West''''s encyclopedia of American law 2ND EDITION Volume 8 doc

2ND EDITION
WEAL http v8 5/4/04 4:18 PM Page 1
How to Use This Book
❚ 1❚ Article Title
❚ 2❚ Definition in italics with Latin
translation provided
❚ 3❚ First-level subhead
❚ 4❚ Timeline for subject of biography,
including general historical events
and life events
❚ 5❚ Sidebar expands upon an issue
addressed briefly in the article
❚ 6❚ Quotation from subject of biography
❚ 7❚ Biography of contributor to
American law
❚ 8❚ Internal cross-reference to entry
within WEAL
❚ 9❚ In Focus article examines a
controversial or complex aspect
of the article topic
❚10 ❚ Cross-references at end of article
❚11 ❚ Full cite for case
❚ 1❚
❚ 2❚
❚ 3❚
❚ 4❚
❚ 5❚
❚ 6❚
❚ 7❚
❚ 8❚
❚ 9❚

❚10 ❚
k
❚11 ❚
How to Use This Book
❚ 1❚ Article Title
❚ 2❚ Definition in italics with Latin
translation provided
❚ 3❚ First-level subhead
❚ 4❚ Timeline for subject of biography,
including general historical events
and life events
❚ 5❚ Sidebar expands upon an issue
addressed briefly in the article
❚ 6❚ Quotation from subject of biography
❚ 7❚ Biography of contributor to
American law
❚ 8❚ Internal cross-reference to entry
within WEAL
❚ 9❚ In Focus article examines a
controversial or complex aspect
of the article topic
❚10 ❚ Cross-references at end of article
❚11 ❚ Full cite for case
❚ 1❚
❚ 2❚
❚ 3❚
❚ 4❚
❚ 5❚
❚ 6❚
❚ 7❚

❚ 8❚
❚ 9❚
❚10 ❚
k
❚11 ❚
2ND EDITION

Volume 8
Po to San
Detroit • San Diego • San Francisco • New Haven, Conn. • Waterville, Maine • London • Munich
WEAL http v8 5/4/04 4:18 PM Page 3
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 2nd Edition
Project Editors
Jeffrey Lehman
Shirelle Phelps
Editorial
Andrew C. Claps, Pamela A. Dear, Jason M.
Everett, Lynn U. Koch, John F. McCoy,
Jeffrey Wilson, Jennifer M. York, Ralph
Zerbonia
Research
Barbara McNeil
Editorial Support Services
Ryan Cartmill, Mark Hefner, Sue Petrus
Data Capture
Katrina Coach, Nikita Greene, Beverly
Jendrowski, Elizabeth Pilette, Beth
Richardson
Indexing Services
Lynne Maday

Permissions
Margaret A. Chamberlain
Imaging and Multimedia
Dean Dauphinais, Leitha Etheridge-Sims,
Mary Grimes, Lezlie Light, Dan Newell,
David G. Oblender, Chris O’Bryan
Product Design
Cynthia Baldwin, Kate Scheible
Composition and Electronic Capture
Evi Seoud, Mary Beth Trimper
Manufacturing
Rhonda Williams
© 2005 Thomson Gale, a part of
The Thomson Corporation.
Thomson and Star Logo are trademarks
and Gale is a registered trademark used
herein under license.
For more information, contact
The Gale Group, Inc.
27500 Drake Rd.
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535
Or you can visit our Internet site at

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
No part of this work covered by the copy-
right hereon may be reproduced or used in
any form or by any means—graphic, elec-
tronic, or mechanical, including photocopy-
ing, recording, taping, Web distribution, or
information storage retrieval systems—

without the written permission of the pub-
lisher.
This publication is a creative work fully
protected by all applicable copyright laws,
as well as by misappropriation, trade
secret, unfair condition, and other applica-
ble laws. The authors and editors of this
work have added value to the underlying
factual material herein through one or
more of the following: coordination,
expression, arrangement, and classification
of the information.
For permission to use material from this
product, submit your request via Web at
or
you may download our Permissions
Request form and submit your request by
fax of mail to:
Permissions Department
The Gale Group, Inc.
27500 Drake Rd.
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535
Permissions Hotline:
248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253, ext. 8006
Fax: 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058
Inside cover photograph reproduced by
permission of the Library of Congress
(Thurgood Marshall).
Since this page cannot legibly accommo-
date all copyright notices, the acknowledg-

ments constitute an extension of the
copyright notice.
While every effort has been made to
ensure the reliability of the information
presented in this publication, The Gale
Group, Inc. does not guarantee the accu-
racy of the data contained herein. The
Gale Group, Inc. accepts no payment for
listing; and inclusion in the publication of
any organization, agency, institution, pub-
lication service, or individual does not
imply endorsement of the editors or pub-
lisher. Errors brought to the attention of
the publisher and verified to the satisfac-
tion of the publisher will be corrected in
future editions.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
West’s encyclopedia of American law / Jeffrey Lehman, editor, Shirelle
Phelps, editor.— 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-7876-6367-0 (hardcover set : alk. paper)
1. Law—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Law—United States—Popular
works. I. Lehman, Jeffrey. II. Phelps, Shirelle.
KF154.W47 2004
349.73’03—dc22 2004004918
ISBN 0-7876-6367-0 (set), ISBN 0-7876-6368-9 (vol. 1), ISBN 0-7876-6369-7 (vol. 2), ISBN 0-7876-
6370-0 (vol. 3), ISBN 0-7876-6371-9 (vol. 4), ISBN 0-7876-6372-7 (vol. 5), ISBN 0-7876-6373-5 (vol.
6), ISBN 0-7876-6374-3 (vol. 7), ISBN 0-7876-6375-1 (vol. 8), ISBN 0-7876-6376-X (vol. 9), ISBN 0-
7876-6377-8 (vol. 10), ISBN 0-7876-6378-6 (vol. 11), ISBN 0-7876-6379-4 (vol. 12), ISBN 0-7876-

9420-7 (vol. 13)
This title is also available as an e-book. ISBN 0-7876-9373-1 (set)
Contact your Gale sales representative for ordering information.
Printed in the United States of America
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page iv
DEDICATION
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law
(WEAL) is dedicated to librarians
and library patrons throughout the
United States and beyond. Your
interest in the American legal system
helps to expand and fuel the frame-
work of our Republic.
k
68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page v
VOLUME 1
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
A–Ba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .507
VOLUME 2
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Be–Col . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .511
VOLUME 3
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Com–Dor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .509
VOLUME 4
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Dou–Fre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .509
VOLUME 5
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Fri–Jam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .501
VOLUME 6
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Jap–Ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .469
VOLUME 7
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Mc–Pl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .467
VOLUME 8
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Po–San . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .461
VOLUME 9
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Sar–Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .465
VOLUME 10
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiii
Ter–Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .459
VOLUME 11
Milestones in the Law
VOLUME 12
Primary Documents
VOLUME 13
Dictionary of Legal Terms
Cases Index
General Index
vii
Contents
68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page vii
T
he U.S. legal system is admired around
the world for the freedoms it allows the
individual and the fairness with which it
attempts to treat all persons. On the surface, it
may seem simple, yet those who have delved
into it know that this system of federal and
state constitutions, statutes, regulations, and
common-law decisions is elaborate and com-
plex. It derives from the English common law,
but includes principles older than England,
along with some principles from other lands.
The U.S. legal system, like many others, has a

language all its own, but too often it is an unfa-
miliar language: many concepts are still
phrased in Latin. The second edition of West’s
Encyclopedia of American Law (WEAL) explains
legal terms and concepts in everyday language,
however. It covers a wide variety of persons,
entities, and events that have shaped the U.S.
legal system and influenced public perceptions
of it.
MAIN FEATURES OF THIS SET
Entries
This encyclopedia contains nearly 5,000
entries devoted to terms, concepts, events,
movements, cases, and persons significant to
U.S. law. Entries on legal terms contain a defini-
tion of the term, followed by explanatory text if
necessary. Entries are arranged alphabetically in
standard encyclopedia format for ease of use. A
wide variety of additional features, listed later in
this preface, provide interesting background and
supplemental information.
Definitions Every entry on a legal term is
followed by a definition, which appears at the
beginning of the entry and is italicized. The Dic-
tionary and Indexes volume includes a glossary
containing all the definitions from WEAL.
Further Readings To facilitate further
research, a list of Further Readings is included at
the end of a majority of the main entries.
Cross-References WEAL provides two types

