Police Vigilantism

*Gary & Sallyn Pajcic Professor, Florida State University College of Law. I thank Nila Bala, Jacob Charles, Jessica Eaglin, Jacob Eisler, Jake Linford, Wayne Logan, Eric Miller, Tamika Moses, Erika Nyborg-Burch, Itay Ravid, Anna Roberts, Julia Simon-Kerr, David Sklansky, Malcolm Thorburn, Alexander Tsesis, and Mike Vitiello for their insightful feedback on earlier drafts. Thank you also to the participants of the ABA/AALS/Academy for Justice Criminal Justice Section and the University of Georgia School of Law, Florida State University College of Law and University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law faculty workshops for your helpful comments. I am especially grateful to Abigail Palmquist for her excellent research assistance. Finally, thank you to the editors of the Virginia Law Review for their invaluable edits.Show More

This Article uncovers a critical yet unexplored dimension of policing: the strategic oscillation of police officers between their roles as state actors and private individuals, and its significant implications for police accountability frameworks. As officers toggle between these two roles to their legal advantage, they exploit a deep, systemic flaw in the structural design of policing. Tracing the trajectory of policing from its vigilante origins to its institutionalized form today, this Article argues that contemporary policing merges state-sanctioned power with vestiges of vigilantism to blur the public-private divide. This duality enables a form of state-sanctioned vigilantism through which officers exploit legal gray areas. Police wield the state’s coercive power under the color of law, enjoying immunities and legal protections unavailable to private individuals. Yet, simultaneously, they can invoke their identity as private individuals to circumvent constitutional constraints on their conduct.

The resulting rupture of accountability frameworks is a significant design flaw that harms policed individuals and communities while undermining the institution of policing from within. Where these frameworks presume a clear divide between state and private action, officers instead navigate a liminal space, leveraging state-sanctioned power while exploiting doctrinal ambiguities to subvert legal constraints. The Article critically evaluates how the state action doctrine, designed to delineate state and private conduct, fails to account for this reality. So, too, does the qualified immunity doctrine, which often shields vigilante conduct that exceeds constitutional bounds. To address this pressing problem, the Article advocates for a radical reconceptualization of police authority and accountability. It proposes reinterpreting the state action doctrine to break down the dichotomy between state and private action. It suggests implementing comprehensive statutory regulations to constrain police identity shopping. Ultimately, it challenges us to consider whether the entrenched vigilante origins of policing may necessitate a fundamental reevaluation, or even abolition, of the institution of policing itself.

