Limited research has not shown conclusively that police discretionary decisions are based on legally impermissible considerations; however, sufficient evidence indicates the law is administered inconsistently in a way which gives the impression of discrimination and permits the introduction of personal prejudices into police practices. The lack of explicit control over the police use of discretion has the potential to stimulate public skepticism about the uniformity and impartiality of law enforcement and can seriously erode the public confidence and support necessary for police work. There are serious limitations inherent in any plan wherein only one agency or branch of government takes full reponsibility for police rulemaking. The legislature, while having ultimate authority for the enactment of criminal statutes, cannot develop a comprehensive plan for the police use of discretion because of institutional and political problems. Police likewise suffer disabilities in trying to act alone in making rules to guide the use of discretion, notably attitudes in a department which support full enforcement and the obstacle of full-enforcement statutes. The ideal strategy is for legislatures, courts, prosecutors, and local governments to address the issue jointly; however, since such a collaborative effort would require fundamental attitude changes in many quarters, which is not likely to happen, an alternative strategy would be for the police to develop their own rules with the assistance of prosecutors and other local government officials, whose participation would lend political legitimacy to the effort. A total of 317 footnotes are provided.