of cross-references, within and following entries.
Within the entries, terms are set in small capital
letters—for example, LIEN—to indicate that
they have their own entry in the encyclopedia.
At the end of the entries, related entries the
reader may wish to explore are listed alphabeti-
cally by title.
Blind cross-reference entries are also
included to direct the user to other entries
throughout the set.
In Focus Essays
In Focus essays accompany related entries
and provide additional facts, details, and argu-
ments on particularly interesting, important, or
controversial issues raised by those entries. The
subjects covered include hotly contested issues,
such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay
rights; detailed processes, such as the Food and
Drug Administration’s approval process for new
drugs; and important historical or social issues,
such as debates over the formation of the U.S.
Constitution.
Sidebars
Sidebars provide brief highlights of some
interesting facet of accompanying entries. They
ix
Preface
68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page ix
complement regular entries and In Focus essays
by adding informative details. Sidebar topics

include the Million Man March and the branches
of the U.S. armed services. Sidebars appear at the
top of a text page and are set in a box.
Biographies
WEAL profiles a wide variety of interesting
and influential people—including lawyers,
judges, government and civic leaders, and his-
torical and modern figures—who have played a
part in creating or shaping U.S. law. Each biog-
raphy includes a timeline, which shows impor-
tant moments in the subject’s life as well as
important historical events of the period.
Biographies appear alphabetically by the sub-
ject’s last name.
ADDITIONAL FEATURES OF THIS SET
Enhancements Throughout WEAL,readers
will find a broad array of photographs, charts,
graphs, manuscripts, legal forms, and other
visual aids enhancing the ideas presented in the
text.
Indexes WEAL features a cases index and a
cumulative index in a separate volume.
Appendixes
Three appendix volumes are included with
WEAL, containing hundreds of pages of docu-
ments, laws, manuscripts, and forms fundamen-
tal to and characteristic of U.S. law.
Milestone Cases in the Law
A special Appendix volume entitled Mile-
stones in the Law, allows readers to take a close

look at landmark cases in U.S. law. Readers can
explore the reasoning of the judges and the
arguments of the attorneys that produced major
decisions on important legal and social issues.
Included in each Milestone are the opinions of
the lower courts; the briefs presented by the par-
ties to the U.S. Supreme Court; and the decision
of the Supreme Court, including the majority
opinion and all concurring and dissenting opin-
ions for each case.
Primary Documents
There is also an Appendix volume contain-
ing more than 60 primary documents, such as
the English Bill of Rights, Martin Luther King
Jr.’s Letter from Brimingham Jail, and several
presidential speeches.
Citations
Wherever possible, WEAL entries include
citations for cases and statutes mentioned in the
text. These allow readers wishing to do addi-
tional research to find the opinions and statutes
cited. Two sample citations, with explanations of
common citation terms, can be seen below and
opposite.
X PREFACE
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
1. Case title. The title of the case is set in i and
indicates the names of the parties. The suit
in this sample citation was between Ernesto
A. Miranda and the state of Arizona.

2. Reporter volume number. The number pre-
ceding the reporter name indicates the
reporter volume containing the case. (The
volume number appears on the spine of the
reporter, along with the reporter name).
3. Reporter name. The reporter name is abbrevi-
ated. The suit in the sample citation is from
the reporter, or series of books, called U.S.
Reports, which contains cases from the U.S.
Supreme Court. (Numerous reporters pub-
lish cases from the federal and state courts.)
4. Reporter page. The number following the
reporter name indicates the reporter page on
which the case begins.
5. Additional reporter page. Many cases may be
found in more than one reporter. The suit in
the sample citation also appears in volume
86 of the Supreme Court Reporter, beginning
on page 1602.
6. Additional reporter citation. The suit in the
sample citation is also reported in volume 16
of the Lawyer’s Edition, second series, begin-
ning on page 694.
7. Year of decision. The year the court issued its
decision in the case appears in parentheses at
the end of the cite.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)
12345 67
68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page x
1. Statute title.

2. Public law number. In the sample citation,
the number 103 indicates this law was
passed by the 103d Congress, and the num-
ber 159 indicates it was the 159th law passed
by that Congress.
3. Reporter volume number. The number pre-
ceding the reporter abbreviation indicates
the reporter volume containing the statute.
4. Reporter name. The reporter name is abbre-
viated. The statute in the sample citation is
from Statutes at Large.
5. Reporter page. The number following the
reporter abbreviation indicates the reporter
page on which the statute begins.
6. Title number. Federal laws are divided into
major sections with specific titles. The num-
ber preceding a reference to the U.S. Code
stands for the section called Crimes and
Criminal Procedure.
7. Additional reporter. The statute in the sam-
ple citation may also be found in the U.S.
Code Annotated.
8. Section numbers. The section numbers fol-
lowing a reference to the U.S. Code Anno-
tated indicate where the statute appears in
that reporter.
PREFACE XI
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. No. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536 (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 921–925A)
12345678

68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page xi
Editorial Reviewers
Matthew C. Cordon
Frederick K. Grittner
Stephanie Schmitt
Linda Tashbook
M. Uri Toch
Contributing Authors
James Cahoy
Matthew C. Cordon
Richard J. Cretan
Mark Engsberg
Frederick K. Grittner
Lauri R. Harding
David R. Johnstone
Theresa J. Lippert
Frances T. Lynch
George A. Milite
Melodie Monahan
Kelle Sisung
Scott D. Slick
Contributors to
Previous Edition
Richard Abowitz
Paul Bard
Joanne Bergum
Michael Bernard
Gregory A. Borchard
Susan Buie
Terr y Ca r ter

Sally Chatelaine
Joanne Smestad Claussen
Richard Cretan
Lynne Crist
Paul D. Daggett
Susan L. Dalhed
Lisa M. DelFiacco
Suzanne Paul Dell’Oro
Dan DeVoe
Joanne Engelking
Sharon Fischlowitz
Jonathan Flanders
Lisa Florey
Robert A. Frame
John E. Gisselquist
Russell L. Gray III
Frederick K. Grittner
Victoria L. Handler
Heidi L. Headlee
James Heidberg
Clifford P. Hooker
Marianne Ashley Jerpbak
Andrew Kass
Margaret Anderson Kelliher
Christopher J. Kennedy
Anne E. Kevlin
Ann T. Laughlin
Laura Ledsworth-Wang
Linda Lincoln
Gregory Luce

David Luiken
Jennifer Marsh
Sandra M. Olson
Anne Larsen Olstad
William Ostrem
Lauren Pacelli
Randolph C. Park
Gary Peter
Michele A. Potts
Reinhard Priester
Christy Rain
Brian Roberts
Debra J. Rosenthal
Mary Lahr Schier
Mary Scarbrough
Theresa L. Schulz
John Scobey
James Slavicek
Scott D. Slick
David Strom
Wen dy Tien
Douglas Tueting
Richard F. Tyson
Christine Ver Ploeg
George E. Warner
Anne Welsbacher
Eric P. Wind
Lindy T. Yokanovich
xiii
Contributors

68007_WEAL_V08_FM_iv-xiv.qxd 5/5/2004 10:14 AM Page xiii
POACHING
The illegal shooting, trapping, or taking of game or
fish from private or public property.
The poaching of game and fish was made a
crime in England in the seventeenth century, as
aristocratic landowners sought to preserve their
shooting and property rights. Poor peasants did
most of the poaching to supplement their diets
with meat and fish.
In the United States, poaching was not con-
sidered a serious problem meriting legal meas-
ures before the twentieth century, because vast
expanses of undeveloped land contained abun-
dant sources of fish and game. The increased cul-
tivation of land and the growth of towns and
cities reduced wildlife habitats in the twentieth
century. In the early 1900s, the U.S. conservation
movement arose with an emphasis on preserving
wildlife and managing the fish and game popula-
tions. Wildlife preserves and state and national
parks were created as havens for wild animals,
many of which were threatened with extinction.
Because of these changing circumstances,
restrictions were placed on hunting and fish-
ing. State game and fish laws now require per-
sons to purchase licenses to hunt and fish. The
terms of these licenses limit the kind and num-
ber of animals or fish that may be taken and
restrict hunting and fishing to designated times

