REASONS BEHIND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S SUSPICION OF ANY POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE DISCUSSED, WITH REFERENCE TO THE GENERAL RELUCTANCE OF CITY CHIEF EXECUTIVES TO INTERVENE IN POLICE MATTERS. EXAMPLES OF IMPROPER, PROPER, AND QUESTIONABLE POLITICAL INTERVENTION IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE CITED. IMPROPER POLITICAL INTERVENTION INCLUDES THOSE INSTANCES INVOLVING CLEARLY ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL ACTIVITY. PROPER INVOLVEMENT IS EXEMPLIFIED BY EFFORTS OF CITY GOVERNMENT TO REASSESS WHAT DUTIES POLICE SHOULD PERFORM, TO TRANSFER CERTAIN DUTIES AWAY FROM POLICE, TO IMPROVE COORDINATION AMONG CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES, TO ESTABLISH RULES FOR PURCHASING SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT ECONOMICALLY, TO DEVELOP POLICY GUIDELINES FOR POLICE ACTIONS, AND TO ADDRESS ISSUES RELATED TO THE USE OF POLICE DISCRETION. SITUATIONS IN WHICH POLITICAL INTERVENTION IS QUESTIONABLE INCLUDE THOSE INVOLVING PROMOTIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS, PLANNED POLICE RESPONSE IN COMPLEX EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, POLICE TACTICS IN DEALING WITH DEMONSTRATIONS AND RIOTS, AND ATTEMPTS TO TURN CONTROL OF THE POLICE OVER TO COMMUNITY GROUPS. EACH OF THESE QUESTIONABLE SITUATIONS, IF DECISIONS ARE FREELY REACHED THROUGH MUTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY EXECUTIVE AND THE POLICE ADMINISTRATOR, COULD BE CONSIDERED AN EXAMPLE OF PROPER POLITICAL INTERVENTION. IN ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A POLICE CHIEF AND A CITY CHIEF EXECUTIVE, EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON RECOGNITION OF AND RESPECT FOR THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES OF EACH; SENSITIVITY TO THE NATURE AND OBJECTIVES OF POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT IN POLICE ADMINISTRATION, WITH A VIEW TO AVOIDING IMPROPER INFLUENCES; AND MEASURES TO ASSURE THAT LINES OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE CHIEF EXECUTVE AND THE POLICE CHIEF ARE KEPT OPEN. OUTLINES OF NEW YORK'S 'STOP-AND-FRISK' AND 'KNOCK, KNOCK' LAWS ARE APPENDED AS EXAMPLES OF APPROPRIATE EFFORT TO ESTABLISH GUIDELINESS FOR THE EXERCISE OF POLICE DISCRETION. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)