Introduction

In the law of policing, where the expansive authority of the state often intersects and clashes with the boundaries of individual liberty, the dual role of a police officer as both state actor and private citizen presents a unique and currently unidentified legal challenge. Consider this scenario: a police officer, driving home from his night shift, crosses from the city where he works into the township where he lives. Moments later, he observes a young man with a backpack jumping a fence between two residential properties. Acting with probable cause under the citizen’s arrest statute,¹ 1.These statutes, often codifications of common law, are abundant across jurisdictions. See infra Section II.B. For the concept and history of these statutes and consequent arrests, see generally Ashish Valentine, What Is the Citizen’s Arrest Law at the Heart of the Trial over Ahmaud Arbery’s Death?, NPR (Oct. 26, 2021, 10:39 AM), https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/‌1048398618/what-is-the-citizens-arrest-law-in-the-trial-over-ahmaud-arberys-death [https://‌perma.cc/5L5V-SXAK]; Chad Flanders, Raina Brooks, Jack Compton & Lyz Riley, The Puzzling Persistence of Citizen’s Arrest Laws and the Need to Revisit Them, 64 How. L.J. 161 (2020); Ira P. Robbins, Vilifying the Vigilante: A Narrowed Scope of Citizen’s Arrest, 25 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 557 (2016); Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Response, Taking Aim at Pointing Guns? Start with Citizen’s Arrest, Not Stand Your Ground: A Reply to Joseph Blocher, Samuel W. Buell, Jacob D. Charles and Darrell A. H. Miller, Pointing Guns, 99 Texas L. Rev. 1172 (2021), 100 Tex. L. Rev. Online 1 (2021) (surveying citizen’s arrest laws around the country).Show More but not the Fourth Amendment,² 2.U.S. Const. amend. IV.Show More the officer pursues the young man, unholsters his department-issued gun, pins him to the ground, and forcibly opens the backpack.³ 3.This fictional example is not so fictional, as variations of it have come up in countless cases across jurisdictions. See, e.g., State v. Phoenix, 428 So. 2d 262, 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (“In addition to any official power to arrest, police officers also have a common law right as citizens to make so-called citizen’s arrests.”); State v. Slawek, 338 N.W.2d 120, 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983) (“An extensive line of cases from other states, however, upholds the validity of an extraterritorial arrest made by a police officer who lacked the official authority to arrest when the place of arrest authorizes a private person to make a citizen’s arrest under the same circumstances.”); State ex rel. State v. Gustke, 516 S.E.2d 283, 290 (W. Va. 1999) (“Even if the officers were without statutory arrest powers as policemen, they retained power as citizens to make an arrest . . . .” (quoting Dodson v. State, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind. 1978))); Commonwealth v. Harris, 415 N.E.2d 216, 220 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981) (citing with approval “[a]n extensive line of cases from other states uphold[ing] the validity of an extraterritorial arrest made by a police officer who lacked the official authority to arrest where the place of arrest authorizes a private person to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’ under the same circumstances”).Show More His use of force breaks three of the young man’s ribs. When the young man files a civil rights lawsuit, the officer contends he was acting as a private individual, not a state officer.⁴ 4.See, e.g., Budnick v. Barnstable Cnty. Bar Advocs., Inc., No. 92-1933, 1993 WL 93133, at *3 (1st Cir. Mar. 30, 1993) (“But, ‘a police officer, while unable to act as an officer in an adjoining jurisdiction, does not cease to be a citizen in that jurisdiction . . . .’” (quoting Commonwealth v. Dise, 583 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991))); State v. Miller, 896 P.2d 1069, 1070 (Kan. 1995) (“An officer who makes an arrest without a warrant outside the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction must be treated as a private person. The officer’s actions will be considered lawful if the circumstances attending would authorize a private person to make the arrest.”).Show More The court agrees, dismissing the civil rights claims.⁵ 5.See, e.g., United States v. Layne, 6 F.3d 396, 398–99 (6th Cir. 1993) (finding arrest made by sheriff outside his geographical jurisdiction valid under private citizen’s arrest statute and thus did not violate Fourth Amendment); State v. Furr, 723 So. 2d 842, 845 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (“[T]he trial court erred by concluding that a citizen’s arrest is nullified where the officer, acting outside of his jurisdiction, uses a marked police car, and otherwise announces his official position.”).Show More

Another night, another town. Two officers respond to a report of an older man shouting outside a local apartment complex. When they arrive, the man whom they believe to be the subject of the call is waving a medium-sized object in the air. The officers’ approach seems to set off the man, and he yells at a higher volume, still waving the object in his hand. At that moment, one of the officers pulls a gun, fires at the man, and kills him. As the man lies dead on the pavement, the officers find headphones still playing music in his ears and an air gun by his arm. When the state attorney brings an indictment for homicide, the officer invokes the state’s stand-your-ground law. He argues that, regardless of the laws governing officer use of force, he had rights as a private citizen to shoot in self-defense.⁶ 6.Unfortunately, this is another not-so-fictional example. For a similar case, see State v. Peraza, 259 So. 3d 728, 729–30 (Fla. 2018).Show More The court agrees and quashes the indictment.⁷ 7.Id. at 733.Show More

Both cases bring to light the ambiguous and often controversial nature of police authority when the roles of state actor and private citizen converge, raising questions of accountability in law enforcement. This Article is the first to systematically identify the existence of these dual identities and the consequent discretionary legal space granted to police officers. I term this phenomenon “identity shopping,” denoting a significant problem in current policing law and doctrine which profoundly impacts accountability structures.⁸ 8.See infra Section II.A.Show More Identity shopping refers to the strategic maneuvering by police officers between their roles as state agents and private citizens, depending on which identity offers the most advantageous legal position in a given situation.⁹ 9.See infra Section II.B.Show More Think of it as a light switch on a dimmer, with “state actor” on one end and “private citizen” on the other. Officers can often slide the switch back and forth, selecting which rules apply to them––the rules governing state actors or those applicable to private individuals.