of the year, popularly referred to as hunting
and fishing seasons.
Therefore, persons who fail to purchase a
license, as well as those who violate the terms of
their licenses, commit acts of poaching. Most
poaching in the United States is done for sport
or commercial profit. Rare and endangered
species, which are protected by state and federal
law, are often the targets of poachers.
Poaching laws are enforced by game war-
dens, who patrol state and national parks and
respond to violations on private property.
Poachers are subject to criminal laws, ranging
from misdemeanors to felonies. Penalties may
include steep fines, jail sentences, the
FORFEI-
TURE
of any poached game or fish, the loss of
hunting and fishing license privileges for several
years, and the forfeiture of hunting or fishing
equipment, boats, and vehicles used in the
poaching.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Endangered Species Act; Environmental Law; Fish and
Fishing.
POCKET PART
An addition to many lawbooks that updates them
until a new edition is published.
A pocket part is located inside the back cover
of the book. A legal researcher should always

consult it to ensure that the most current law is
examined.
POINT
A distinct proposition or QUESTION OF LAW aris-
ing or propounded in a case. In the case of shares
1
P
(cont.)
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 1
of stock, a point means $1. In the case of bonds a
point means $10, since a bond is quoted as a per-
centage of $1,000. In the case of market averages,
the word point means merely that and no more. If,
for example, the Dow-Jones Industrial Average
rises from 8,349.25 to 8,350.25, it has risen a
point. A point in this average, however, is not
equivalent to $1.
With respect to the home mortgage finance
industry, a fee or charge of one percent of the prin-
cipal of the loan that is collected by the lender at
the time the loan is made and is in addition to the
constant long-term stated interest rate on the face
of the loan.
POISON
Any substance dangerous to living organisms that
if applied internally or externally, destroy the
action of vital functions or prevent the
CONTINU-
ANCE
of life.

Economic poisons are those substances that
are used to control insects, weeds, fungi, bacteria,
rodents, predatory animals, or other pests. Eco-
nomic poisons are useful to society but are still
dangerous.
The way a poison is controlled depends on
its potential for harm, its usefulness, and the rea-
sons for its use. The law has a right and a duty
pursuant to the
POLICE POWER of a state to con-
trol substances that can do great harm.
In the past, an individual who was harmed
by a poison that had been handled in a careless
manner could institute a lawsuit for damages
against the person who had mishandled the
chemical. As time went on, state statutes pre-
scribed the circumstances under which someone
was legally liable for injuries caused by a poison.
For example, a sale to anyone under sixteen
years of age was unlawful, and a seller was
required to ensure that the buyer understood
that the chemical was poisonous. It was not
unusual for all poisons, drugs, and narcotics to
be covered by the same statutory scheme.
Specialized statutes currently regulate poi-
sons. Pesticides must be registered with the fed-
eral government, and those denied registration
cannot be used. The
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
TION AGENCY

(EPA) has issued a number of reg-
ulations governing the use of approved
pesticides. Federal law also prohibits unautho-
rized adulteration of any product with a poison-
ous substance and requires clear labeling for
anything sold with a poisonous ingredient. It
might not be sufficient to list all the chemicals in
a container or even to put the word POISON on
the label. The manufacturer should also warn of
the injuries that are likely to occur and the con-
ditions under which the poison will cause harm.
Stricter standards are applied to household
products than to poisonous products intended
to be used in a factory, on a farm, or by a spe-
cially trained person. Poisonous food products
are banned. Under other federal regulations,
pesticide residues on foods are prohibited above
certain low tolerance levels.
Certain provisions under federal law seek to
protect children from poisoning. Special pack-
aging is required for some household products
so that a child will not mistake them for food or
will not be able to open containers. Federal
funds are available for local programs to reduce
or eliminate the danger of poisoning from lead-
based paint. Under the Hazardous Substances
Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1261 et seq.), toys containing
poisonous substances can be banned or sub-
jected to recall.
POISON PILL

A defensive strategy based on issuing special stock
that is used to deter aggressors in corporate
takeover attempts.
The poison pill is a defensive strategy used
against corporate takeovers. Popularly known as
corporate raiding, takeovers are hostile mergers
intended to acquire a corporation. A takeover
begins when a so-called aggressor tries to buy
sufficient stock in another corporation, known
as the target, to seize control of it. Target corpo-
rations use a wide range of legal options to deter
takeovers, among which is the poison pill: a
change in the company’s stock plan or financial
condition that is intended to make the corpora-
tion unattractive to the buyer. Despite its fanci-
ful name, the poison pill does not destroy the
target company. It is intended to affect the
aggressor, which will be burdened with costs if it
succeeds in its takeover. The strategy was widely
adopted in the 1980s.
The poison pill is unique among anti-
takeover strategies. At the simplest level,
takeovers are about buying stock. Corporate
raiders offer shareholders an inflated price for
their shares. They try to buy the company for
more than its stock is worth. Although this idea
seems paradoxical, raiders can reap profits from
their overpriced acquisition by selling off its
2 POISON
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition

68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 2
divisions and assets. Some anti-takeover strate-
gies try to deter the aggressor by selling off prize
assets first, making a counter offer to sharehold-
ers, or stipulating that the current executives will
receive huge payoffs after a takeover when they
are fired. These strategies can injure the com-
pany or simply benefit executives. But the poi-
son pill involves a kind of doomsday scenario
for the aggressor. If the takeover is successful, it
will end up paying enormous dividends to the
company’s current stockholders.
Essential to the use of such a strategy is that
it is first established in the corporation’s charter.
Among other details, these charters specify
shareholders’ rights. They specify that compa-
nies can issue preferred stock—shares that give
special dividends, or payments—to their hold-
ers. When a takeover bid begins, the company’s
board of directors issues this preferred stock to
its current shareholders. The stock is essentially
worthless and is intended to scare away the
aggressor. If the takeover succeeds, the stock
becomes quite valuable. It can then be redeemed
for a very good price or it can be converted into
stock of the new controlling company—namely,
the aggressor’s. Both scenarios leave the aggres-
sor with the choice of either buying the stock at
a high price or paying huge dividends on it. This
is the pill’s poison.

Poison pill defenses are popular but some-
what controversial. The majority of large U.S.
companies had adopted them by the 1990s. Part
of this popularity comes from their effectiveness
in delaying a corporate takeover, during which
time a target company may marshal other
defenses as well. Another reason is that courts
have upheld their legality. One of the first
important cases in this area reached the
Delaware courts in 1985 (Moran v. Household
International, Inc., 500 A.2d 1346). However,
some critics have argued that the strategy gives
company directors power at the expense of
shareholders. They maintain that it can limit
shareholders’ wealth by thwarting potentially
beneficial takeovers and allowing bad corporate
managers to entrench themselves. In the 1990s
such arguments spurred some investors to
attempt to repeal poison pill provisions in cor-
porate charters.
FURTHER READINGS
Animashaun, Babatunde M. 1991. “Poison Pill: Corporate
Antitakeover Defensive Plan and the Directors’ Respon-
sibilities in Responding to Takeover Bids.” Southern
University Law Review 18 (fall).
Hancock, William A. ed. 2000. Special Study for Corporate
Counsel on Poison Pills. Chesterland, Ohio: Business
Laws, Inc.,
Wingerson, Mark R., and Christopher H. Dorn. 1992.“Insti-
tutional Investors in the U.S. and the Repeal of Poison

Pills: A Practitioner’s Perspective.” Columbia Business
Law Review.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Golden Parachute; Mergers and Acquisitions.
POLICE
A body sanctioned by local, state, or national gov-
ernment to enforce laws and apprehend those who
break them.
The police force as we know it came into
being in England in the 1820s when Sir Robert
Peel established London’s first municipal force.
Before that, policing had either been done by
volunteers or by soldiers. Police officers in the
twenty-first century have technological advan-
tages at their disposal to help them solve crimes,
but most rely primarily on training and instinct
to do their work.
In the United States, policing was originally
done by the “watch system” in which local citi-
zens would go on patrol and look for criminal
activity. As cities grew, so did the amount of
crime, and it became impossible to control it
through volunteers. In the mid-1840s, New York
City established the first paid professional police
force in the United States. By the end of the
nineteenth century, major cities across the
nation had their own police forces. Regional
police organizations were also established. Fed-
eral policing agencies such as the U.S. Park
Police (who patrolled national parks), the Postal

