De-policing is a term for police disengaging from active police work, generally as a reaction to external scrutiny or negative publicity.[1] A form of work slowdown, de-policing represents a de facto police strike, in which the police withdraw an aspect of their crime prevention services. It is a practical police protest at perceived political interference in their day-to-day task of policing.[2]
Conservative author Heather Mac Donald offered another interpretation for the term "de-policing". In her book The War on Cops,[3] she used the term as the antithesis for pro-active policing in general. In the light of the 2014 killing of Eric Garner in Staten Island, New York and criticism of "broken windows" policing,[4] MacDonald used the term de-policing to describe the NYPD's policy of backing away from actively pursuing stop-and-frisk procedures as a primary method of crime prevention.
According to a 2019 study, there is no evidence that de-policing contributes to city homicide rates.[5] A 2017 FBI study suggested that law enforcement felt a "chill wind" after several high-profile police killings in recent years—especially the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.[6] The study noted the stance of politicians, the media, and the broader social movement making people feel that it was acceptable "to challenge and discredit law enforcement actions"; and proposed that these circumstances have demoralized police officers and led them to do less on the job.[7] In a 2017 survey by Pew Research Center, 86% of police officers said they believed that police killings of African Americans had made policing more difficult.
Recent court decisions like Ligon[8] and Floyd[9] have also contributed to the atmosphere of de-policing in many American cities, but particularly New York City.[10] Cities like Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland have been similarly affected due to what is perceived as unfair and aggressive policing in minority communities.