officers. More
specifically, do campus police officers possess the same law enforcement
powers, including arrest, as those granted to law enforcement officers of
local government? In all states that had enacted a campus police statute,
campus police had virtually the same powers as their municipal
counterparts.
Following are three examples of statutory language that describe
the similarity between campus police power and that of local law
enforcement. First, in Maryland law, “Officers (referring to campus
police) shall have all the powers of peace and police officers in
Maryland”. In the Michigan law, “Public safety officers shall be
considered peace officers of the state and so have the authority of police
officers”. Finally, in Oklahoma, “Campus police officers commissioned
pursuant to this act have the same powers, liabilities and immunities as
sheriffs or police officers within their jurisdiction”.
Police Officer Qualifications and Training
Currently, there is no single set of national standards regarding the
hiring qualification and training required for campus law enforcement
officers. Police officer selection and subsequent training requirements
were specified in the statutes of 27 states but were not mentioned or made
reference to in the remaining 17. This does not imply that there were no
qualifications or training requirements for campus officers covered by
those statutes, just that cross-reference to another statute was not apparent.
It also appears as if the size of the institution may be associated
with the qualifications of campus police personnel. As a matter of fact, a
recent survey of campus police chiefs revealed that 91 percent of those
campuses serving more than 15,000 students (predominantely public
colleges and universities) employed certified officers (IACLEA, 1995).
Typical language is found in the Tennessee statute which states: “All
security officers employed pursuant to this section must meet the
minimum certification requirements of the Peace Officers Standards and
Training Commission”. Likewise, in Florida’s statute, “University police
shall meet the minimum standards established by the Criminal Justice
Standards and Training Commission and Chapter 943”.
8
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Other Statutory Features
While not necessarily present in most statutes, several specific
features were found in many of the state laws authorizing campus police.
Several examples are described in the following sections of this paper.
Hot Pursuit
Authority for campus police to continue the pursuit off-campus of
persons suspected of committing campus crimes was clearly granted in
nine statutes. For example, in Louisiana, “In the discharge of their duties
on campus or while in hot pursuit, on or off the campus, each university
or college police officer may exercise the power of arrest”.
In the Maryland law, “…the police officer may not exercise these
powers on any other property unless: engaged in a fresh pursuit of a
suspected offender”. Finally, the language in Nevada’s statute allows
campus officers to exercise their power and authority, “when in hot
pursuit of a violator leaving such a campus or area”.
Mutual Aid Agreements
Today, many local police departments and sheriff’s offices have
entered into mutual aid or interlocal agreements with neighboring law
enforcement agencies. These agreements allow departments to share
enforcement resources in times of need. Given the fact that many campus
police departments may be dependent on external law enforcement
resources for support, the current study also examined “mutual aid”
language in the campus police statutes.
Specific reference was made to campus/local police agreements
in only nine statutes. In some statutes, the emphasis was placed on
campus police being able to expand their jurisdiction beyond institutional
boundaries through agreements with local law enforcement agencies. For
example, in Indiana, “...additional jurisdiction may be granted by
agreement with the Chief of Police of the municipality or Sheriff of the
county or the appropriate law enforcement agency where the property is
located, dependent on the jurisdiction involved”.
In Pennsylvania, the statute allows campus police, at the request of
local city mayors, to assist municipal police, “…and under the direction of
local law enforcement authorities, to exercise these powers and perform
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
9
those duties conferred within this section within the municipality for the
limited purpose of aiding local authorities in emergency situations”.
External Law Enforcement Agency Authority on Campus
As reported in an earlier section, campus police statutes generally
provide campus officers with the same powers of arrest and authority
granted to local police and sheriffs. The current study found that ten of the
statutes included language specifying that local law enforcement
authorities could exercise their police powers on college or university
campuses. Apparently, the legislatures of these states wanted to assure
local law enforcement officials that campuses would not be exempt from
local police authority.
As noted in Delaware’s statute, “Provisions of this statute do not
reduce, nor restrict the jurisdiction of other duly appointed peace officers
who are empowered to enforce federal or state laws or applicable county
or city ordinances on the property of the University of Delaware”. Note
that this statute also includes a reference to federal law enforcement.