Inspectors (who helped ensure safe mail deliv-
ery) and the Border Patrol (which kept criminals
from sneaking into or out of the country) were
introduced. In 1905, Pennsylvania established
the nation’s first state police; other states quickly
followed suit.
During the first decades of the twentieth
century, police forces were established in smaller
municipalities, and police officers took a more
active role in fighting crime and protecting citi-
zens. The widespread introduction of tele-
phones and automobiles made it easier for
police to respond quickly to emergencies.
Over the ensuing years, many of the tech-
niques and tools commonly associated with
police work—mug shots, fingerprint analysis,
centralized records, crime labs—were intro-
duced and constantly improved. Although the
POLICE 3
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 3
scenarios commonly created by television police
shows are exaggerations of how much technol-
ogy can actually do, such innovations as DNA
testing have made it easier for the police to pos-
itively identify criminals.
The average duties of the modern police
officer can vary widely from community to
community. In a large city whose police force
has dozens of divisions and neighborhood

precincts, an officer’s duties may be quite spe-
cialized. In a small town with a police force of
only a few people, each officer will likely have to
know how to do several jobs to be able to fill in
for their colleagues as needed.
The duties of a police officer on the New
York City police force provide an example of
what the police do. New York officers are
expected to patrol their assigned area, either by
car or on foot. They apprehend criminals or
crime suspects, stop crimes in progress, and
assist people who are in trouble (such as com-
plainants in domestic disputes or emotionally
disturbed homeless individuals). They investi-
gate crimes and crime scenes, collect evidence,
and interview victims and witnesses. They help
find missing persons and handle cases of alleged
CHILD ABUSE. They help identify and recover
stolen property, and they testify in court as nec-
essary. They also keep detailed records of their
activity by filing reports and filling out various
forms.
Police officers are expected to be in good
physical condition. They may have to run after a
suspect, carry injured individuals, subdue sus-
pects (who may be armed or physically strong),
and carry heavy equipment. They may have
periods of extreme physical activity, followed by
hours of no activity at all (perhaps just sitting in
a patrol car for several hours). They must also be

mentally alert and emotionally able to withstand
the strain of their work. Although officers in
large cities or dangerous neighborhoods may
have a statistically higher chance of being
injured on killed on the job, all police officers
know that life-and-death situations can happen
anywhere.
Not accidentally, police departments, espe-
cially those in large cities, are compared to mili-
tary institutions. In fact, the police and the
military have a number of goals in common,
including discipline, endurance, teamwork, and
clearly established procedures for all operations.
Even the ranks given police officers are similar to
those in the military.
Not surprisingly, police officers are required
to undergo often rigorous training before being
sworn in. The movement for formalized training
began early in the twentieth century. August
Vollmer, chief of police in Berkeley, California,
from 1905 to 1932, believed that police officers
needed professional training at the college level.
He helped found a police training academy at
the University of California’s Berkeley campus,
and Berkeley later established the nation’s first
college-level
CRIMINOLOGY department. Today,
many
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES have crimi-
nology departments and offer degrees in criminal

justice. Many police departments will provide
tuition reimbursement or scholarships to officers
who want to continue their education after they
have joined the force. Some officers get their law
degrees; others get advanced degrees in criminol-
ogy and become college instructors.
One of the major goals of many police
departments is getting cooperation from within
the community. Many officers receive training in
communications, and most police departments
have public affairs divisions that provide infor-
mation for citizens who wish to organize neigh-
borhood watch programs or who want to get
information on avoiding crime. Some police
departments, for example, have increased their
foot patrols, believing that the officer “walking
the beat” makes people feel safer and also builds
rapport with local individuals. Police also work
with each other as well as with other law
enforcement agencies. State, county, and local
police will often come together to solve a crime
that falls within their jurisdiction. Agencies such
as the
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, the
SECRET SERVICE, the Coast Guard, and others
also work with the police to help solve crimes.
The emergence of computerized records and
databases make it easy for police organizations
across the country and even overseas to
exchange information about suspects and crim-

inals. In emergency situations (fires, explosions,
or natural disasters), police officers work in tan-
dem with fire fighters, medical professionals, or
emergency service workers.
FURTHER READINGS
Bittner, Egon. 1990. Aspects of Police Work. Boston: North-
eastern Univ. Press.
Das, Dilip K., and Arvind Verma. 2000. Police Mission: Chal-
lenges and Responses. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.
Kelling, George L., and Catherine Coles. 1996. Fixing Broken
Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our
Communities. New York: Free Press.
4 POLICE
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 4
Wadman, Robert C. 2004. To Protect and to Serve: A History
of Police in America. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Police Power.
POLICE AND GUARDS, PRIVATE
The use of private security guards and police by
such entities as businesses and school campuses
to protect their property, employees, and stu-
dents has grown rapidly since the early 1980s.
The authority of these guards, sometimes
known disparagingly as “rent-a-cops,” depends
upon the employer and the type of security
involved. Some guards are considered private
employees of security firms and possess no more

authority than an ordinary citizen. Other
guards, such as campus police officers, are given
specific authority to serve as peace officers by
state law.
Private investigation firms predate the for-
mation of the United States. During the nine-
teenth century and early part of the twentieth
century, these firms often were employed by
private companies for such purposes as break-
ing strikes, infiltrating
LABOR UNIONS, and
investigating robberies and other crimes. By the
1930s, however, the industry was in decline, and
from the 1930s to the 1970s, public law enforce-
ment officers were more prevalent than private
guards.
By the early 1980s, the private security indus-
try began to expand, and by the early 1990s, it
was one of the largest growing industries in the
United States. Private guards and police person-
nel now outnumber the total number of federal,
state, and local law enforcement officers com-
bined. Moreover, an estimated 150,000 regular
police officers moonlight as private security
guards. Some municipal police departments sup-
ply regular police officers to businesses and pri-
vate individuals, and then pay the officers from
the proceeds of the arrangement.
One of the most ubiquitous private security
officers is the campus or university police offi-

cer. Institutions of higher education are gener-
ally under a duty to provide reasonable security
measures to protect their students. Many states
designate these private officers with powers and
authority similar or analogous to regular police
officers, particularly at state institutions, but
also at some larger private institutions. Some
campus police departments also make arrange-
ments with local police departments to cooper-
ate in investigating campus crimes. Under the
Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security
Act, Pub. L. No. 101-542, 104 Stat. 2381, all
COL-
LEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
that receive federal
financial assistance are required to publish and
distribute campus security policies and crime
statistics to current students, employees, and the
secretary of education.
In California, for example, the Regents of the
University of California and the Trustees of the
California State University and Colleges may
employ one or more campus police officers to
serve as peace officers (Cal. Educ. Code
§§ 89560, 92601). These officers may only exer-
cise their duties within one mile of the exterior
boundaries of each campus, although California
courts have held that officers may, in some cir-
cumstances, extend beyond these boundaries to
fulfill their duties (Baughman v. State of Califor-

nia, 45 Cal. Rptr. 82 [Cal. App. 1995]). In order
to qualify to become a peace officer, a candidate
must be 18 years old, demonstrate good moral
character based upon an investigation, and be
free from any physical, emotional, or mental
condition that might adversely affect the per-
formance of his or her duties.
Some plaintiffs have sought to hold campus
police officers liable for the officers’ actions
under a variety of legal theories. For instance, in
DeSanto v. Youngstown State University, 2002
WL 31966960 (Oh. Ct. Cl. 2002), campus police
were given the responsibility to provide security
for a dance, including checking identification of
the participants and requiring non-students to
sign a log. Two individuals became involved in a
fight, requiring the intervention of the officers.
Although one of the two participants threatened
to kill the other, the officers did not arrest the
man who uttered the threats. Thirty minutes
later, another individual killed the man against
whom the threats were made. The family of the
victim claimed that the officers were negligent
for failing to arrest the man who made the
threats. In addition, a plaintiff’s expert witness
testified that had the officer arrested the man
who made the threats, the victim would not
have been killed. Nevertheless, the court found
that the theory was speculative and held in favor
of the officers.