Identity shopping reflects a deeper systemic issue arising from the inherent structures of policing that allow, and perhaps even encourage, officers to shift between roles to minimize legal repercussions or maximize authority. Drawing from historical insights, this Article traces the evolution of policing from its origins as informal vigilante groups to formally recognized and state-sanctioned law enforcement.¹⁰ 10.See infra Section I.A.Show More The midcentury professionalization movement and subsequent regulation of the police contributed to the reconceptualization of police from vigilantes to formal state actors.¹¹ 11.See Anna Lvovsky, The Judicial Presumption of Police Expertise, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1995, 2004–05 (2017).Show More This transformation has endowed officers with distinct responsibilities, leading courts to also grant them unique rights, including expanded civil immunities and criminal defenses.¹² 12.See infra Section II.B.Show More However, this transformation of policing has not been linear but rather a tapestry of conflicting identities and roles, an intersection of past and present, informal authority and formal legitimacy.

This Article demonstrates that this transition from vigilantes to state-sanctioned law enforcement has not fully extinguished the initial ethos of vigilantism within policing. Despite their formal designation as state actors, police maintain a bifurcated identity, traversing the line between public servants and private individuals. This duality permits a latent form of vigilante behavior, now cloaked under state authority.¹³ 13.See id.Show More Termed as “shadow vigilantism,”¹⁴ 14.See Paul H. Robinson, The Moral Vigilante and Her Cousins in the Shadows, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 401, 453. Robinson juxtaposes “shadow vigilantism” with “classic vigilantism.” Id. at 404. Unlike classic vigilantism, which involves explicitly unlawful or unauthorized action, shadow vigilantism refers to the less obvious and potentially more damaging ways individuals may resist and subvert the legal system. Id. at 453. To be sure, for several scholars vigilantism connotes illegality, but the way this paper defines vigilantism through the use of the term “shadow vigilantism” is wider and can include lawfully authorized activity. See Ekow N. Yankah, Deputization and Privileged White Violence, 77 Stan. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025) (manuscript at 3–5) (on file with author) (distinguishing between vigilantism and deputization); Regina Bateson, The Politics of Vigilantism, 54 Compar. Pol. Stud. 923, 925–27 (2021) (providing various conceptions of vigilantism).Show More this phenomenon might seem paradoxical: How can those entrusted with upholding the law operate in a way that undermines it? Yet police vigilantism thrives in the gray areas between state action and private conduct, where officers morph into citizens still empowered by their official identity, and private citizens assume the mantle of law enforcement, invoking a privilege to use force.

Officers may use public authority symbols like uniforms and badges to make off-duty arrests, employ deadly force on duty while invoking defenses intended for civilians, or engage in extralegal activities adjacent to law enforcement, all while retaining the ability to choose the most favorable legal identity when confronted with legal accountability.¹⁵ 15.See infra Section II.B; see, e.g., Laughlin v. Olszewski, 102 F.3d 190, 192 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1996); Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 287 (3d Cir. 1999); Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489, 490–91 (6th Cir. 2006); Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 746–47 (5th Cir. 2001); Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 749 F.2d 1423, 1427–28 (10th Cir. 1984).Show More This interplay of identities thus fosters a dynamic where the imprints of vigilante origins intermittently resurface. As a result, contemporary policing operates within a unique nexus, merging state-sanctioned power with discretionary—sometimes unilateral—approaches reminiscent of its vigilante roots.

This Article contends that the dual identity available to police officers is a significant design flaw in the accountability structures of law enforcement.¹⁶ 16.See infra Part III.Show More Police accountability frameworks are fundamentally misaligned with the dynamic nature of police identity and are thus inadequate to address the complexities of identity shopping and shadow vigilantism. This systemic oversight creates a gap in police accountability that undermines its efficacy from within.

