Replies

It is also because in some cases LEOs are not able to deal with the issue and can deal with minor infractions. A county near me had a terrible problem with meth addicts/labs and all that goes with it. Most of the activity was out in the country and under jurisdiction of the sheriff. It was obvious to everyone that the problem was becoming huge and the sheriff’s department was ignoring it. Most people felt someone was getting paid off- but that didn’t make sense because everyone felt the sheriff was a stand up guy and good LEO with every other issue.

All the sudden the sheriff’s department began to raid meth labs and come down hard on the problem with massive education and enforcement. I asked a deputy’s wife why it was allowed to get so out of control and she told me- this county only had 4 deputies in the field to deal with all issues- that was not enough to face down the meth dealers or enough to handle meth issues with other LEO issues. The department managed to get increased funding to hire more deputies and is now tying to deal with it- but it is very difficult now because the problem was allowed to grow so large before they could deal with it in any effective way. LEOs have limited resources and have to decide what they can and can’t handle- it is not always a matter of what they want to do as much as what they are able to do.

Until a problem gets so bad it is obvious to everyone it is hard for LEO agencies to get increased funding to increase personnel or other things they need to do in order to be able to deal with the issues. This is why we have inner city areas that are a no-man’s land for crime. I got my degree in Police Science (as it was known as then) in the 1970s and had a professor that had been a police officer in Compton California in the 50s-60s; he said LEO saw the problems coming and were flat out unable to deal with them and it has been a constant losing effort to play catch up every since. It is a losing effort because they are constantly behind the curve in resources.