INTERNATIONAL E LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION OF … · overall view of economic, social,...

EXCHANGE

Continued on 2

INTERNATIONALASSOCIATION OF

LAW ENFORCEMENTPLANNERS

National Institute of Justice

Research Preview:

INFORMAL INFORMATION SHARING AMONG POLICE AGENCIES

Summary of Research by Alexander Weiss, Northwestern University

The American police system is among the most decentralized and fragmented, consisting of thousandsof agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. Whether large or small, however, these agencies needadequate, timely information to perform effectively. Of particular importance is information aboutchanges in policy, law, and practice—including innovative ways to address problems and issues.

Two systems have emerged to meet the demands for information. One is a formal system that centers onthe distribution of information by government sources and by professional organizations such as theInternational Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the PoliceFoundation. Although this formal system provides enormous amounts of information to an array ofagencies, another system is also engaged in these dissemination efforts—an informal network amongpolice organizations. This study examines the informal network.

Through this informal network or system of information sharing, police planners and others contactother law enforcement agencies directly to gather information needed to manage their departments. Asthe study demonstrates, this system, although informal, is relatively sophisticated and frequently usedby police planners. Often, these consultations with other agencies lead to the introduction ofsuccessful ideas from other communities or help to reduce the perceived risk of civil liability within anagency.

COMMUNICATION SURVEY

The study is based on a survey administered to police planners in 360 local organizations (all with 100or more sworn officers) and 43 State law enforcement agencies between March and June 1996. Theoverall response rate was quite favorable—71 percent. The survey focused on seven issues:

u What agencies are planners most likely to contact when they look for information?

u What factors influence the choice of a contact?

u How frequent are these contacts?

u What is the mode of communication?

u What are the resource requirements associated with these requests?

u Are requests for information specific?

u How well are police planning and research units prepared to conduct research?

Winter 1999IALEP EXCHANGE

The article appearing on pages 2-5 in the printversion of The Exchange, Sweat About theThreat, concerning national programscombating computer security threats wasoriginally published by CIO. Our reprintagreement does not allow us to present it inthe electronic version of our publication. Itcan be viewed at the CIO web site at:

http://www.cio.com/archive/120198_nipc.html


IALEP EXCHANGEWinter 1999


The article appearing on pages 2-5 in the printversion of The Exchange, Sweat About theThreat, concerning national programscombating computer security threats wasoriginally published by CIO. Our reprintagreement does not allow us to present it inthe electronic version of our publication. Itcan be viewed at the CIO web site at:




HELP WANTED:

The Orange County Sheriff's Office (Orlando, FL) is seeking an innovativeCommunications Center Manager (civilian position) to lead the agencyinto the 21st century. The new 11,200 sq. ft. Communications Center

has a staff of 158 employees with a service population of 1 million and ishome to Disney World, Sea World, and Universal theme parks. A newTiburon CAD system and Positron E-911 phone system will be on-lineduring the fall of 1999. A Motorola 800 MHz analog computer-trunkedradio system is currently used. The position requires highly developed

leadership and interpersonal skills, and 10 years of increasinglyresponsible management experience in public safety communications.Experience in a digital dispatch environment preferred. An Associate's

degree is required; Bachelor's preferred. Starting Salary: $58,884

A resume must be submitted by April 30, 1999 and can be mailed orfaxed to Orange County Sheriff's Office, Human Resources Division,

2450 W. 33rd Street, Orlando, FL 32839 (phone: 407-836-4070; fax:407-836-4079).

IALEP1999

PLANNING FOR ACHANGING WORLD

September 19 - 24, 1999

Omni San Antonio HotelSan Antonio, Texas

International and GlobalCrime Trends

This general session will focus on andprovide an overview of contemporaryperspectives and emerging issues andtrends in organized crime from thepoint of an international and globalcrime problem, yet one that cannot beignored by local jurisdictions.

Presenter David L. Carter is aProfessor in the School of CriminalJustice at Michigan State Universityand a Research Fellow for the PoliceExecutive Research Forum(Washington, D.C.) who specializes inpolice administration and policingissues. He received his Bachelor's andMaster's degree in Criminal Justicefrom Central Missouri State Universityand a Ph.D. in Criminal JusticeAdministration from Sam HoustonState University in Huntsville, Texas.

A former Kansas City, Missouri policeofficer, Dr. Carter was Chairman of theDepartment of Criminal Justice at theUniversity of Texas - Pan American, inEdinburg, Texas for 11 years prior tohis appointment at Michigan State in1985. Dr. Carter has served as atrainer, consultant, and advisor tomany law enforcement agenciesthroughout the US and several foreigncountries on matters associated withofficer behavior, civil rights,community policing, organizationalevaluation, violent crime, lawenforcement intelligence analysis andlabor relations. In addition, he has


HOTEL INFORMATION:

Omni San Antonio Hotel9821 Colonnade BoulevardSan Antonio, Texas 78230210-691-8888www.omnihotels.com

Room Rate:Single: $99Double: $129Triple + : $149

The Omni San Antonio Hotel islocated in northwest San Antonio atInterstate 10 and Wurzbach Road, 15minutes from downtown and the SanAntonio International Airport.

Complementary shuttle service to andfrom the San Antonio InternationalAirport is provided by the Omni SanAntonio Hotel. Call the hotel from thebaggage pickup area when you arrive,and arrange your return to the Airportwith the hotel consierge.

The hotel is equipped with:

The Park Restaurant, featuring Texascuisine in a casual setting

Lobby bar with light dining and livemusic

Fully-equipped health club with sauna

Indoor / Outdoor pool plus two hydro-therapy pools

10 miles to Sea World of Texas

5 miles to Six Flags Fiesta Texas ThemePark

presented training sessions at the FBINational Academy, the FBI LawEnforcement Development Seminar(LEEDS), police "command colleges"of Texas, Florida, Ohio, Kentucky, andthe US Customs Service.

Cyberterrorism

This workshop session will provide anexamination of trends in cybercrimeand other computer and technologybased criminality, to include hacking,and other illicit uses of computernetworks and computer technology tosupport criminal enterprises or furtherterrorist organization goals.