The existing police accountability system is based on clear demarcations of legal identity and fails to account for entities capable of selecting between private citizenry and state agency. Its basis, the state action doctrine, dictates that only certain actions undertaken by certain actors qualify as state actions and must thus conform to the specific legal constraints but also enjoy the legal immunities of the state.¹⁷ 17.See infra Section III.A.Show More Yet, identity shopping exploits the cracks in this doctrine, leveraging the nebulous space between official authority and private action. The result is a legal Gordian knot, one that strands victims of police vigilantism in a quagmire of uncertainty and often leaves the very concept of police accountability beyond reach.

Correcting this misalignment requires a radical reconceptualization of police authority and existing accountability frameworks to address the phenomenon of identity shopping and end police vigilantism. This Article proposes reinterpreting the state action doctrine to break down the dichotomy between state and non-state action. It also suggests implementing comprehensive statutory regulations to constrain police identity shopping.¹⁸ 18.See infra Section III.B.Show More Ultimately, it challenges us to consider whether the entrenched vigilante origins of policing may necessitate a fundamental reevaluation, or even abolition, of the institution of policing itself.¹⁹ 19.For discussions of fundamentally reevaluating or abolishing policing, see, for example, Jessica M. Eaglin, To “Defund” the Police, 73 Stan. L. Rev. Online 120, 125 (2021); Shawn E. Fields, The Fourth Amendment Without Police, 90 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1023, 1052, 1082 (2023); Sandy Hudson, Building a World Without Police, 69 UCLA L. Rev. 1646, 1649 (2023); Benjamin Levin, Criminal Law Exceptionalism, 108 Va. L. Rev. 1381, 1448 (2022); Jamelia Morgan, Responding to Abolition Anxieties: A Roadmap for Legal Analysis, 120 Mich. L. Rev. 1199, 1203 (2022); V. Noah Gimbel & Craig Muhammad, Are Police Obsolete? Breaking Cycles of Violence Through Abolition Democracy, 40 Cardozo L. Rev. 1453, 1532–34 (2019); Brandon Hasbrouck, Reimagining Public Safety, 117 Nw. U. L. Rev. 685, 692 (2022); Tiffany Yang, “Send Freedom House!”: A Study in Police Abolition, 96 Wash. L. Rev. 1067, 1077–79 (2021); Marbre Stahly-Butts & Amna A. Akbar, Reforms for Radicals? An Abolitionist Framework, 68 UCLA L. Rev. 1544, 1550–51 (2021); Amna A. Akbar, An Abolitionist Horizon for (Police) Reform, 108 Calif. L. Rev. 1781, 1842 (2020) [hereinafter Akbar, An Abolitionist Horizon]; Amna A. Akbar, Toward a Radical Imagination of Law, 93 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 405, 460 (2018) [hereinafter Akbar, Toward a Radical Imagination of Law].Show More

In addressing these points and the challenging terrain of the police’s dual identity, my argument proceeds in three Parts. Part I traces the historical evolution of policing from its vigilante roots to its status as a formal state apparatus. This Part posits that despite the development of a formalized legal status, police often employ a dual identity, combining public servant duties with private discretion in a way that hearkens back to policing’s vigilante origins. Understanding this development is pivotal to identifying how the vestiges of vigilantism continue to influence modern policing practices.

Part II introduces the novel concept of identity shopping. It delves deeper into the practice, arguing that identity shopping results in a form of shadow vigilantism within the modern police force. This Part further demonstrates how our legal system has sanctioned identity shopping across various policing forms, including on-duty and off-duty policing, private policing, and citizen’s arrests. This juxtaposition of sanctioned law enforcement with remnants of vigilante conduct presents a distinct challenge to conventional structures of government oversight and legal accountability.

Part III proposes a radical rethinking of the dual identities of police officers in order to address this unique challenge. It argues that this legal characterization of police officers is a significant design flaw in the frameworks of police accountability and proposes strategies to address this issue, including a way to reconceptualize the state action doctrine, qualified immunity, statutory reforms, and police abolition.

