In previous observational studies among operational police officers, some officers stated that if a victim is not willing to (officially) report a crime to the police, they are not able to police these cases. This rather cynical and fatalistic statement raises several questions. What do police officers mean when they say this? What do they actually do in those cases and why? In this paper we try to answer these questions based on explorative qualitative interviews with several police officers in two police teams in the Netherlands. The results show that even though police officers recognize these statements among their colleagues, they do not agree with them and in practice police officers show a lot of effort and involvement in these cases. In fact, police officers have several possible strategies available to deal with these cases. Which strategy they opt for depends on various pragmatic, organisational and moral considerations.

In the Netherlands, over the past 25 years mayors have had an increasing number of formal powers, based on administrative law, to fight against crime and disorder. Now, the Dutch mayors have the power to impose a restraining order, to close houses in case of drugs and/or drugs trade, or to decline a request for a permit when it might be used for illegal activities.
To implement these measures, the local government is highly dependent on (information provided by) the police. At this moment we do not have much information about this cooperation between local government and the police in the management of crime and disorder. This paper is based on an empirical study concerning this issue. It shows that the inter-organizational cooperation between local government and the police may differ strongly, however this cooperation still often depends on central factors and circumstances. An important factor is the (growing) distance between the police and local government in regard to the local approach of problems of crime and disorder. A significant number of local police officers concentrates mainly on the maintenance of law and order by criminal law enforcement instead of the implementation of administrative measures. As a result, local government is often unsatisfied about the contribution of the police. For example, the quality of the information provided by the police is often perceived as insufficient. In some cases local governments try to diminish the degree of interdependency with the police and to strengthen their own position in the local safety domain.

This empirical study examines how criminal investigative police officers (re)construct a criminal case and the vulnerabilities of their logic.The investigation process is analyzed through Goffman’s framing and interaction theories. While Goffman’s theories have been widely applied to other disciplines, such contributions remain rare in criminology. Here, they shed light on how detectives understand and give meaning to the situation surrounding the criminal case they encounter. The results indicate that this approach shows promise for improving our understanding of the investigative process, if complemented by other theoretical views.

After some serious failures in criminal justice procedures, in 2006 ‘critical review’ was introduced in the Dutch police as a measure to prevent tunnel vision in criminal investigation. An analysis of 26 review cases and interviews with representatives of the Dutch police forces shows that in practice reviewers are confronted with a fundamental dilemma of distance vs. involvement in their relation with criminal investigation team. Critical review proves to have concrete effects on the criminal investigation process, although their scope usually appears to be limited. Although these effects are modest and review takes scarce police resources, the authors recommend a continuation of critical review.