Presenter Dr. David L. Carter (see bioabove)

Future Trends in Policing

This general session will examine theforeseeable future of policing byreviewing forecasts and strategicanalysis of projected trends in crime,crime statistics and demographics. Anoverall view of economic, social,demographic, technological andpolitical trends that are likely to impactpolicing in the 21st Century will bepresented.

Presenter Dr. Allen D. Sapp receivedhis doctorate in criminal justice fromSam Houston State University. Healso holds the Master's degree inguidance and counseling from theUniversity of Southern California andthe Bachelors degree in sociology fromthe University of Nebraska at Omaha.


He has been a member of the criminaljustice faculty at Central MissouriState University since 1982.

Dr. Sapp has been a consultant tomore than 100 law enforcementagencies at local, county, state, andnational levels. Dr. Sapp is also aResearch Fellow with the PoliceExecutive Research Forum. Helectures frequently at the FBI NationalAcademy and the Florida CriminalJustice Executive Institute, Center forAdvanced Law Enforcement Studies.

Response to CriticalIncidents

This workshop session will contain anoverview of the type and magnitude ofcritical incidents that police agenciesare dealing with, and provide insightsinto the trend toward more violenceand greater destruction - especially inincidents related to organized criminaland terrorists activity. Emphasis willbe placed on agency preparation andeffective response planning.

Presenter Dr. Allen D. Sapp (see bioabove)

Designing and Managinga High-Tech PoliceAgency

This presentation will provide anoverview of the high technologyprogram being operated by theHighland Park (TX) Police Department.Captain Richardson is responsible formanaging and maintaining hisdepartment's "high-tech" arsenal,which includes FLIR cameras, CAD,GIS/GPS systems, personal 911 systemand in-car laptops. Several insightsrelating to technology acquisition andutilization within police agencies willbe discussed.

Presenter Captain Bobby R.Richardson, Highland Park PoliceDepartment, Texas

The Training and Technology Train: Don't Forget thePassengers

This workshop session will emphasize the need to remain focused on the individualrecipient of training and technology services in order to ensure that their needs andcapabilities are being appropriately served. The main theme is: When it comes totechnology, a "one size fits all" mentality does not work. It is incumbent on theagency to do proper research prior to buying.

Presenter Director Randy GarnerTexas Police Management Institute

Geographic Based Policing

This workshop session will provide an explanation of what is meant by geographicpolicing and provide an overview of its major components and benefits. Theprimary focus of geographic policing is on problem solving within communities andassigning geographic responsibility for dealing with crimes and other societalissues.

Presenter Chief Theron Bowman, Arlington Police Department (Texas)

Strategic Planning and Forecasting in LawEnforcement

This workshop session will consist of a discussion of strategic planning andforecasting in law enforcement and its value as a management tool. A strategicplanning capability that is linked to and fed from a strategic intelligence programwithin a law enforcement agency will be explained and examined. Strategicintelligence, forecasting and futures research will be defined and discussed inrelation to their potential benefits.

Presenter Merle Manzi retired from active law enforcement service after over thirtyyears of progressively responsible law enforcement duties. Merle retired from theFlorida Department of Law Enforcement, where his duties ranged from: majorcriminal investigations related to drug trafficking, homicide, fraud/theft cases andfugitive investigations; to intelligence assignments, including having beenassigned to the Florida Intelligence Center with responsibility for training andinteragency liaison; to training and program development, including assignment tothe Organized Crime Institute and the Florida Criminal Justice Executive Institute.Prior to employment with FDLE, Merle served as a sworn officer in the US Air ForceSecurity Police, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and theMulberry (Florida) Police Department.

Merle's educational background includes an A.S. Degree in Police Science fromPolk Community College, a B.S. degree in Criminology from Florida State Universityand a M.S. Degree in Criminal Justice from Rollins College.

NIJ's Information Technology Acquisition for LawEnforcement

When people think about getting new computer systems, the initial responseusually includes excitement, anticipation, and high hopes for a job made easier,


quicker and more effective. This is thecommon reaction of the user. Theusers often do not realize what others– planners, technical people, andmanagers – have gone through to putthe new information technology intotheir hands. As informationtechnology becomes an essential toolfor effective policing, agencies largeand small throughout the country arerunning out to buy new systems. Inaddition to the availability ofthousands of systems that promise todo everything for you, the federalgovernment, in the last five years, hasfunded hundreds of millions of dollarsfor information technology purchasesfor law enforcement. Many agenciesare acquiring this new technology withlittle experience and big eyes.

The National Institute of Justice hasrecognized this problem and hasfunded a project entitled “InformationTechnology Acquisition for LawEnforcement.” This study takes an in-depth look at the many issues faced inpurchasing and implementing newcomputer systems. The project coversseven key technologies – CAD/RMS/Investigative Case Managementsystems, crime analysis and computermapping systems, laptops and wirelesstechnologies, internet and intranettechnologies, and AFIS. The finalreport will include a description of thestate of the technology, in-depth casestudies and short reviews of agenciesthat have acquired new systems, and avariety of resources to assist agencieswith the process.

Presenter Julie Wartell is a SeniorResearch and Technology Associatewith the Institute for Law and Justice.Julie is currently working on severalprojects related to informationtechnology and community policing.She recently completed a Fellowship atthe National Institute of Justice CrimeMapping Research Center where shecoordinated the development of aseries of crime mapping training

modules and co-edited a book about“successful crime mapping casestudies.” Julie spent over five years asa Crime Analyst at the San DiegoPolice Department and one year as aField Researcher for the PoliceExecutive Research Forum. Herresponsibilities for the PoliceDepartment and PERF includedresearch and analysis of majorproblems, serving as a liaison to patrol,investigations, and administration, andworking on the department-widestrategic planning effort. Julie hasdone extensive training andpresentations to officers and analyststhroughout the country on topicsrelating to crime analysis and problemoriented policing. Julie has a Mastersin Public Administration with anemphasis in Criminal JusticeAdministration.

