The job of patrol officer in a municipal police department serving a medium-sized city within the southeastern United States was broken down into nine areas or dimensions. These 9 areas were used by 145 police officers to evaluate their fellow patrol officers through nominations, rankings, and ratings, indicating the performance level of their fellow officers. The nine performance levels included job knowledge, decisionmaking, dealing with coworkers, use of equipment, dealing with the public, communication, reliability, demeanor, and work attitude. The evaluating officers' nominations, rankings, and ratings were compared with the squad supervisors' rankings and ratings of the same officers. Multiple linear regression equations were constructed to gauge the relationship of each method of peer assessment, in combination with the friendship ratings, with squad supervisor rankings, and ratings. The findings show that the use of officers in the performance appraisal process is justifiable on the grounds that they can provide accurate and consistent performance information. Moreover, friendship among officers does not bias the accuracy of their evaluations. Even though the peer assessments proved to be accurate, reliable, and free from the biasing effects of friendship, they were not well liked by the evaluating officers. However, these reactions were not extremely hostile but rather reflected an unfamiliarity with the process. Footnotes, tables, a figure, and four references are supplied.