The application of the constitutional provi-
sions governing
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE has
come into question in a number of cases involv-
ing security guards. If a security guard or officer
POLICE AND GUARDS, PRIVATE 5
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 5
is a purely private officer, constitutional provi-
sions generally do not apply. These private
guards usually are limited by other state crimi-
nal and
TORT LAWS, such as
ASSAULT
, BATTERY,
TRESPASS, and FALSE IMPRISONMENT. On the
other hand, if the security guard or officer is
deemed a state actor, then the constitutional
provisions, such as the Fourth Amendment’s
prohibition against unreasonable
SEARCHES
AND SEIZURES
, applies. Some states, including
Georgia and South Carolina, have deputized
security guards with much of the same author-
ity as regular police officers. Other states, such as
Arizona, have expressly provided that security
guards do not have the same authority as regu-
lar police officers.
In Washington v. Heritage, 61 P.3d 1190

(Wash. App. 2002), a juvenile was convicted of
possession of marijuana after she was searched
by city park security guards. The juvenile court
in the case found that the guards were private
guards, so constitutional rules of criminal pro-
cedure did not apply. However, the Washington
court of appeals determined that these guards
were indeed state actors because they were
employed by the city government. Accordingly,
the guards were required to comply with consti-
tutional requirements, including giving the sus-
pects Miranda warnings.
FURTHER READINGS
Button, Mark. 2002. Private Policing. Portland, Or.: Willan
Pub.
Sklansky, David A. 1999.“Criminal Procedure and the Private
Police.” Search and Seizure Law Report 26 (September).
———. 1999. “The Private Police.” UCLA Law Review 46
(April).
CROSS-REFERENCES
Colleges and Universities; Police Power.
POLICE CORRUPTION AND
MISCONDUCT
The violation of state and federal laws or the vio-
lation of individuals’ constitutional rights by
police officers; also when police commit crimes for
personal gain.
Police misconduct and corruption are abuses
of police authority. Sometimes used inter-
changeably, the terms refer to a wide range of

procedural, criminal, and civil violations. Mis-
conduct is the broadest category. Misconduct is
“procedural” when it refers to police who violate
police department rules and regulations; “crim-
inal” when it refers to police who violate state
and federal laws; “unconstitutional” when it
refers to police who violate a citizen’s
CIVIL
RIGHTS
; or any combination thereof. Common
forms of misconduct are excessive use of physi-
cal or
DEADLY FORCE, discriminatory arrest,
physical or verbal harassment, and selective
enforcement of the law.
Police corruption is the abuse of police
authority for personal gain. Corruption may
involve profit or another type of material bene-
fit gained illegally as a consequence of the offi-
cer’s authority. Typical forms of corruption
include BRIBERY, EXTORTION, receiving or fenc-
ing stolen goods, and selling drugs. The term
also refers to patterns of misconduct within a
given police department or special unit, particu-
larly where offenses are repeated with the acqui-
escence of superiors or through other ongoing
failure to correct them.
Safeguards against police misconduct exist
throughout the law. Police departments them-
selves establish codes of conduct, train new

recruits, and investigate and discipline officers,
sometimes in cooperation with civilian com-
plaint review boards which are intended to pro-
vide independent evaluative and remedial
advice. Protections are also found in state law,
which permits victims to sue police for damages
in civil actions. Typically, these actions are
brought for claims such as the use of excessive
force (“police brutality”), false arrest and
imprisonment,
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,and
WRONGFUL DEATH. State actions may be
brought simultaneously with additional claims
for constitutional violations.
Through both criminal and civil statutes,
federal law specifically targets police miscon-
duct. Federal law is applicable to all state,
county, and local officers, including those who
work in correctional facilities. The key federal
criminal statute makes it unlawful for anyone
acting with police authority to deprive or con-
spire to deprive another person of any right pro-
tected by the Constitution or laws of the United
States (Section 18 U.S.C. § 241 [2000]). Another
statute, commonly referred to as the police mis-
conduct provision, makes it unlawful for state or
local police to engage in a pattern or practice of
conduct that deprives persons of their rights (42
U.S.C.A. 14141 [2000]).
Additionally, federal law prohibits discrimi-

nation in police work. Any police department
receiving federal funding is covered by Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
6 POLICE CORRUPTION AND MISCONDUCT
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 6
§ 2000d) and the Office of Justice Programs
statute (42 U.S.C. § 3789d[c]), which prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, sex, and religion. These laws
prohibit conduct ranging from racial slurs and
unjustified arrests to the refusal of departments
to respond to discrimination complaints.
Because neither the federal criminal statute
nor the civil police misconduct provision pro-
vides for lawsuits by individuals, only the federal
government may bring suit under these laws.
Enforcement is the responsibility of the
JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT
. Criminal convictions are punish-
able by fines and imprisonment. Civil convic-
tions are remedied through injunctive relief, a
type of court order that requires a change in
behavior; typically, resolutions in such cases
force police departments to stop abusive prac-
tices, institute types of reform, or submit to
court supervision.
Private litigation against police officers or
departments is difficult. Besides time and

expense, a significant hurdle to success is found
in the legal protections that police enjoy. Since
the late twentieth century, many court decisions
have expanded the powers of police to perform
routine stops and searches. Plaintiffs generally
must prove willful or unlawful conduct on the
part of police; showing mere
NEGLIGENCE or
other failure of due care by police officers often
does not suffice in court.
Most problematically of all for plaintiffs,
police are protected by the defense of immu-
nity—an exemption from penalties and burdens
that the law generally places on other citizens.
This
IMMUNITY is limited, unlike the absolute
immunity enjoyed by judges or legislators. In
theory, the defense allows police to do their job
without fear of
REPRISAL.In practice,however,
it has become increasingly difficult for individu-
als to sue law enforcement officers for damages
for allegedly violating their civil rights. U.S.
Supreme Court decisions have continually
asserted the general rule that officers must be
given the benefit of the doubt that they acted
lawfully in carrying out their day-to-day duties,
a position reasserted in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S.
194, 121 S. Ct. 2151, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001).
History

Society has grappled with misconduct and
corruption issues for as long as it has had police
officers. Through the mid-to-late nineteenth
century, private police forces were common-
place, and agents of Pinkerton’s and other for-
hire services became notorious as the muscle
employers used to violently end strikes. Heavy-
handed law enforcement as well as
VIGILANTISM
by groups such as the racist KU KLUX KLAN
spurred passage of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of
1871, which criminalized acting under state law
to deprive a person of constitutional or other
rights under federal law.
SECTION 1983 of the act
remains a critical tool in the early 2000s for
enforcing constitutional rights, with direct
applicability to police misconduct cases.
The twentieth century saw multiple legal,
administrative, and scholarly approaches to the
problem. Some developments bore indirectly
upon police misconduct, such as the passage of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave new
protections to citizens who had long suffered
discriminatory policing. Additionally, a string of
landmark Supreme Court decisions during the
era gave new force both to individual privacy
rights as well as to curbs upon
POLICE POWER:
highly influential cases resulted in the strength-

ening of
FOURTH AMENDMENT rights against
unreasonable
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, evidentiary
rules forbidding the use at trial of evidence
tainted by unconstitutional police actions, and
the establishment of the so-called Miranda
Warning requiring officers to advise detained
suspects of their constitutional rights.
While these decisions profoundly shaped the
legal and social landscape, renewed focus on
police misconduct and corruption occurred in
the latter part of the century. As the pioneering
criminologist Herman Goldstein argued, tradi-
tional views were based on the assumption that
police abuse reflected the moral failings of indi-
vidual officers—the so-called “bad cop.” Public
scandals began to shape a new view of the prob-
lem. In 1971, New York City organized the
Knapp Commission to hold hearings on the
extent of corruption in the city’s police depart-
ment. Police officer Frank Serpico’s startling tes-
timony against fellow officers not only revealed
systemic corruption but highlighted a long-
standing obstacle to investigating these abuses:
the fraternal understanding among police offi-
cers known variously as “the Code of Silence”
and “the Blue Curtain” under which officers
regard testimony against a fellow officer as
betrayal.

Broader recognition of the problem brought
more ambitious reform efforts in the 1980s and
1990s. Spurred by the work of criminologists
POLICE CORRUPTION AND MISCONDUCT 7
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 7
such as Goldstein and others, police depart-
ments sought to improve organizational rules,
training, and prevention and control mecha-
nisms. Such efforts are reflected in the publica-
tion of a code of police conduct by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police,
more rigorous training for officers, and experi-
mented with so-called community policing pro-
grams to improve ties between officers and the
public. Several cities established joint police and
civilian complaint review boards to give citizens
a larger role in what traditionally had been a
closed, internal process by police departments.
Among the most dramatic examples of sys-
tem-wide reform is New York City’s response to
long-standing brutality, discrimination, and
corruption within the New York City Police
Department (NYPD). After flirting with civilian
review of complaints against police in the 1960s,
the city committed to it after public outcry over
the videotaping of officers beating citizens who
violated curfew in 1988. The city subsequently
established its Civilian Complaint Review
Board, which became an all-civilian agency in

1993. In 1992, responding to new complaints,
Mayor David N. Dinkins appointed the Com-
mission to Investigate Allegations of Police Cor-
ruption and the Anti-Corruption Procedures of
the Police Department, known as the Mollen
Commission. Two years later, the commission
concluded that the city had alternated between
cycles of corruption and reform. Afterwards, in
1995, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani established
the full-time Commission to Combat Police
Corruption (CCPC) as an entity independent
from the police department. The CCPC moni-
tors the NYPD anti-corruption policies and pro-
cedures, conducts audits, and issues public
reports.
Contemporary Problems
Despite legal safeguards and well-inten-
tioned reforms, police problems have continued
to produce headlines. The exact scope of mis-
conduct is unknown. Misconduct complaints
can be quantified on a city-by-city basis, but
these data are often subjective, and far more
complaints are filed than ever are evaluated at
trial. Corruption is even harder to measure. As
the National Institute of Justice acknowledged in
its May 2000 report, The Measurement of Police
Integrity, most corruption incidents go unre-
ported, and data that do exist “are best regarded
as measures of a police agency’s anticorruption
activity, not the actual level of corruption.”