Ultimately, scrutinizing the practices of identity shopping and shadow vigilantism reveals a critical gap in our understanding of policing. It raises fundamental questions about the role of police in a democratic society, the nature and limits of state authority, and the responsibilities of those who wield it. It grapples with the complex dynamics between formal policing roles and individual discretion, revealing the implications for governance and individual rights. And it contributes to the abolitionist discourse by demonstrating that modern policing and the legal frameworks that govern it continue to permit the unchecked use of state-sanctioned violence akin to the vigilantes of the early republic or the street vigilantes of today.

1.  These statutes, often codifications of common law, are abundant across jurisdictions. See infra Section II.B. For the concept and history of these statutes and consequent arrests, see generally Ashish Valentine, What Is the Citizen’s Arrest Law at the Heart of the Trial over Ahmaud Arbery’s Death?, NPR (Oct. 26, 2021, 10:39 AM), https://www.npr.org/2021/10/26/‌1048398618/what-is-the-citizens-arrest-law-in-the-trial-over-ahmaud-arberys-death [https://‌perma.cc/5L5V-SXAK]; Chad Flanders, Raina Brooks, Jack Compton & Lyz Riley, The Puzzling Persistence of Citizen’s Arrest Laws and the Need to Revisit Them, 64 How. L.J. 161 (2020); Ira P. Robbins, Vilifying the Vigilante: A Narrowed Scope of Citizen’s Arrest, 25 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 557 (2016); Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, Response, Taking Aim at Pointing Guns? Start with Citizen’s Arrest, Not Stand Your Ground: A Reply to Joseph Blocher, Samuel W. Buell, Jacob D. Charles and Darrell A. H. Miller, Pointing Guns, 99 Texas L. Rev. 1172 (2021), 100 Tex. L. Rev. Online 1 (2021) (surveying citizen’s arrest laws around the country). ↑
2.  U.S. Const. amend. IV. ↑
3.  This fictional example is not so fictional, as variations of it have come up in countless cases across jurisdictions. See, e.g., State v. Phoenix, 428 So. 2d 262, 265 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982) (“In addition to any official power to arrest, police officers also have a common law right as citizens to make so-called citizen’s arrests.”); State v. Slawek, 338 N.W.2d 120, 121 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983) (“An extensive line of cases from other states, however, upholds the validity of an extraterritorial arrest made by a police officer who lacked the official authority to arrest when the place of arrest authorizes a private person to make a citizen’s arrest under the same circumstances.”); State ex rel. State v. Gustke, 516 S.E.2d 283, 290 (W. Va. 1999) (“Even if the officers were without statutory arrest powers as policemen, they retained power as citizens to make an arrest . . . .” (quoting Dodson v. State, 381 N.E.2d 90, 92 (Ind. 1978))); Commonwealth v. Harris, 415 N.E.2d 216, 220 (Mass. App. Ct. 1981) (citing with approval “[a]n extensive line of cases from other states uphold[ing] the validity of an extraterritorial arrest made by a police officer who lacked the official authority to arrest where the place of arrest authorizes a private person to make a ‘citizen’s arrest’ under the same circumstances”). ↑
4.  See, e.g., Budnick v. Barnstable Cnty. Bar Advocs., Inc., No. 92-1933, 1993 WL 93133, at *3 (1st Cir. Mar. 30, 1993) (“But, ‘a police officer, while unable to act as an officer in an adjoining jurisdiction, does not cease to be a citizen in that jurisdiction . . . .’” (quoting Commonwealth v. Dise, 583 N.E.2d 271, 274 (Mass. App. Ct. 1991))); State v. Miller, 896 P.2d 1069, 1070 (Kan. 1995) (“An officer who makes an arrest without a warrant outside the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction must be treated as a private person. The officer’s actions will be considered lawful if the circumstances attending would authorize a private person to make the arrest.”). ↑
5.  See, e.g., United States v. Layne, 6 F.3d 396, 398–99 (6th Cir. 1993) (finding arrest made by sheriff outside his geographical jurisdiction valid under private citizen’s arrest statute and thus did not violate Fourth Amendment); State v. Furr, 723 So. 2d 842, 845 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998) (“[T]he trial court erred by concluding that a citizen’s arrest is nullified where the officer, acting outside of his jurisdiction, uses a marked police car, and otherwise announces his official position.”). ↑
6.  Unfortunately, this is another not-so-fictional example. For a similar case, see State v. Peraza, 259 So. 3d 728, 729–30 (Fla. 2018). ↑
7.  Id. at 733. ↑
8.  See infra Section II.A. ↑
9.  See infra Section II.B. ↑
10.  See infra Section I.A. ↑
11.  See Anna Lvovsky, The Judicial Presumption of Police Expertise, 130 Harv. L. Rev. 1995, 2004–05 (2017). ↑
12.  See infra Section II.B. ↑
13.  See id. ↑
14.  See Paul H. Robinson, The Moral Vigilante and Her Cousins in the Shadows, 2015 U. Ill. L. Rev. 401, 453. Robinson juxtaposes “shadow vigilantism” with “classic vigilantism.” Id. at 404. Unlike classic vigilantism, which involves explicitly unlawful or unauthorized action, shadow vigilantism refers to the less obvious and potentially more damaging ways individuals may resist and subvert the legal system. Id. at 453. To be sure, for several scholars vigilantism connotes illegality, but the way this paper defines vigilantism through the use of the term “shadow vigilantism” is wider and can include lawfully authorized activity. See Ekow N. Yankah, Deputization and Privileged White Violence, 77 Stan. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2025) (manuscript at 3–5) (on file with author) (distinguishing between vigilantism and deputization); Regina Bateson, The Politics of Vigilantism, 54 Compar. Pol. Stud. 923, 925–27 (2021) (providing various conceptions of vigilantism). ↑
15.  See infra Section II.B; see, e.g., Laughlin v. Olszewski, 102 F.3d 190, 192 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1996); Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279, 287 (3d Cir. 1999); Swiecicki v. Delgado, 463 F.3d 489, 490–91 (6th Cir. 2006); Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 746–47 (5th Cir. 2001); Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 749 F.2d 1423, 1427–28 (10th Cir. 1984). ↑
16.  See infra Part III. ↑
17.  See infra Section III.A. ↑
18.  See infra Section III.B. ↑