Gang Net: Florida'sStatewideImplementation

In recent years, Florida has seen anincrease in gang activity and gang-related crimes. In response to theescalating problems associated withcriminal street gangs, the Legislatureenacted the Street TerrorismEnforcement and Prevention Act,which in part provides for FDLE todevelop and manage a statewidecriminal street gang database. Acoordinated effort among federal, stateand local criminal justice agencies,along with the Florida GangInvestigators Association, hasresulted in the development ofGangNetTM, a statewide gangintelligence system that will greatlyenhance the sharing of informationbetween agencies throughout Florida.The statewide intelligence system ofGangNet will provide criminal justiceofficials in Florida with a wealth ofinformation that was never available tothem in the past. This is one of thenewest applications to be deployedover FDLE’s new Criminal Justice

Network and will be one of manyexciting programs that will be providedto Florida’s criminal justice communityin the future. This presentation willgive you a real-world example of howother states are handling all of thedifferent aspects of gang tracking. Inaddition, valuable information will bepresented on what questions to askwhen bringing in a system of thisnature and how you as a planner canfacilitate preparation for this type oftracking system.

Presenter Mary Roberts is a DataProcessing Manager for the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement(FDLE) in Tallahassee, Florida. Shehas been developing databaseapplications and tools for over 8 yearson a variety of platforms and has beenmanaging a team of programmers in theBusiness Systems Engineering groupfor the last three years. This teamconcentrates on creating applicationsthat enable law enforcement officers tobetter serve the community whilemaintaining officer safety. Her latestventure with GangNet will serve notonly FDLE customers but also theentire law enforcement community inthe state of Florida through the use ofFDLE’s web-based Criminal JusticeNetwork.

Crime Trax

This presentation will provide anoverview of a revolutionary new tool,Crime Trax, in the prevention of crimeand apprehension of offenders. CrimeTrax is a system of Global PositioningSatellite (GPS) electronic tracking ofprobationers and parolees in Florida.This data will then be fully integrated,for automated comparison andanalysis, with geo-based crimeincident data. Implementation of thisprogram in Florida involves the FloridaDepartment of Law Enforcement, theFlorida Department of Corrections,Spaceport Florida Authority,Tallahassee Police Department and


organizational and management practices; evaluate the degree to which theseconcepts can be introduced to improve the management and organization of policeagencies; and, report all pertinent findings and recommendations to thisAssociation for dissemination to police agencies.

Over the last the two years, the IACP/PAC has expanded to include a researchproject for each Vice President of the IACP (to be published when the VP isPresident), and five subcommittees. The subcommittees are: Agency Budget andFinancial, Agency Human Resources, Agency Research/Development/Planning,Executive Management Institute, and the Subcommittee to Review PoliceAdministration Books, Literature, and WWW sites, and the Future IssuesSubcommittee.

Presenter Karen Hagen of the Michigan State Police serves as the Chair of theFuture Issues Subcommittee and the Chair of the Agency Human ResourcesSubcommittee. Ms. Hagen will bring to the conference the work PAC has done andalso help find ways to better integrate the IALEP with the IACP. In her day job,Ms. Hagen works in the Human Resources Division of the Michigan State Policein Labor Relations. She is the collective bargaining employment contractadministrator in the Agreements between the State of Michigan and the MichiganState Troopers Association and the State of Michigan and the MichiganProfessional Employees Association.

Model States Program

This presentation will review initial results from the "Model States False DispatchReduction Project," a two-year joint project of IACP and the alarm industry withcomments directed toward lessons learned on permits, fines, restricting response,abusers schools and enforcement. Discussion will include successful elements ofan ordinance and how to reduce dispatches 30%-50% in six months or less. Wewill review the industry plan for the next two years to assist agencies needing helpby utilizing full-time industry paid field coordinators and hosting workshopsaround the country. I will provide handouts that include a sample ordinance,software sources and agency references/contacts from around the country.

Presenter Stan Martin is the Vice-President of Industry Relations for ADI, a majordistributor of security, access, CCTV and fire products. Stan has been "on-loan"from ADI to manage the two-year IACP "Model States Project." He chairs theIACP "False Alarm Subcommittee" and has addressed over 1000 law enforcementagencies around the country on reducing false dispatches. Stan was once analarm company owner himself in Dallas for 15 years. He has held several keyindustry positions including three years as the Executive Director of the NationalBurglar & Fire Alarm Association.

Last year Stan made extensive presentations on alarm system issues to police inChina at the invitation of the Ministry of Public Security. Because of his industrybackground and close working relationship with law enforcement the past sevenyears he brings a balanced and practical perspective when discussing challengesand solutions to false alarms.

other local agencies that will serve aspilot sites for the system.

Presenter Greg Frost, TallahasseePolice Department and

Presenter Gary Yates has beenemployed at the Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement (FDLE) since 1978and currently serves as Director of theOffice of Research and Planning. Mr.Yates has served in a variety ofadministrative, technical andmanagement positions.

Through his current leadership of theDepartment’s research and planningoperations, which includes the FloridaStatistical Analysis Center, Mr. Yatesis actively involved in a wide range ofcriminal justice research; policydevelopment; and legislativeinitiatives at the state and nationallevels. These initiatives include majoranti-drug policies and programs; anti-violence initiatives; state and nationalefforts to maximize the use of criminaljustice information; and strategies forresponding to the emerging problemsof economic and computer crime.

Mr. Yates holds a Bachelors inEducation and certificates ofcompletion from many criminal justicetraining and other professionaldevelopment courses, including theFDLE Senior Leadership Program. Mr.Yates is also active in numerous stateand national criminal justiceorganizations and associations.