During the late 1990s, highly-publicized
cases in New York, New Jersey, Texas, Detroit,
and Cleveland exposed an apparently new trend:
police drug corruption. In the Cleveland case
alone, the FBI arrested 42 officers from five law
enforcement agencies in 1998 on charges of con-
spiracy to distribute cocaine. In a 1998 report to
U.S. Congressman Charles B. Rangel, the federal
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) found
evidence of growing police involvement in drug
sales, theft of drugs and money from drug deal-
ers, and perjured testimony about illegal
searches. The GAO survey of police commission
reports and academic research suggested a trou-
bling new dimension previously not seen in
studies of police corruption. Traditionally,
police corruption had been understood to
involve individuals acting alone, but the new
trend revealed officers working in small groups
to protect and assist each other.
In 1999, this pattern emerged in one of the
worst police corruption scandals in U.S. history.
The scandal involved the Los Angeles Police
Department’s Rampart precinct and particularly
its elite anti-gang unit, CRASH (Community
Resources Against Street Hoodlums). Following
local and federal investigations, CRASH was dis-
mantled, some 70 officers were investigated, and
several either pleaded guilty to or were convicted
of crimes ranging from drug theft and peddling

to assault, fabricating arrests, and filing false
reports.
The Rampart scandal bore heavy costs,
financially as well as in human terms. Several
dozen criminal convictions credited to the work
8 POLICE CORRUPTION AND MISCONDUCT
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
Protesters react to the
acquittal of four New
York City police
officers in the 1999
shooting death of
Amadou Diallo.
AP/WIDE WORLD
PHOTOS
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 8
of the corrupt officers were overturned. By 2003,
the city had already paid $40 million to settle
lawsuits. In a settlement with the federal gov-
ernment in 2000, the Los Angeles City Council
accepted a
CONSENT DECREE that placed the
city’s police department under the supervision
of a federal judge for five years to implement
and monitor reforms.
However, reform is no panacea. Even New
York City’s extensive reforms were called into
doubt by two high-profile police cases in the
1990s. Both highlighted the difficulties inherent
in prosecuting even apparently clear-cut mis-

conduct. The first, in 1997, involved Haitian
immigrant Abner Louima, who was shockingly
beaten in a police cruiser and sodomized in a
bathroom with a broom handle by four NYPD
officers. Louima ultimately settled a civil case
against the department for $8.7 million in 2001,
one of the highest police brutality settlements
ever paid and the highest by New York City since
paying a $3 million settlement in the choking
death of Anthony Baez in 1994.
Yet, despite much public frustration, prose-
cution of the officers was less conclusive. Officer
Justin Volpe pleaded guilty to leading the
SODOMY assault and was sentenced to 30 years in
prison. However, in 1999, his fellow three officers
were acquitted on charges of assault in the police
cruiser; one of them, officer Charles Schwarz,
was convicted of violating Louima’s civil rights
for holding him down during the bathroom
assault. In 2000, all three were convicted of
obstructing justice for their actions in covering
up evidence of the attack, but these convictions
were later overturned in United States v. Schwarz,
283 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002). Ordered a new trial
on the civil rights charge, Schwarz reached a plea
bargain in September 2002, agreeing to be sen-
tenced to a 5-year prison term.
The second New York controversy involved
the killing in 1999 of an unarmed man. Four
undercover police officers shot Amadou Diallo

41 times after stopping the Guinean immigrant
in the vestibule of his apartment building,
where, they said, he reached into his back
pocket. Large public protests attracted activists
such as Susan Sarandon and former New York
mayor David Dinkins, who argued that the
department’s so-called Aggressive Street Crimes
Unit was in fact far too aggressive. In 2000, the
four officers were acquitted in a trial that sup-
porters said vindicated them but which critics
blamed on lax prosecution.
Outside the courts, mounting resentment
over discriminatory misconduct by police offi-
cers has occasionally led to rioting. In contem-
porary experience, the Los Angeles riots in 1992
followed the acquittal of white police officers
charged with the videotaped beating of black
motorist
RODNEY KING. In April 2001, three
days of rioting in Cincinnati followed the
acquittal of a white police officer on charges of
shooting Timothy Thomas, a 19-year old
unarmed black man.
Cities, courts, police departments, and
criminologists all continue to examine ways to
bring meaningful reform to police depart-
ments. Some critics have argued that miscon-
duct and corruption are age-old problems that
resist all efforts at eradication; the best society
can do, in this view, is monitor and correct.

Others trace recent problems to public policy
that emphasizes aggressive policing of drug,
gang, and street crimes. Whatever the cause and
the solution, until more efficacious remedies
are found, some citizens will still require pro-
tection from the very people appointed to pro-
tect and serve them.
FURTHER READINGS
Drug Policy Alliance. “Police Corruption.” Available online
at <www.drugpolicy.org/law/police/> (accessed August
23, 2003).
Howell, Ron. 2002.“Mother Hopes for Settlement.” Newsday
(February 5).
Hurtado, Patricia. 2002. “Case Now Closed: Unusual Plea
Deal Yields No Clear Win for Louima, Schwarz.” News-
day (September 23).
Kennedy, Rozella Floranz, ed. “Fighting Police Abuse: A
Community Action Manual.” ACLU Department of
Public Education. Available online at <archive.aclu.org/
library/fighting_police_abuse.html> (accessed August
23, 2003).
Klockars, Carl B., et al. 2000. “The Measurement of Police
Integrity.” Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Justice.
“Law Enforcement—Information on Drug-Related Police
Corruption.” 1998. Government Accounting Office
Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office
(June 29).
Manalili, Joseph, ed. “Chapter 5: Remedies and Legal Devel-
opments.” Revisiting Who Is Guarding the Guardians?

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Available online at <www.usccr.gov/pubs/guard/main
.htm> (accessed August 23, 2003).
New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board.“History of
the CCRB.” Available online at <www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/
ccrb/html/history.html> (accessed August 23, 2003).
“The Rampart Scandal.” F
RONTLINE
/PBS Online. Available
online at <www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/
lapd/scandal> (accessed September 5, 2003).
POLICE CORRUPTION AND MISCONDUCT 9
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 9
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Coordina-
tion, and Review Section. “Addressing Police Miscon-
duct: Laws Enforced by the United States Department
of Justice.” Available online at <www.usdoj.gov/crt/cor/
Pubs/polmis.htm> (accessed August 23, 2003).
CROSS-REFERENCES
Civil Rights; Conspiracy; Constitutional Law; Discrimina-
tion; Fourth Amendment; Immunity; Ku Klux Klan; Pinker-
ton Agents; Privacy.
POLICE POWER
The authority conferred upon the states by the
TENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution and
which the states delegate to their political subdivi-
sions to enact measures to preserve and protect the
safety, health,
WELFARE, and morals of the com-

munity.
Police power describes the basic right of gov-
ernments to make laws and regulations for the
benefit of their communities. Under the system
of government in the United States, only states
have the right to make laws based on their police
power. The lawmaking power of the federal gov-
ernment is limited to the specific grants of
power found in the Constitution.
The right of states to make laws governing
safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived
from the Tenth Amendment, which states, “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.” State legislatures exercise their police
power by enacting statutes, and they also dele-
gate much of their police power to counties,
cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within
the state.
Police power does not specifically refer to
the right of state and local government to create
police forces, although the police power does
include that right. Police power is also used as
the basis for enacting a variety of substantive
laws in such areas as
ZONING, land use, fire and
BUILDING CODES, gambling, discrimination,
parking, crime, licensing of professionals, liquor,
motor vehicles, bicycles, nuisances, schooling,