The Rhode Island statute uses somewhat different terminology to
achieve the same end: “Appointment of special officers (e.g., campus
police) hereunder shall in no way limit the powers, authority and
responsibility of state police and police of the various cities and towns to
enforce state law and municipal ordinances on property owned by the
educational institutions”. The Arkansas statute states that, “none of the
present jurisdictional powers or responsibility of the county sheriffs or
city police over the land or property of institutions or persons on the land
shall be ceded to the security officers of state institutions. The
appointment or designation of institutional security officers shall not be
deemed to supersede, in any way, the authority of the state police or the
county sheriffs, or that of the peace officers of the jurisdiction within
which the institution, or portions of it, shall be located”.
Bonding and Equipment Requirements
Fifteen statutes listed specific requirements for campus police
officers such as bonding or made mention of specifications for campus
police with respect to uniforms, badges or vehicles to be used.
For example, in Kansas the statute states that, “Every university
police officer shall while on duty, wear and publicly display a badge of
10
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
office, except that no such badge shall be required to be worn by any plain
clothes investigator or departmental administrator, but any such person
shall present proper credentials and identification when required in the
performance of such officer’s duties”.
The New Jersey campus police statute requires “Each policeman
when on duty, except when employed as a detective to wear in plain view a
name plate and a metallic shield or device with the word ‘Police’ and the
name or style of the institution for which he is appointed inscribed thereon”.
In the Louisiana law, a bond requirement is specified requiring that
“…each such police officer shall execute a bond in the amount of $10,000
in the favor of the state, for the faithful performance of his duties. The
premium on the bond shall be paid by the employing institution”.
The campus police statute for Kentucky mentions emergency
vehicles. “Vehicles used for emergency purposes by the safety and
security department of a public institution of higher education shall be
considered as emergency vehicles and shall be equipped with blue lights
and sirens and shall be operated in conformance with the requirements of
KRS Chapter 189”.
Rule Enforcement by Campus Police
While the present study focused on specific, traditional police
powers and responsibilities granted through campus police statutes,
additional regulatory and enforcement requirements were also found in
several laws. These noted specific tasks required of some campus police
officers that may not have a parallel in local law enforcement agencies.
For example, several statutes specify that campus police are responsible
for the enforcement of institutional rules or regulations in addition to
criminal law enforcement.
In North Dakota, the statute states, “…the board of higher
education shall provide for the administration and enforcement of its
regulations and may authorize the use of the special policemen to assist in
enforcing the regulations in the law on the campus of a college or
university…”. The Utah campus police statute states, “Members of the
police or security department of any college or university also have the
power to enforce all the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board
of Regents as related to the institution”.
Finally, Tennessee’s campus police statute states, “When properly
commissioned and qualified in accordance with policies of the Board of
Regents and the Board of Trustees, the security officers shall have all the
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
11
police powers necessary to enforce all state laws as well as rules and
regulations of the Board of Regents and the Board of Trustees”.
Miscellaneous Features of Campus Police Statutes
The current study revealed a number of miscellaneous features
found in several state statutes that provide insight into the unique role
played by members of campus law enforcement departments. For
example, the statute in Alabama includes a section that prohibits campus
police officers from entering a classroom for the purpose of enforcing
traffic or parking citations.
The campus police statute in Illinois directs the state to provide
liability insurance for the University of Illinois police officers. The
Indiana campus police statute includes a clause that allows governing
bodies of the respective institutions to expressly forbid police power to be
granted, if they so choose. This statute also has a provision that allows
campus police to remove persons from buildings or campus grounds
whenever such persons refuse to leave after being requested to do so.
The campus police statute in Kansas specifically authorizes the
University of Kansas Medical Center police facility to make emergency
transports of medical supplies and transplant organs.
The Maryland statute which grants police authority also allows
the Board of Regents to authorize presidents of the constituent
institutions to make use of campus security forces or building guards
instead of a campus police force if they so desire. A separate statute in
Maryland allows the governor to appoint “special policemen” for private
four-year institutions and community colleges if deemed necessary2.
According to the Massachusetts statute, “special state police
officers” may be appointed at the request of the college or university by
the Colonel of the State Police. These officers are appointed for three
years and are subject to removal by the Colonel. They may also be
reappointed after three years.
