Steven L. Davis,
Ph.D.
FBI Chaplain
It is generally agreed upon in American society the laws must be enforced on an equal
basis, for all citizens. If a legal system operated solely on the letter of the law, this
would be an easy task, and would clear many of our courtrooms of backlogged cases
within weeks. It is the spirit of the law that makes law enforcement and keeping the
peace a mental, physical, spiritual and legal exercise that is almost overwhelming.
Police officers have to use discretion and discernment in enforcing the law almost every
day. An example would be an officer choosing to not ticket a woman in labor who is
racing to the hospital. Or, the officer being especially cautious when pulling over a
carload of teenagers for a minor traffic violation, because he noticed gang markings on
the vehicle. The officer’s behavior will be vastly different than it would be if he or she
noticed another car in the same violation, but this car happens to be a late model
Crown Victoria with black wall tires and two antennae on the trunk - and the middle
aged driver is wearing a blazer and a tie. The letter of the law is the same for the drivers
of both vehicles, but the spirit of the law alerts the officer to a different level of perceived
danger between the two situations.
The letter of the law cannot make a law enforcement officer actively search out criminal
behavior. If he or she witnesses what appears to be criminal behavior, hears something
that seems suspicious, or is informed of criminal activity, a response must be made.
The letter of the law is REACTIVE. The Spirit of the law is PROACTIVE. The letter of
the law cannot specify levels of observation, depths of thought or even clarity of
intention on the behalf of the law enforcement officer. The letter of the law does not
make room for either of the internal tools of the law enforcement professional: the
memory and the imagination.
The spirit of the law is proactive and involves the use of all available means of gathering
information and coming to accurate conclusions based on gathered evidence and
knowledge. The spirit of the law does not treat each crime as though it is the first crime
ever witnessed or investigated by either the officer or the agency. The letter of the law
does exactly this. Hence the inadmissability of information and/or evidence in the
courtroom of details (or even the existence) of other crimes the defendant is or has
been charged with.
Is, in fact memory a valid tool for fighting crime? Without question. Is the imagination a
valid source of information for the law enforcement professional? If the investigator culls
from the memory pertinent factors to the current investigation, combines them with
known laws, systems and processes, and applies the imagination to predict an outcome
or activity, then the imagination is one of the most potent crime fighting weapons given
to any agency or individual. It is the imagination that makes the letter of the law
possible: Written law is the attempt to stifle criminal behavior that has not yet occurred.
The letter of the law limits what means and measures may be used in preventing,
stopping and investigating crime. The spirit of the law says to use all available
resources, in an ethical and legal manner. The letter of the law and the spirit of the law
are interdependent. FBI Supervisory Special Agent and instructor Samuel Feemster
comments regularly that “the letter of the law requires nothing that is forbidden by the
spirit of the law, and the spirit of the law requires nothing that is forbidden by the letter
of the law.”
The spirit of the law expands and deepens the meaning of the letter of the law but will
never replace it. For example, at some traffic intersections are “yield” signs and at
others are “stop” signs. What is the intent or spirit of both of these signs? To keep
accidents from happening, and to indicate which traffic has the right of way. Which is
the stricter of the two signs? Which is the easiest to enforce? The “yield” sign, in both
cases. Why? It is impossible to “yield” and still be at fault in a collision with cross traffic.
As for the “stop” sign, how many times have motorists pulled out in front of cross traffic,
caused an accident and then insisted that they not be charged, because, “ I DID stop at
the stop sign.” True, the motorist may have stopped, but clearly did not yield to the
crossing traffic! The letter of the law may be kept, while the spirit of the law is violated.
Likewise,