IACP/IALEP Partnershipand the Assessment ofthe State of PoliceManagement

The mission of the IACP PoliceAdministration Committee is to assessthe state of police management andorganization; identify major policemanagement and organizationalproblems and needs; survey new andadvanced public and private sector Continued Page 11

Early Registration (Registration postmarked before August 1, 1999) $275 $305 + $______ = $______

Regular Registration (Registration postmarked August 1 to September 1, 1999) $300 $330 + $______ = $______

Late Registration (Registration postmarked after September 1, 1999 or at the door) $350 $380 + $______ = $______

Partner Registration(s) Partner program includes Monday excursion to the Alamo /

Dinner at Riverwalk, banquet (additional excursions to be determined) $100 (each person)

Partner Name(s)

IALEP IRS ID number: FEID 43—1569519 Total Fees Due $

Yes! This is my first IALEP Annual ConferenceFirst time attendees are invited to the new member luncheon on the first day of the conference.Check here if you’ve never been to a conference before.

Mail to: IALEP 1999 Conference c/o Lisa Hopkins, 2518 Killarney Way, Tallahassee, Florida 32308

Questions about registration? Call Lisa Hopkins at 850-410-8513 or e-mail at [email protected]

IALEP 99 - SAN ANTONIO

PLANNING FOR ACHANGING WORLD

Conference Registration

Registration Fees (in U.S. Dollars)

(Payable to1999 IALEP Conference)

Non-Members(includes membership)

+ Chapter Membership(optional)

= TotalIALEP Members

Name & Rank/Title(for ID Badge)

Agency

MailingAddress

Phone / Fax

Email


DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SHARE WITH YOURFELLOW PLANNERS?

IALEP is looking for members who would like to do presentations at the 1999Annual Training Conference. Presentations may be from 30 minutes to 1 hourlong and may be on any topic. We only have a limited amount of time left, so getyour presentation proposals in early! Please submit presentation proposals to:Lisa Hopkins, Conference Chair - c/o FDLE, PO Box 1489, Tallahassee, FL 32302

Overview of NIJ Servicesfor Law Enforcement

The presentation will revolve aroundNIJ's research in the area of lawenforcement. Research topics willmost likely include interoperability andwireless communications, communitypolicing, locally initiated researchpartnerships in policing, police-corrections partnerships, and perhapsDNA analysis and state crimelaboratories. The speech will alsolikely include an overview of NIJ'soutreach activities with lawenforcement and how NIJ can workbetter with police planners to get themthe information they need to do theirjobs effectively.

Presenter will be either Jeremy Travis,NIJ Director or John Schwarz, NIJDeputy Director.

The New Zealand Policeand Technology

This presentation will provide anoverview of the structure of the NewZealand Police and describe currentchanges and new direction of the NewZealand Police - in particular, theMartin Review and Policing 2000. Thepresentation will identify technologyissues facing the New Zealand Policesuch as INCIS and CARD.

Presenter Garth den Heyer has been aPolice Officer for nineteen years,having spent ten years as a patrolofficer. In 1990 he was promoted toSergeant and seconded as a PolicyAnalyst to a Ministerial Policy Unit. In1992, Garth was transferred to theCorporate Planning Unit at PoliceNational Headquarters and waspromoted (in April 1996) to SeniorSergeant and seconded to the Policing2000 change programme to advise on

restructuring Police Districts. On completion of this project Garth was secondedto the Finance Group at Police National Headquarters to implement Activity BasedCosting into the New Zealand Police. In January of this year he transferred toOperations Support at Police National Headquarters and is now Officer in Chargeof Special Planning.

Garth has an undergraduate degree in economics and is in his second year of athree-year Masters Degree from the London School of Economics majoring inFinancial Economics.

Computerized Mapping for Criminal JusticePolicy and Planning

This presentation provides an overview of the value of Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) as a criminal justice policy and planning tool. Following a briefdescription of GIS and its common applications, this presentation will offer anumber of examples of ways in which computerized mapping can be used toallocate resources and engage in long-term strategic planning. Examples includeusing GIS to: make beat assignments for patrol officers; assign caseloads toprobation and parole officers; analyze the potential impact of policies that wouldrelease more incarcerated offenders back in the community; and analyze currentpatterns of delinquency to aid in developing long-term prevention efforts.

Presenter Nancy La Vigne is the founder and director of the Crime MappingResearch Center at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, inWashington, DC. Her research areas include the geographic analysis of crime,situational crime prevention, and community policing.

La Vigne is a member of the Joint DOJ/Office of the Vice President Crime MappingTask Force and chairs the Task Force's subcommittee on Training and TechnicalAssistance. She is also the Department of Justice delegate to the FederalGeographic Data Committee and an active member of the Department of Justice'sGIS Working Group.

She pursued her undergraduate studies at Smith College in Massachusetts, earnedher Master's degree at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texasat Austin, and her Ph.D. at The School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University.

Technologies in the Investigation of Missing Children

Presenter Lieutenant Tom Smith, Collier County Sheriff's Office

Law Enforcement Assessment and Readiness for Y2K

Presenter (not yet named), Lubbock, Texas

Conference Topics(continued)


INFORMALINFORMATION SHARINGAMONG POLICEAGENCIES (continued)

COMMUNICATION PATTERNS

The major findings of this study are asfollows:

u The communication between lawenforcement planners is both frequentand relatively well organized. About 40percent of respondents contact anotheragency at least once a month.

u The principal mode of thiscommunication is by telephone, butnewer technologies like electronicbulletin boards and World Wide Websites show significant potential.

u Police organizations devotedsignificant resources to responding tooutside agencies’ requests forinformation. The typical agencyreceived 22 such requests (mean) peryear, while a few received more than 90.On average, an agency spent 13percent of its planning staff timepreparing responses.

u Agency similarity and reputationof the organization are key factors forpolice planners when choosing whichagency to contact. For instance,requests for information onadministrative issues tended to go toagencies facing similar problems, andrequests about specific topics likeproblem solving or gangs to agencieswith strong reputations in these areas.

u Most planning and researchmanagers believe that their staff havenot had adequate preparation in theskills required to conduct research intheir own organizations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As this study indicates, the network ofpolice planners is a significant resource

for the police community, particularlyto the extent that it facilitates thediffusion of new ideas. The informalnetwork among police planners appearsto be a critical element in the researchplanning process, which may be furtherenhanced as follows:

u Acknowledge and encourage thenetwork of communication amongpolice organizations. While thisnetwork probably cannot replace moreformal channels of communication, it isnonetheless a key component of thedissemination process.