A rather unique feature found in the Michigan state statute directs
the governing Board of Control to establish a public safety department
oversight committee comprised of faculty, students and staff. This
committee receives and addresses grievances by persons against public
safety officers and it may also recommend to the institution disciplinary
actions against the police officers.
The campus police statutes in Michigan and Nevada require
campus crime statistics to be compiled and published. Nevada’s statute
also requires a statement of policy for each campus police department
12
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
regarding “use of force” and the equipment authorized for use by its
officers in carrying out that policy.
The Virginia statute includes a unique feature that allows the
governing boards of institutions of higher education to establish, equip
and maintain auxiliary police forces. Members of the auxiliary police
forces shall have the same authority as campus police officers when
called on for assistance. These auxiliary officers must comply with the
same requirements as the campus law enforcement officers as established
by the Department of Criminal Justice Services.
Finally, the campus police statute in West Virginia provides that
campus security officers also have the authority to assist local peace
officers with traffic control on public highways in and around premises
owned by the state of West Virginia. This is allowed whenever such
traffic is generated as a result of an athletic event or other activity
conducted or sponsored by state institutions of higher education and
when such assistance has been requested by local peace officers.
Other Provisions for Granting Campus Police Authority
In South Carolina, police officers at public institutions derive
their authority from a statute that primarily covers state constables3. For
the states of Hawaii and Idaho, statutory reference is made only to the
broad powers granted to their respective Board of Regents without
mention of campus police. Likewise, no campus police statutes for the
states of Nebraska, South Dakota or Arizona were found.
The Connecticut statute covers state colleges and universities
only. Therefore, as a private institution, Yale University is not granted
police powers under the statute. However, Yale police officers receive
their police authority from another state statute, specifically Public Act
83-466 Section 3. This statute allows the city of New Haven,
Connecticut, to appoint persons designated by Yale University to act as
Yale University police officers4.
In Idaho there is no specific campus police statute, only a law that
describes the broad administrative powers granted to the Board of
Regents. Campus police departments at higher education institutions
have no police authority; however, the University of Idaho and Boise
State University contract for law enforcement services with their local
police departments5.
In addition to the statute in North Carolina which provides for
campus police at public institutions of higher education, private
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
13
institutions may appoint police officers under the “Company Police Act”.
Under this statute, private educational institutions may apply to the
Attorney General of the state and be certified as a company police
agency. Individual applications for the company police officer must also
be sent to the Attorney General.
DISCUSSION
The current study revealed wide variations in the statutes
granting campus police authority throughout the United States. As with
other laws, it appears that state legislatures often enact campus police
statutes to solve or attempt to solve specific problems at a given time.
For example, the increases in the number of automobiles on campus
probably led to the inclusion of language such as that found in
Mississippi’s statute that specifically requires the regulation of vehicular
traffic and parking on campuses. Provisions that allow the removal of
trespassers from campus facilities may have resulted from the Vietnam
War era during which many campus police statutes were initially
enacted. Legislatures have also been sensitive to the proper balance of
police authority between campus law enforcement departments and their
local counterparts. Gelber (1972) noted that historically many campuses
required their officers to be deputized by local police authorities. A
number of statutes also included language granting local police
departments authority on campus.
In addition to granting full police authority to many campus
police departments, statutes frequently reflected the regulatory role
played by many campus police departments. Part of the history and
tradition of campus law enforcement is reflected in statutory language
that requires campus law enforcement officers to be university “rule
enforcers” as well as “law enforcers”.
Campus police statutes vary greatly in length and specificity.
Several of the statutes were very detailed while others were extremely
concise and more limited in their scope. For example, Oklahoma and
Virginia have rather lengthy comprehensive statutes covering several
pages. In contrast, the campus police statute from the state of Minnesota
is one paragraph in length.
There has been considerable progress in the professionalization of
campus policing since Gelber’s 1972 study which noted that only 27
states had passed laws granting police authority; as of this writing, 44
14
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
states have passed such laws. The present study found the majority of
states granting police authority to officers at public institutions.
Furthermore, the powers of campus police at these institutions are
generally equivalent to that of their local law enforcement counterparts.
Frequently, campus police statutes also establish minimum selection and
training standards for campus law enforcement officers similar to those
required of local police.
