It was a good 20 years or so ago when a local (Hammond) cop lived so near to me as within an adjacent block. There was often a “take-home” squad car in front of the officer’s residence. I took some comfort in that and assumed that the neighborhood was at least minimally safer by reason of the presence of a cop’s home and the likelihood that he cared about his own neighborhood. Even then there was no guarantee that a Hammond cop would live in Hammond. The General Assembly had already given in to the political clout of police officers.
Since 1981 the problematic legislation has been codified at IC 36-8-4-2. The topic is “Residence requirements” for members of the police and fire departments of cities. For cities of the second class (like Hammond, Gary, East Chicago, or Crown Point) having a population of at least 7,500, here is the statutory commandment. City cops and firefighters may live anywhere in the county where their municipal employer is located or anywhere in a contiguous county. If the cop or firefighter wants to live in a noncontiguous county, he may reside there so long as the noncontiguous county is within 50 miles of the nearest boundary of the city that he is sworn to serve. Now when I read about the residence of a Hammond cop or firefighter I expect it to be in Lowell or Portage or somewhere else far, far from my neighborhood.¹
Other than to require most city cops and firefighters to live within a two-hour drive of where they work, the real point of IC 36-8-4-2 is to pre-empt the field so as to block local ordinances that would require cops and firefighters to live nearby, possibly even within the city of their employ.
The current relevance of IC 36-8-4-2 arises from the mostly urban clashes between police officers and minority residents. Although I strongly disfavor the imposition of quotas I agree with those who assert that the police department of a city should resemble the racial content of that city. One way of promoting that ideal is to require all city cops to reside within the city. If a prospective cop is unwilling to live within the city where he would like to work, he should apply elsewhere, perhaps where he chooses to live. With the elimination of new commuter cops, residents of a city will have an enhanced opportunity to join the police department to serve their community.
Such new legislation would probably have to “grandfather” those cops living far away on the date of its passage. Still, there would be no new cop taking on the privilege of policing a city’s residents while unwilling to live among them.
Towns and cities of less than 7,500 in population may need to be governed a bit differently than larger municipalities. The “Residence requirements” law for town police and fire departments is found at IC 36-8-4.5-4 and in the following several sections. The section 4 residence requirement is identical to that for a city department as expressed at IC 36-8-4-2. Given that towns cannot be expected to have housing opportunities on par with a city and given that a town police department may lack the career opportunities needed to retain ambitious young officers for the long term, it would be reasonable for an amended statute to require town officers to live within a specified distance (no more than 10 or 20 miles) of the town.
One disturbing aspect of the recent urban cop-on-Black violence (most often provoked by Black misconduct) is the image of White cops employing forcible tactics on a Black man. The appearance of racism from such an image is decreased if not eliminated when the group of involved police officers is racially integrated. The odds of such integration increase when a city hires police who live there.
Now a look back at Part Two of the “White Like Me Series” wherein I criticized the judiciary’s role in the issuance of “no-knock” death (a/k/a “search”) warrants for occupied homes. I renew my call upon the General Assembly to enact new law prohibiting the issuance of “no-knock” warrants without clear and convincing evidence that human life hangs in the balance.
I have heard and read of recent calls for a special session of the General Assembly to address the matter of cop-on-Black violence. The General Assembly has had decades to address the issue. The General Assembly cannot legislate a perfect world and should not strive to do so. On the other hand, the two CLB recommendations from this Article are likely to help and to do so in a color-blind manner. The big open question is whether the Indiana General Assembly is willing to elevate the public good over the influence of the police lobby.
___________
¹ Whether there should be legislative changes of residence requirements for firefighters is beyond the scope of this Article and its focus on police residence requirements.
Leave a Reply