Ratio legis est anima legis. - The reason of the law is the soul of the law.

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.