u Provide resources to keyorganizations in this network tosupport their dissemination activities.Supporting this network could provemost beneficial to police andgovernment agencies alike. Forexample, many program agencies in theU.S. Department of Justice disseminatecopies of their relevant publications topolice departments. That practiceleverages the Government’sdissemination efforts to the extent thatthe departments pass along the contentof those publications through theinformal information-sharing network.

u Continue efforts to enhance theresearch capacity of policeorganizations. In the recent past, theFederal Government instituted anumber of programs designed toincrease the internal research capacityof police organizations. Programs suchas the National Institute of Justice’sLocally Initiated Research Partnerships,which team researchers with policepractitioners, are a very positive stepand are consistent with the findings ofthis study. Additional efforts mightinclude providing police planners withtraining in research methodology oroffering support to professionalassociations serving police planningand research officers.

u Choose sites for research anddemonstration projects on the basis ofan agency’s prominence in the

communication network. Many policeplanners equate agency expertise withresearch experience. That is, policeplanners are inclined to believe thatthe sites of large research ordemonstration projects are the bestplaces to look for information onparticular subjects. For example, theMilwaukee Police Department, site ofone of the spouse assault replicationprojects, was cited as an organizationto contact for information on domesticviolence. This suggests that anagency is likely to serve adissemination role after the project iscompleted. It would seem thatagencies active in this network wouldprove to be more efficient in thesedissemination functions.

u Continue efforts to make researchavailable through electronic media.The study results suggest that theInternet and electronic bulletin boardscould play a significant role inenhancing the police communicationnetwork, particularly for smalleragencies.

While this study was comprehensive,results indicate several additionalareas of research worth pursuing.First, it is important to closely examinethe nature of smaller agencies’ (fewerthan 100 sworn officers) participationin this informal network of policeagencies. Second, it would be helpfulto explore more fully the planningoperations of the major departmentsthat serve as major informationproviders. Such a study may revealwhether factors endemic to thoseunits make them more attractive asinformation providers. Finally, it maybe useful to conduct studies of therelationship between the formal meansof dissemination and the informalpolice network.

This summary is based on a study byAlexander Weiss, Ph.D., while at IndianaUniversity. He is now Executive AssociateDirector of the Northwestern UniversityTraffic Institute and Associate Professor of


Management and Strategy at the J.L.Kellogg Graduate School of Managementat Northwestern University. The researchwas sponsored under NIJ grant number95-IJ-CX-0052, with funding from theOffice of Community Oriented PolicingServices.

Other Resources Available from theNational Institute of Justice:

NIJ Web Site - the on-line resource for NIJ

publications, funding information and news

about NIJ programs and initiatives.

<www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij>

National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS) - The clearinghouse for the Office

of Justice Programs (OJP) which offers

reference, referral, and distribution services

all at one 800 number. 800-851-3420

Justice Information Center Web Site -

NCJRS' on-line resource and home of the

NCJRS Abstract Data Base, which contains

summaries of more than 150,000 criminal

and juvenile justice publications.

<www.ncjrs.org>

National Law Enforcement and

Corrections Technology Center

(NLETCT) - A comprehensive resource

for law enforcement and corrections

product and technology information. 800-

248-2742

Justice Technology Information Network

(JUSTNET) - An on-line gateway to law

enforcement and corrections technology

information. <http://www.nlectc.org>

Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC) -

A national resource for promotion,

research, evaluation, development, and

dissemination of GIS (geographic

information systems) technology and the

spacial analysis of crime.

<www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cmrc>

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

Program - Tracks trends in the prevalence

and types of drug use among booked

arrestees in urban areas. ADAM currently

operates in 35 data collections sites,

expanding to a maximum of 75 sites by

2001.

POLICE CORRUPTION AND DRUG TRAFFICKING:A REVIEW OF A RECENT GOVERNMENT STUDY

by Thomas E. Engells

In response to a request from Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY), the GeneralAccounting Office conducted a study focusing on police corruption. Specifically,Rangel asked for an examination of the impact of drug trafficking on the integrity ofpolice in large-city police agencies.

While acknowledging the absence of a central data repository, this report attemptsto establish a correlation between narcotics and police corruption. In doing so, thestudy relies upon four information sources - a comprehensive literature search;interviews with academic experts and the staffs of both the Mollen and ChicagoCommissions; interviews with federal authorities (DOJ, FBI, ONDCP and the USAttorney); and interviews with international, national and state law enforcementassociations.

Some portions of this study will likely prove useful to Ethics Instructors, includingthe finding that officers involved in drug-related police corruption tend to work insmall groups that protect and assist each other in criminal activities. Suchcorruption has been found to have several motives beyond the long-understoodprofit motive, primarily power and vigilante justice.

Two of the report’s appendices will be immediately helpful at both the introductoryand in-service levels of ethics instruction. Appendix II (FBI Led State and LocalLaw Enforcement Corruption Cases Opened and Officers Convicted, 1993-1997), forexample, provides recent data on the extent of federal prosecutions in an easilyunderstood tabular format. And Appendix III (Examples of Publicly DisclosedInvestigations of Drug-Related Police Corruption in Large Cities, 1988-1998)highlights the dimensions of recent public information on police corruption.

Though far from conclusive, this study reviewed a number of familiar aspects ofinternal affairs investigations. Included were the infamous “code of silence,”ineffective management, poor organizational cultures, and the consequences ofinadequate recruitment. This study also included strategies for preventing anddetecting drug-related police corruption, including (1) Integrity training as part ofcontinuing education, (2) Integrity assessments as part of in-service evaluations,and (3) Consideration of integrity assessments in determining promotion.

Brief and to the point, this entire report (including appendices and bibliography) isonly fifty pages in length. It is available at no cost from the General AccountingOffice (GAO/GGD-98-111), or via the Internet at www.ncjrs.org.