The typical campus police statute today specifies that the ultimate
appointing authority for campus police rests with the governing body or
chief executive officer of the college or university. This is a situation
parallel to the mayor or the city manager in a municipal setting, who also
has the ultimate responsibility for supervising the police department.
Many of the legislatures recognized that campus police may have need to
exercise their police powers beyond the immediate geographic
boundaries of the institution and included appropriate provisions. Given
the mobility of today’s criminals, it is somewhat surprising that specific
authority to engage in “hot pursuit” was not included in more campus
police statutes. In contrast, more statutes included language specifying
bonding or equipment requirements (15) than the number allowing
campus police departments to enter into mutual aid agreements with local
law enforcement agencies (9).
Today’s college campuses are often cities within cities and as such
are vulnerable to serious crimes. The tens of thousands of students,
faculty and visitors and the multi-million dollar investments in campus
facilities and equipment require a professional level of police protection.
Furthermore, litigation and recent federal and state legislation make it
incumbent on campus executives to deal proactively with issues relating
to campus crime and campus policing. Therefore, it would seem that
consideration should be given to the enactment of comprehensive campus
police statutes that provide the foundation for a professional response.
This review of contemporary statutes provides an opportunity to examine
the features that may be relevant in developing a model campus police
statute. Based on the current review, it is suggested that a model statute
include elements such as: appointing authority, jurisdiction, police officer
qualifications and training requirements in compliance with standards
required for other law enforcement officers.
Consideration should also be given to including sections on the
extension of police powers and jurisdiction under prescribed
circumstances, the ability to enter into mutual aid agreements with local
law enforcement agencies and the authority to engage in hot pursuit of
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
15
violators who commit crimes on campus. States that do not provide
police authority for officers working at private institutions or community
colleges could consider doing so. For example, in Oklahoma, campus
police departments at private institutions are considered “public”
agencies for the limited purposes of law enforcement. Finally, a model
statute should provide the governing board or chief executive officer of
institutions of higher education with the option of establishing security
departments that do not have sworn officers. However, if that option is
chosen, the statute should mandate that local law enforcement officials be
called to the campus to investigate all crimes once reported.
NOTES
The author would like to express appreciation to Dr Max Dertke for his review of
this manuscript and very helpful comments. Also Ms Michelle Whitcomb was
very helpful in locating statutes. Josh Martin of the National Association of
College and University Attorneys was also of great help. Finally, various
members of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement
Administrators were of great assistance in this project.
This is a revision of a paper presented at the 1996 annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their
insightful and helpful comments.
1.
According to a follow-up phone interview with Lt Tim Banks of the
University of Wyoming, campus police are appointed as “peace officers” of
the state and as such have jurisdiction throughout the entire state.
2.
This information regarding private institutions and community colleges was
verified by Captain Richard Duran of the University of Maryland Police
Department.
3.
Chief Carl Stokes of the University of South Carolina provided the
information regarding constable powers in his state.
4.
This information was forwarded from Chief Allan R. Guyette, Chief of
Police, Yale University.
5.
Stephen A. Chatterton, the Director of Security and Safety at Idaho State
University, supplied this information regarding the state of Idaho.
16
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
REFERENCES
Atwell, R.M. (1988), Memorandum Regarding Campus Security, American
Council on Education, Washington, DC.
Belkmap, J. and Erez, E. (1995), “The victimization of women on college
campuses: courtship violence, date rape and sexual harassment”, in Fisher, B.S.
and Sloan, J.S. (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Bordner, D.C. and Petersen, D.M. (1983), Campus Policing: The Nature of
University Work, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.
Bromley, M.L. and Territo, L. (1990), College Crime Prevention and Personal
Safety Awareness, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Castelli, J. (1990), “Campus Crime 101”, The New York Times Education Life,
4(November):1.
Gelber, S. (1972), The Role of Campus Security in the College Setting, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Griffaton, M. (1995), “State level initiatives and campus crime”, in Fisher, B.S.
and Sloan, J.J. III (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Hollis, D.W. (1951), The University of South Carolina. Vol. I. South Carolina
College, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Humphrey, D.C. (1976), From King’s College to Columbia 1746-1800,
Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (1995),
Campus Crime Report, 1991-1993, IACLEA, Hartford, CT.