19.  For discussions of fundamentally reevaluating or abolishing policing, see, for example, Jessica M. Eaglin, To “Defund” the Police, 73 Stan. L. Rev. Online 120, 125 (2021); Shawn E. Fields, The Fourth Amendment Without Police, 90 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1023, 1052, 1082 (2023); Sandy Hudson, Building a World Without Police, 69 UCLA L. Rev. 1646, 1649 (2023); Benjamin Levin, Criminal Law Exceptionalism, 108 Va. L. Rev. 1381, 1448 (2022); Jamelia Morgan, Responding to Abolition Anxieties: A Roadmap for Legal Analysis, 120 Mich. L. Rev. 1199, 1203 (2022); V. Noah Gimbel & Craig Muhammad, Are Police Obsolete? Breaking Cycles of Violence Through Abolition Democracy, 40 Cardozo L. Rev. 1453, 1532–34 (2019); Brandon Hasbrouck, Reimagining Public Safety, 117 Nw. U. L. Rev. 685, 692 (2022); Tiffany Yang, “Send Freedom House!”: A Study in Police Abolition, 96 Wash. L. Rev. 1067, 1077–79 (2021); Marbre Stahly-Butts & Amna A. Akbar, Reforms for Radicals? An Abolitionist Framework, 68 UCLA L. Rev. 1544, 1550–51 (2021); Amna A. Akbar, An Abolitionist Horizon for (Police) Reform, 108 Calif. L. Rev. 1781, 1842 (2020) [hereinafter Akbar, An Abolitionist Horizon]; Amna A. Akbar, Toward a Radical Imagination of Law, 93 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 405, 460 (2018) [hereinafter Akbar, Toward a Radical Imagination of Law]. ↑