Reprinted from Ethics Roll Call by permission of The Southwestern LawEnforcement Institute.

Visit the Southwestern Law Enforcement Institute at their web site:http://web2.airmail.net/flf/slei.html


WHITE HOUSE SCHOOLSAFETY CONFERENCE

With the school year in full swing,school safety remains a top priorityfor educators, legislators,parents, students, police,and others. At theOctober 15 day-longWhite House Conferenceon School Safety: Causesand Prevention of YouthViolence, PresidentClinton announced a $65-million initiative to helpschools hire and train2,000 new communitypolice and schoolresource officers to workclosely with principals, teachers,parents, and students to developantiviolence and antidrug plans.“Community policing has helped tomake our streets safe,” he said. “It canwork for our schools, too.”

Clinton cited a number of ways tohelp schools and communities buildsafer schools including providingquick emergency response to violentincidents and long-term counselingfor those affected; providingmentoring, counseling, conflictresolution, mental health services;and teaching young people toleranceand respect.

The President also underscored theimportance of after-school programs:“We can’t stop the prevention effortsat the schoolhouse door.”

The White House Conferencefeatured a report by the Departmentsof Education and Justice, Indicatorsof School Crime and Safety, 1998.The report finds that for the most part,American schools are safe places andthat students fall victim to crime morefrequently away from school than atschool. However, studentsincreasingly are feeling unsafe whileat school. In 1989, six percent of

students feared being attacked orharmed at school while in 1995, thenumber had grown to nine percent.

NCPC recently published twodocuments addressing school safety.

Stopping SchoolViolence: supplementsthe booklet, MakingChildren, Families, andCommunities Safer FromViolence and SaferSchools: Strategies forEducators and LawEnforcement Seeking toPrevent Violence WithinSchools, a documentaddressing schoolviolence prevention and

the need for educator and lawenforcement collaboration

Electronic versions of these documentsare available by accessingwww.ncpc.org/cat9811e.htm

To receive a printed copy of theupdated Making Children, Families,and Communities Safer From Violencecall 800-WE-PREVENT.

Police chiefs and school principals canreceive a printed copy of Safer Schoolsby mailing a request on school/agencyletterhead to:

NCPC Fulfillment CenterPO Box 1, 100 Church St.Amsterdam, NY 12010Fax 518–843–6857

NEW REPORT ON KIDSAND GUNS

A newly released report by theNational Institute of Justice, HighSchool Youths, Weapons, andViolence: A National Survey, findsthat 29 percent of high school malessurveyed have guns and 50 percentsaid they could easily obtain firearms.The study also reported that gunpossession levels were highest for

firearms more suited to hunting andsporting uses (rifles and shotguns)rather than criminal behavior(handguns).

While many studies link weapons tocrime, the average respondent for thissurvey was not involved in seriouscriminal activity or delinquentbehavior: 67 percent had never beenexpelled or suspended from school; 94percent anticipated graduating fromhigh school. Fourteen percentreported committing a theft, eightpercent a burglary and two percent anarmed robbery in the past 12 months.Five percent used a “hard” drug(heroin, crack, cocaine); three percentsold a hard drug; eight percentadmitted gang affiliation.

Six percent said they carried a gunoutside the home during the past 12months. For those youth who carriedguns, 43 percent said they did so forprotection and 35 percent said theywere holding it for someone else. Lessfrequent reasons for carrying gunsincluded scaring someone, gettingback at someone, feeling important, orusing in a crime.

High School Youths, Weapons, andViolence: A National Survey (NCJ172857) is available from the NationalCriminal Justice Reference Service, 1-800-851-3420 and atwww.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/.

PROJECT ALERT SEEKSVOLUNTEERS TO HELPWITH MISSINGCHILDREN CASES

The National Center for Missing andExploited Children (NCMEC) isrecruiting volunteers for ProjectALERT (America’s Law EnforcementRetiree Team), a program that uses theexpertise of former municipal, state,and federal law enforcement officers inmissing children investigations.


Small agencies with limited resourcesand larger agencies withoverwhelming caseloads can tap intothis resource for additional manpowerhours, an emergency response team,veteran investigators, and training.Project ALERT members also canconduct presentations to thecommunity on child safety awarenessand crime prevention strategies.

Volunteers complete a backgroundinvestigation and 40-hour trainingcourse. For more information or anapplication, call Ann Scofield,manager, Project ALERT, 800-THE-LOST or email [email protected].

Reprinted with permission from the

Catalyst, November 1998.

ALARM AGGRAVATIONBy Anya Sostek

Every other Thursday night, about 40people file into the Phoenix policedepartment’s conference room. Anoverhead-projector screen is pulleddown over a wall of police badges,creating a makeshift classroom for yetanother session of what has beendubbed false alarm abuser school.Patti Rea, coordinator of thedepartment’s Alarm Unit, begins toaddress the group. “The alarm systemis like a car,” she says. “It needs to bemaintained periodically.”

Invariably, some of the attendees areangry, asserting that a recent falseburglar alarm at their home orbusiness wasn’t their fault andprotesting the fine that the city haslevied. Others are curious, wanting tolearn how they can prevent newlyinstalled security systems fromgenerating false alarms in the firstplace. Whatever the case, eachgraduate of the two-hour class isgiven a waiver good for one falsealarm, along with a bumper sticker thatreads, “It’s Alarming! False AlarmsCost Millions!”

Indeed, the proliferation of electronic security systems for both commercial andresidential use has quickly become one of the most annoying and wastefulproblems for law enforcement officers nationwide. On average, 98 percent of allactivations prove to be false alarms—triggered by roaming pets, bad weather,faulty equipment or forgetful homeowners. The National Burglar and Fire AlarmAssociation, the largest trade association serving the industry, has calculated thatby the year 2000, false alarms could cost police departments $1.4 billion.