and sanitation.
If a law enacted pursuant to the police
power does not promote the health, safety, or
welfare of the community, it is likely to be an
unconstitutional deprivation of life, liberty, or
property. The most common challenge to a
statute enacted pursuant to the police power is
that it constitutes a taking. A taking occurs
when the government deprives a person of
property or directly interferes with or substan-
tially disturbs a person’s use and enjoyment of
his or her property.
The case of Mahony v. Township of Hamp-
ton, 539 Pa. 193, 651 A.2d 525 (1994) illustrates
how a state or local jurisdiction can exceed its
police power. Mahony involved a zoning ordi-
nance enacted by the township of Hampton in
Pennsylvania. The ordinance prohibited a pri-
vate party from operating a gas well in a resi-
dential district but allowed the operation of
such wells by the government. Jack D. Mahony,
a landowner who operated a gas well, objected
to the ordinance, arguing that the disparate
treatment of public and private operation of gas
wells was
ARBITRARY and not justified by any
concerns related to the police power. Mahony
noted that the
STATE DEPARTMENT of Environ-
mental Regulation (DER) already regulated all

gas wells in the state and that there was no fac-
tual basis for distinguishing between public and
private wells.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed
with Mahony that the regulation by the DER
was sufficient to secure the safety of the com-
munity. The court opined that if the township
wished to further ensure gas well safety, it could
require the posting of a bond with the township
before granting a license to operate the well.
Such a measure would ensure that the gas well
was being operated by a financially secure per-
son who would have the resources to keep the
well in good repair. The court held that the total
ban on private operation of gas wells in residen-
tial districts was unreasonable and that it bore
no real and substantial relation to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. Therefore,
the ordinance was an invalid exercise of the
police power.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Eminent Domain; Land-Use Control; States’ Rights.
POLICY
The general principles by which a government is
guided in its management of public affairs, or the
legislature in its measures. A general term used to
describe all contracts of insurance.
As applied to a law, ordinance, or
RULE OF
LAW

, the general purpose or tendency considered
as directed to the welfare or prosperity of the state
or community.
10 POLICE POWER
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 10
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
A group not endorsed by a candidate or political
party but organized to engage in political election
activities, especially the raising and spending of
money for “campaigning.” Some political action
committees (PACs) are organized solely to help
defeat a candidate deemed undesirable by the
group.
PACs are most often organized around a
particular trade, union, or business; they are also
organized to promulgate particular social, eco-
nomic, or political beliefs or agendas. For exam-
ple, there are PACs formed to represent the
interests of the pharmaceutical industry and the
automotive industry. From an ideological per-
spective on ABORTION, there are both pro-life
PACs and pro-choice PACs.
Some PACs are sponsored by a corporation,
business, or LABOR UNION. Corporations, busi-
ness interests, and LABOR UNIONS that sponsor
PACs are prohibited from contributing their
organizations’ funds to the PACs they sponsor,
but employees or members of the sponsoring
organizations may contribute.

Many types of special-interest groups have
established PACs, including the following exam-
ples: coal operators, hospitals, labor unions,
banks, doctors, feminist groups, lawyers, insur-
ance agents, pharmaceutical companies, and
manufacturers. These groups commonly form
PACs to promote their legislative goals. Some of
these, such as the coal industry and labor PACs,
generally give most of their donations to candi-
dates they expect to favor their legislative agen-
das. Other PACs, such as those created by
chiropractors or publishers, may dole out small
contributions to dozens of candidates with
widely varying political views.
Nearly all PACs have specific legislative
agendas. Special-interest PACs are a major force
in the financing of congressional campaigns.
Their contributions heavily favor incumbents.
These PACs’ numbers and influence are grow-
ing. For example, in 1976 there were only 608
PACs; just 20 years later, in 1996, there were
more than 4,000 PACs.
Some PACs are not sponsored by an organi-
zation. For example, some members of Congress
have formed their own PACs. These PACs are
separate from their candidate committees. This
separation allows them to accept contributions
and distribute larger sums than they otherwise
could through their own candidate committee.
A newly formed PAC must register with the

FED-
ERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
(FEC) within ten
days of its formation. The PAC must provide the
name and address for the PAC, its treasurer, and
any affiliated organizations.
Many politicians also form leadership PACs.
These PACs are not technically affiliated with
the candidate. Rather, they are a way of raising
money to help fund other candidates’ cam-
paigns. Leadership PACs are often indicative of a
politician’s aspirations for leadership positions
in Congress or for higher office.
Although PACs are used mostly by members
of the House and Senate, they also can be used
in presidential campaigns. For example, in Bob
Dole’s presidential bid in 1994, Dole formed a
leadership PAC called “Campaign America.”
This PAC helped contribute $62,000 to state and
local candidates in Iowa. This type of money
helped Dole to build a very strong base of sup-
port for his presidential bid during the Iowa pri-
maries, although he eventually went on to lose
that election bid. The laws regarding public
funding for presidential candidates are techni-
cally separate from the Federal Election Cam-
paign Act, Pub. L. 92–225, 86 Stat. 19, 2 U.S.C.
§ 451, and are found in the Presidential Cam-
paign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9012, and
the Presidential Primary Matching Payment

Account Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9031–9042.
PACs first came into existence in 1944. The
Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)
formed the first PAC to raise money for the re-
election of President
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
The PAC received voluntary donations from
union members rather than from union treasur-
ies; this system did not violate the Smith Con-
nally Act of 1943, which forbade unions from
contributing to federal candidates. Although
commonly called PACs, federal election law
refers to these accounts as “separate segregated
funds” because money contributed to a PAC is
kept in a bank account separate from the general
corporate or union treasury.
In 1936, labor unions began spending union
dues to support federal candidates sympathetic
to the workers’ issues. This practice was prohib-
ited by the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, Pub. L.
No. 78-89, 57 Stat. 163 (1943). Thus, labor
unions, corporations, and interstate banks were
effectively barred from contributing directly to
candidates for federal office. In 1944, the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), one of
the largest labor interest groups in the nation,
found a way to go around the constraints of the
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE 11
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 11

Smith-Connally Act by forming the first politi-
cal action committee, or PAC.
The CIO’s political goal was to support the
re-election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Because the CIO was a union and prohibited
from using union money to support a federal
candidate by the Smith Connally Act, the PAC
circumvented the prohibitions of the act by
soliciting volunteer contributions from individ-
ual union members.
In the wake of the WATERGATE political scan-
dal in the early 1970s, Congress passed new
campaign financing legislation known as the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). FECA
was intended to do the following:
■ achieve full disclosure of the sources of cam-
paign contributions;
■ limit the size of campaign contributions by
wealthy individuals and organized interest
groups;
■ provide public funding—with spending lim-
its—for presidential candidates; and
■ enforce campaign finance rules through a
new ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY, the Federal
Election Commission (FEC).
This legislation also continued older prohi-
bitions on the use of corporation and union
treasury funds in federal elections. These provi-
sions of FECA were sustained by the Supreme
Court in the leading case of Buckley v. Valeo, 424

U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, L. Ed. 659 (1976).
Following the 2002 midterm elections, a new
set of campaign finance laws went into effect. The
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), Pub.
L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, is considered the
most sweeping change of the U.S. campaign
finance system since the FECA. The legislation
was sponsored by Senators
JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ)
and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representatives
Chris Shays (R-CT) and Marty Meehan (D-MA).
The BCRA is an attempt to curb the use of
“soft money” in campaigns. Basically, soft
money is money donated to political parties in a
way that leaves the contribution unregulated.
Conversely, “hard money” consists of political
donations that are regulated by law through the
Federal Election Commission. The soft money
loophole was created, not by Congress, but by
the Federal Election Commission in an adminis-
trative ruling in 1978. The law also increases the
contribution limits for individuals giving to fed-
eral candidates and political parties.
PACs can donate up to $5,000 to a candi-
date’s campaign committee for each individual
election bid, and PACs can give $5,000 a year to
any other PAC. PACs may receive up to $5,000
from any one individual, PAC, or party commit-
tee during any given calendar year. They can also
donate up to $15,000 annually to any national

party committee. PACs that affiliate with other
like-minded PACs are treated as one donor for
the purpose of contribution limits.
The Supreme Court has ruled that spending
in support of or in opposition to a candidate
that is not coordinated with any candidate can-
not be limited. Such “independent expendi-
tures” can be made by either individuals or
PACs. Independent expenditures are those made
on behalf of (or against) a candidate that are not
coordinated with a candidate. For example, an
exporters’ PAC might spend $50,000 on TV ads
critical of a candidate’s stand on import restric-
tions and urge a vote against that candidate.
Political ads which urge the viewer to “vote
for” or “vote against” a candidate are examples
of express advocacy and must be paid for from
12 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
1979–80
1981–82
1983–84
1985–86
1987–88
1989–90
1991–92
1993–94
1995–96
1997–98
Contributions (In Millions)