Kaplin, W.A. (1990), The Law of Higher Education, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bassey
Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Kirkland, C. and Siegel, D. (1994), Campus Security. A First Look at Promising
Practices, Office of Educational Research, US Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Lederman, D. (1993), “Colleges report 7,500 violent crimes on their campuses in
first annual statements required under federal law”, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 20(January):A32-A43.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
17
Lederman, D. (1994), “Crime on the campus”, The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 3(February):A33.
McGrane, R.C. (1963), The University of Cincinnati: A Success Story in Urban
Higher Education, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Mathews, A. (1993), “The campus crime war”, The New York Times Magazine,
7(March):38-47.
Nichols, W.D. (1986), The Administration of Public Safety in Higher Education,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Ordovensky, P. (1990), “Students easy ‘prey’ on campus”, USA Today,
3(December):1A.
Peak, K. (1988), “Campus law enforcement. A national survey of administration
and operation”, Campus Law Enforcement Journal, 19(5):33-5.
Peak, K. (1995), “The progressionalization of campus law enforcement:
comparing campus and municipal law enforcement agencies”, in Fisher, B.S. and
Sloan, J.J. III (Eds), Campus Crime: Legal, Social and Policy Perspectives,
Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL.
Siegel, D. and Raymond, C. (1992), “An ecological approach to violent crime on
campus”, Journal of Security Administration, 15(2):19-29.
Sloan, J.J. (1992), “Campus crime and campus communities: an analysis of campus
police and security”, Journal of Security Administration, 15(2):31-45.
Smith, M.C. (1988), Coping with Crime on Campus, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Wertenbaker, T.J. (1946), Princeton 1746-1896, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
CASES
1.
Donnell v. California Western School of Law, 246 Cal. Rptr. 199 (1988).
2.
Duarte v. State, 151Cal. Rptr. 727 (1979).
3.
Hartman v. Bethany College, 778 F. Supp. 286 (1991).
4.
Miller v. State of New York, 467N.E.2d493 (1984).
5.
Mullins v. Pine Manor College, 449N.E.2d331 (1983).
18
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
6.
Peterson v. San Francisco Community College District, 685P.2d1193
(1984).
7.
Whitlock v. University of Denver, 744 p. 2d 54 (1987).
FEDERAL STATUTE
Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act (Public Law 101-542).
Appendix:
LIST OF OFFICIAL CODE COMPILATIONS TO WHICH
CITATIONS REFER
Code of Alabama
Revised Statutes of Nebraska
Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated
Alaska Statutes
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
Annotated
Arkansas Code Annotated
New Jersey Statutes Annotated
Annotated California Code
New Mexico Statutes Annotated
Colorado Revised Statutes
McKinney’s Consolidated Laws of
Connecticut General Statutes
New York Annotated
Annotated
North Carolina General Statutes
Delaware Code Annotated
North Dakota Century Code
Official Florida Statutes
Ohio Revised Code Annotated
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
Oklahoma Statutes Annotated
Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated
Oregon Revised Statutes Annotated
Idaho Code
Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated
Annotated Indiana Code
General Laws of Rhode Island
Illinois Annotated Statutes
Code of Laws of South Carolina 1976
Iowa Code Annotated
South Dakota Codified Laws
Kentucky Revised Statutes
Tennessee Code Annotated
Louisiana Statutes Annotated
Texas Codes Annotated
Maine Revised Statutes Annotated
Utah Code Annotated
Annotated Code of Maryland
Vermont Statutes Annotated
Annotated Laws of Massachusetts
Code of Virginia 1950 Annotated
Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated
Revised Code of Washington
Minnesota Statutes Annotated
Annotated
Mississippi Code Annotated
West Virginia Code Annotated
Annotated Missouri Statutes
Wisconsin Statutes Annotated
Montana Code Annotated
Wyoming Statutes
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
19
Table A1
FEATURES OF CAMPUS POLICE STATUTES
State
Statute
Covers
Statute
Citation
AL
Public
AK
Power
Same as
Other PD
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Jurisdiction
Chapter 22 – Yes
Section 16-22-1
Education
President
Limited
Public
Section
14.40.043
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
AR
Public
Subchapter 3 Yes
Section
25-17-304
Other
President
Extended
AZ
No Campus Police Statute
CA
Public
Article 3
Yes
Section 89560
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
CO
Public
Article 7
Yes
Section 24-7-101
Other
President
Limited
CT
Public
Section
10a-142
Yes
Education
President
Limited
DE
Public
Chapter 51 Yes
Section 5104
Education
University
Extended
FLa
Public
Chapter
240.268
Yes
Education
University
Limited
GA
Public
Chapter 8
Yes
Section 20-8-1
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
HI
No Campus Police Statute
ID
No Campus Police Statute
IL
Public
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
IN
Public,
154
Private and Section
J.C.