The time that police departments spend addressing false alarms, which ranges from5 to 30 percent of all calls for police service, also cuts into the time they are able todevote to fighting actual crimes. Police, of course, are expected to treat each alarmas an emergency situation, and two patrol cars are generally sent—sirens blaring—to the scene. In addition to the potential for accidents that may occur on the way,there are concerns that officers have become so accustomed to alarms being falsethat they might be unprepared for a real one—the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome.

For years, cities have used permits and penalties to crack down on false alarms, butwith limited success. “Fines are not an effective deterrent,” says Assistant PoliceChief Dave Butzer of Portland, Oregon. “We know that a lot of businesses simplybudget for a number of fines.” And while hefty fines may discourage undesirablebehavior such as speeding, false alarms, by contrast, are rarely deliberate. So somepolice departments are taking prevention a step further.

By national standards, Portland, Oregon’s false-alarm rate is relatively low, butthat’s little comfort to local authorities and taxpayers. Alarm calls still usurp 8percent of all police resources, so the department is proposing a “verification”policy, similar to an existing ordinance in Las Vegas and one proposed in LosAngeles. It would require evidence from the owner’s alarm company that an actualcrime is taking place before police would respond. Although such an approachseems almost certain to reduce their burden, it also raises many questions of policeresponsibility.

Ordinarily, when a burglar alarm is activated through a motion detector or brokenglass, a signal is sent to the alarm company. The company is supposed to screenthe call, generally by calling the home or business and asking for a code from thehomeowner, to determine if there is actually a burglary in progress. In most places,if the owner isn’t home, the alarm company then notifies the police department.Under physical verification policies, however, an absent alarm owner is not reasonenough to dispatch a police unit. The company is required to send its own guardsout to the scene before summoning the law enforcement officers.

Las Vegas adopted its verification policy in 1992, when 99.9 percent of its 27,000alarms turned out to be false. Now, an alarm company guard or homeowner mustconfirm a break-in before the department will respond. The policy has worked sowell that the department no longer even tracks alarm calls. “It completely eliminatedthe problem,” says Sheriff Jerry Keller.

While “guard response” may seem like a sensible solution, the NBFAA thinksotherwise. The way its members see things, private response is less efficient thanpolice response, and puts citizens in danger because police aren’t notified of thecrime until after private guards make it to the scene. “If there were ever an instancewhere an alarm went off and someone was raped or murdered, that would be a hugeblack eye for them,” says Matt Wald, NBFAA’s director of government relations.


Alarm Aggravation(continued)

To determine the exact results of thepolicy, the association hascommissioned an independent firm tostudy changes in the crime rate, alarmcompany prices and police patrolpatterns since verification went intoeffect in Las Vegas.

When officials in Los Angelesreleased their proposed policy thispast February, they faced immediateopposition. George P. Gunning,president of the California AlarmAssociation, issued a strongly wordedpress release. “The policy of physicalverification first, before response,would place the property owner at riskof encountering the perpetrator, ormake the cost ofresponse exorbitantand leave theproperty ownerunprotectedaltogether.”

The board ofsupervisors inRiverside, California,has already learnedthe hard way that theCAA is a force to bereckoned with. In1996, when the county passed a lawcharging alarm companies $5 per call,the CAA sued on the grounds that theordinance denied the alarm companiesdue process by assuming them guiltyand violated their right to equal policeprotection. A judge then granted atemporary restraining order onenforcing the law, and the board ofsupervisors eventually repealed it.(The NBFAA has not taken any legalaction in Las Vegas because Nevada isnot one of its 38 member states.)

The only concession the NBFAA willmake is that in cases of alarm ownerswho amass a particularly high numberof false alarms, police may be justified

in adopting a no-response policy. TheNBFAA’s vision of the ideal policepolicy looks a lot like the one inPhoenix, where tactics such as the falsealarm school have reduced alarmssignificantly. In 1990, officials thererecorded an average of two activationsper alarm per year. Now, the rate isdown to .66 activations per alarm. Inthe two years the school has beenopen, officials have had to double thenumber of classes, and 93 percent ofattendees have not had a false alarmsince.

Portland’s proposed policy issomething of a compromise betweenthe Las Vegas ordinance, whichmandates a guard response, andPhoenix’s more user-friendly approach.Instead of requiring a guard to verifyall alarms, the Portland plan would

send out the police ifthe alarm companyprovides two othertypes of verificationsuch as video, audio,motion sensor ortelephone. “It’s sortof a Chinese menuapproach,” saysWald. “You pick acouple from columnA, a couple fromcolumn B, and that’s

how you get your verification. Iwouldn’t say we’re OK with theordinance, but we’re a lot morecomfortable with it than Las Vegas’.”

Portland police would continue toinsist on a guard response in situationswhere two verification sources are notavailable. Guard response remainscontroversial, however, because itgoes to the heart of how much servicepolice departments ought to provide.By declining to respond to a call forhelp, police can appear to beabandoning their responsibility toprotect against the threat of crime.Especially in small towns, the conceptof a police department refusing a call

for service is practically unheard of. “Ifsomebody falls out of bed, we’ll gopick them up and put them back in,”says Lieutenant John Hellebush of thepolice department in Upper Merion,Pennsylvania. “If an old lady finds aspider in her sink, we’ll go take it out.It’s something that our citizens expect,and we’re still able to do it.”

The verification policy is based on thebelief that false alarms do not pose alegitimate danger. “A false alarmshould not be considered a call forhelp,” says Lieutenant Ronald E.Marbrey of the Los Angeles policedepartment. “False alarms should beconsidered similar to yelling 'fire' in acrowded theater, or making a falsepolice report.” Not surprisingly, policedepartments reason that alarmcompanies are profiting at theirexpense. “The alarm company sells aproduct,” Butzer says. “Their productis an alarm system that elicits a policeresponse.”