$60
$88
$113
$140
$159
$159
$189
$189
$217
$220
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics web page.
PAC Campaign Contributions, 1979 to 1998
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 12
contributions which come under the restrictions
of federal campaign finance laws, including pro-
hibitions on contributions by corporations or
labor unions. Advertising campaigns discussing
issues—and not directly advocating the defeat
or election of a candidate—are not subject to
federal campaign finance laws. Thus, these
“issue advocacy” campaigns are not subject to
limits on spending or contributions and are not
required to disclose their contributions or
expenditures.
FURTHER READINGS
Anschutz, Auguste V., ed. 2002. Campaign Financing in the
United States: Issues and Laws. Huntington, N.Y.: Nova
Science.
Bauer, Robert F. 2002. Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the

New Campaign Finance Law. Washington, D.C.: Perkins
Coie.
Biersack, Robert, Paul S. Herrnson, and Clyde Wilcox, eds.
1999. After the Revolution: PACs, Lobbies, and the Repub-
lican Congress. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
—
. 1994. Risky Business? PAC Decisionmaking in Con-
gressional Elections. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Corrado, Anthony. 2000. Campaign Finance Reform. New
York: Century Foundation.
Herrnson, Paul S. 2004. Congressional Elections: Campaign-
ing at Home and in Washington. 4th ed. Washington,
D.C.: CQ Press.
Ryden, David K., ed. 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court and the
Electoral Process. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Univ.
Press.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Campaign Finance Reform.
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN LAW
Statutes and court rulings that govern candidates
running for public office.
Political campaign laws have been enacted to
ensure fair elections and to prevent misleading
or false information from being given to voters.
Though federal and state laws that govern cam-
paign financing dominate the headlines, there
are a host of state laws that a candidate must fol-
low during a campaign. A candidate who vio-
lates campaign laws risks criminal prosecution
or the

FORFEITURE of the public office.
Political campaigns are protected by the
FIRST AMENDMENT,but FREEDOM OF SPEECH is
not unlimited. For example, state laws prohibit
candidates from using the term “reelect” in cam-
paign signs and literature if the person is not the
incumbent of that office. Candidates are also
barred from making “false claims of support”
that falsely state or imply the endorsement of a
political party or an organization. Moreover, a
candidate cannot state in printed campaign lit-
erature that specific individuals endorse the
candidate without first obtaining written per-
mission from those individuals. All of these laws
speak to fraudulent
MISREPRESENTATION by a
candidate.
More difficult situations arise when one can-
didate alleges that another candidate has inten-
tionally misrepresented the position of the
other. Open political debate is expected in a
campaign but candidates can be prosecuted if
the claims are judged to be objectively false.
Candidates who retract or withdraw challenged
campaign literature may escape any penalties for
these actions if done in a timely manner. How-
ever, false claims made in the closing days or
hours of a campaign will be scrutinized more
closely.
Up until the early twentieth century political

campaigns were marred by corruption. Citizens
traded their vote for money or the promise of a
government job or benefit. Progressive Era
reformers sought to diminish the power of
political machines that used
BRIBERY, as well as
coercion, to assure the election of their candi-
dates. States have enacted criminal laws that
prohibit bribing persons to vote or not vote in
an election. For example, a person may trans-
port voters to the polls on election day but may
not solicit votes. Persons who directly or indi-
rectly threaten the use of force, coercion, eco-
nomic
REPRISAL, loss of employment, or other
harm to compel individuals to vote or not vote
for a candidate are also subject to prosecution.
Political advertising on television and radio
is also subject to regulation. For example, news-
paper print ads, along with radio and television
broadcasts, must convey to the public that a
message is a paid advertisement. Such laws seek
to prevent voters from believing that the mes-
sage is actually news. In addition, the name of
the candidate, party, or organization that paid
for the advertisement must be disclosed at the
beginning or end of the advertisement. This
requirement has been evaded at times when a
shell organization is created to disguise the true
identity of the sponsor.

Candidates who violate these types of cam-
paigns laws can be prosecuted. A losing candi-
date typically lodges a complaint with the local
district or county attorney, alleging certain vio-
lations. If the district attorney finds merit in the
allegations a prosecution will follow. This type
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN LAW 13
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 13
of prosecution is rare but a candidate who is
convicted of a campaign law violation may for-
feit the nomination or office in question. How-
ever, forfeitures will occur only if it is proven
that the candidate committed the act or knew
that another person committed the act. Courts
will reject forfeiture if the act was trivial or acci-
dental and it would be unjust to declare forfei-
ture. Even if a court declines to declare
forfeiture, legislatures have the right to deter-
mine their membership. Occasionally, a legisla-
tive body will refuse to seat a person who has
committed campaign violations.
Candidates must follow campaign financing
rules. State and federal laws authorize public
financing of many campaigns. Candidates who
accept public financing must abide by the
strings that are attached to this funding. In addi-
tion, political campaigns must maintain finan-
cial records of contributions and expenditures,
which are filed at designated times before, dur-

ing, and after a campaign. Campaign commit-
tees may be fined for failing to file reports on
time or for substantive violations. The
FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION
(FEC) oversees cam-
paign financing for federal elections. At the state
level a campaign finance board or the
SECRE-
TARY OF STATE
may oversee this task.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Election Campaign Financing.
POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
See DEMOCRATIC PARTY; ELECTION CAMPAIGN
FINANCING
; ELECTIONS; REPUBLICAN PARTY.
POLITICAL CRIME
A serious violation of law that threatens the secu-
rity or existence of the government, such as
TREA-
SON
or SEDITION.
POLITICAL QUESTION
An issue that the federal courts refuse to decide
because it properly belongs to the decision-making
authority of elected officials.
Political questions include such areas as the
conduct of foreign policy, the ratification of
constitutional amendments, and the organiza-

tion of each state’s government as defined in its
own constitution. The rule preventing federal
courts from deciding such cases is called the
political question doctrine. Its purpose is to dis-
tinguish the role of the federal judiciary from
those of the legislature and the executive, pre-
venting the former from encroaching on either
of the latter. Under the rule, courts may choose
to dismiss cases even if they have jurisdiction
over them. However, the rule has no precise for-
mulation, and its development since the 1960s
has sometimes been unpredictable.
The Supreme Court originated the idea of
political questions in the early 1800s during its
formative era. As with other judicial doctrines
created by the Court, the rule is interpretive and
self-imposed. It is neither a result of legislation
nor a part of the U.S. Constitution, although it
appears to emanate from the Constitution’s
SEP-
ARATION OF POWERS
. The Court created the
political question doctrine as part of the broader
concept of justiciability—the issue of whether a
matter is appropriate for court review. Appro-
priate matters are called
JUSTICIABLE controver-
sies and may proceed to court. Political
questions are not regarded as appropriate mat-
ters; they are not justiciable and, generally, will

be dismissed. The political question doctrine
will not be applied to every matter that arouses
fierce public debate, as seen in the Court’s rul-
ings on
ABORTION and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.
As the history of the Supreme Court shows, the
determination of whether an issue is justiciable
is at its own discretion.
Chief Justice
JOHN MARSHALL first used the
term political question in 1803 at a time when
the Court sought to tread delicately between
warring factions of politicians in Washington.
Not until 1849 was the idea elaborated, in
response to a crisis in the state of Rhode Island
known as the Dorr Rebellion: a political upris-
ing had resulted in the passage of two separate
state constitutions, the declaration of
MARTIAL
LAW
, and the promise of military intervention
by President
JOHN TYLER. The Supreme Court
was asked to settle critical constitutional ques-
tions about the nature of republican govern-
ment but refused (Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. [7
How.] 1, 12 L. Ed. 581 [1849]). Chief Justice
ROGER TANEY instead delivered the first articu-
lation of the doctrine: federal courts should
leave certain constitutional questions to the leg-

islative and executive branches in any matter
that is “a political question to be settled by the
political power.”
From the mid-nineteenth century until the
1960s, the political question doctrine changed
very little. Then the Supreme Court began to
narrow it: where previously a broad rule applied,
14 POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS
WEST’S ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 2nd Edition
68007_WEAL_V08_P_001-194.qxd 5/5/2004 10:15 AM Page 14