20-12-3.5-1
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
IA
Public
Section
262.13
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Not
Mentioned
KS
Public
Section
76-726
Yes
Education
President
President
Extended
KY
Public
Section
164-950
Yes
Education
Governing
Board
Extended
LA
Public and Section
Private
1805
Yes
Education
President
Limited
ME
Public
Chapter 532 Yes
Section 8-A
Other
Governing
Board
Limited
MD
Public
Section
13-201
Education
Governing
Board
Limited
110 ILCS
30517A
Yes
Yes
20
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Table A1
CONTINUED
Power
Same as
Other PD
State
Statute
Covers
Statute
Citation
MA
Public
MI
Public
MN
Public
MS
Public
MOb
Public
Section 22C Yes
Section 63
Section
Yes
390.1511
Section
Yes
137.12
Chapter 105, Section
37-105-9
Yes
CH. 172.350 Yes
MT
Public
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
Section
Yes
20-25-321
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Section
Yes
CC
281.0351
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Section 18-A: Yes
Private
6-4.2
Public
Section
Yes
29-5-2
Public
Section
Yes
355-1
Public and Section 116-40.5
Private
Section
74-E-2
Yes
Public
Section
Yes
15-10-17.1
Public and Section
Yes
CC
3345-04
Public
Section
Yes
Private and 360.15
High Schools
Public
Section
Yes
352.360
Public and 71 P.S.
Yes
CC
Section 646
Private
Chapter 2.1 Yes
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Other
Other-Colonel
State Police
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Governing
Board
Education Other – Chief
Superintendent
Education Governing
Board
Education Governing
Board
Education Governing
Education
Education
Other
Education
Other
Other
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
Governing
Board
University
Jurisdiction
Limited
Extended
Extended
Limited
Limited
Extended
Extended
Extended
Limited
Extended
Extended
Limited
Limited
Extended
Limited
Limited
Other – Supt. Extended
and State
Police
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
SC
Private
4 year
Chapter 116 Yes
Section 59
and 23-1-60
Education
Governing
Board
21
Extended
Table A1
CONTINUED
State
Statute
Covers
Power
Same as
Other PD
Statute
Citation
SD
TN
No Campus Police Statute
Public and Chapter
Yes
CC
49-7-118
TX
Public and Section
Yes
Private
51.203 2.123
UT
Public
Section
Yes
53B-3-104
VT
Public
Chapter 75 Yes
Section 2283
VA
Public and Chapter 17 Yes
Private
Section 22-232
WA
Public
Chapter
Yes
28B.10.550
WI
Public
Chapter
Yes
36.11
W.VA Public
18B-4-5
Yes
WY
Public
Chapter 2
Yes
Statute
Location
Appointing
Authority
Education
Governing
Extended
Board
Governing
Extended
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing and Circuit
Court
Extended
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Limited
Board
Governing
Extended
University
Extended
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Education
Other
Jurisdiction
Table A2
ITEMS MENTIONED IN STATUTE
State
Mutual
PO
Hot
Aid with
Qualify/ Pursuit Other
Training Allowed PD
Enforce
Campus
Rules
Local PD Bond
Uniforms,
Campus Requirement Badges,
Access
For PO
Vehicles
AL
No
Yes
No
No
No
AK
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
AR
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
CA
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
CO
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
CT
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
DE
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
FL
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
GA
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
22
American Journal of Police, Vol. XV, No. 3 1996
Table A2
CONTINUED
State
Mutual
PO
Hot
Aid with
Qualify/ Pursuit Other
Training Allowed PD
Enforce
Campus
Rules
Local PD Bond
Uniforms,
Campus Requirement Badges,
Access
For PO
Vehicles
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
MA
MI
MO
MN
MS
MT
NV
NJ
RI
SC
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WI
W.VA
WY
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No