And alarm companies are notunilaterally opposed to verificationpolicies. Many high-end alarmcompanies support such policies,hoping that they will drive the markettoward more sophisticated alarmsystems. In the proposed Los Angelesand Las Vegas policies, videotaping isone way to achieve verificationwithout having to dispatch a privatesecurity company. Video cameras canbe installed in homes or businesses,and when the alarm is activated, alarmcompanies can look into the house tocheck immediately for an intruder.Current technology even enableshomeowners to watch their housesthrough the Internet and turn lights onand off via their computer keyboard.“Alarm companies can’t afford to goand put more security patrolmen out,”says Nick Wolkonsky of BarakaIntracom, a video telecommunicationscompany. “Video verification is wherethe future is. There’s no otheralternative.”

The more than 7 millionelectronic securitysystems installed in theU.S. average about twoalarms each per year—and most of them turnout to be false. It’s acostly problem forpolice departments.


Clearly, cities such as Phoenix and LasVegas have found ways to lower theincidence of false alarms. WhatPortland, Los Angeles and others haveto decide upon is a strategy that isboth effective and politicallyacceptable. For despite indications offalling crime rates around the country,the $14 billion alarm industry shows nosigns of slowing down. In such abooming market, the benefits ofverification are obvious, but the citiesmust decide if they are worth the risk.

Reprinted from Governing Magazine,October 1998. Copyright 1998Congressional Quarterly, Inc.

COUNTY OFSACRAMENTO V. LEWIS

A Look at Its Impact andUnanswered Questions

by Geoffrey P. Alpert and AndrewClarke

On May 26, 1998, the U.S. SupremeCourt rendered its decision in Countyof Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S.Ct. 1708(1998). The case involved twoSacramento County deputies whoresponded to a fight on May 22, 1990,at approximately 8:30 p.m. At thescene, Deputy Stapp saw a motorcycleapproaching his police cruiser at highspeed. Brian Willard was driving themotorcycle, and Philip Lewis, thebike’s owner, was a passenger on theback. Neither boy had anything to dowith the fight that prompted theoriginal call to police.

Noticing the motorcycle’s approach,Deputy Stapp turned on his rotatinglights, yelled for the driver to stop andpulled his car closer to Deputy Smith’sto block the path of the motorcycle.Willard maneuvered the bike betweenthe two police cars and increased hisspeed to elude the police officers.

Deputy Smith immediately switched on his own emergency lights and siren andbegan chasing the motorcycle.

The chase reached speeds of more than 100 miles per hour, continued forapproximately 75 seconds, covered a distance of 1.3 miles, and ended whenWillard attempted to make a sharp left turn, lost control of the motorcycle andcrashed. Deputy Smith, who was 100 feet behind the motorcycle at the time thebike crashed, slammed on his brakes, but his car skidded into Lewis at 40 milesper hour and propelled Lewis approximately 70 feet down the road, causingmassive injuries that resulted in his death.

As a result of Lewis’ death, his family brought suit against Sacramento County.The plaintiffs alleged the high-speed pursuit of Lewis violated his substantive dueprocess rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court granted theofficer’s motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The NinthCircuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that “the appropriate degree of fault tobe applied to high-speed pursuits is deliberate indifference to, or recklessdisregard for, a person’s right to life and personal security” and concluding “ thelaw regarding police liability for death or injury caused by an officer during thecourse of a high-speed chase was clearly established” at the time of Lewis’ death.Id. at 1712.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari “to resolve the conflict among thecircuits over the standard of culpability of a law enforcement officer for violatingsubstantive due process in a pursuit case.” Id. At 1713. The Supreme Courtframed the question presented for resolution as follows:

The issue in this case is whether a police officer violates the FourteenthAmendment’s guarantee of substantive due process by causing death throughdeliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimedat apprehending a suspected offender. Id. at 1711.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s holding and held that the properstandard to be employed in these cases is whether the officer’s conduct duringthe pursuit was conscience-shocking. The precise holding of Lewis is as follows:

Accordingly, we hold that high-speed chases with no intent to harm suspectsphysically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability under theFourteenth Amendment, redressible by an action under 1983. Id. at 1720.

The Court closed the door on the constitutional liability for officers involved inpursuits that do not “shock the conscience.” However, the Court did not answermany important issues concerning liability for pursuit-related injuries. Specifically,the Court has yet to decide

whether it will allow an innocent third party to file a claim against the police fordamages resulting from a pursuit that does not rise to the level of the Lewis“shock-the-conscience” standard. Additionally, the Court has not yet decidedwhether a municipality can be held constitutionally responsible for its failure totrain officers with respect to pursuit-related issues. Finally, the Court will have todecide whether there is municipal liability without an underlying constitutionaldeprivation (i.e., a conscience-shocking chase).


LEWIS (continued)

Suspect Versus Innocent Third Party

It is clear Lewis stands for theproposition that a suspect injured as aresult of a police pursuit cannot claimviolation of his substantive dueprocess rights unless the officersengaged in the pursuit either“intended to harm the suspect” or“worsen the legal plight of thesuspect.” While an intention to harmis easily understood, it is not clearwhat the Court meant by the language“to worsen the plight of the suspect.”One could argue the Court waswarning officers not to take part in aneffort to increase the level of offensethe suspect is committing. Thatlanguage is rife for discussion andlitigation. The concerns raised by theCourt’s ruling may best be understoodby the concurring opinion written byJustice Kennedy, with whom JusticeO’Connor joined:

There is real danger in announcing arule, or suggesting a principle, thatin some cases a suspect is free toignore a lawful police command tostop. No matter how narrow itsfoundation, any suggestion thatsuspects may ignore a lawfulcommand to stop and then sue fordamages sustained in an ensuingchase might cause suspects to fleemore often, increasing accidents ofthe kind which occurred here. Id. at1722.

However, if an innocent third party ,not a suspect fleeing from policeofficers, were injured in a pursuit,Lewis should not preclude aconstitutional claim because neitherWillard nor Lewis was an innocentthird party in the case before theCourt. Brian Willard was driving themotorcycle that belonged to PhilipLewis. Further, it was obvious to thecourt the boys were acting together. Infuture pursuit litigation, the Court mayhave to determine if the rights of a

suspect fleeing the police are the sameas an innocent person whose solefault is being at the wrong place at thewrong time.

Municipal Liability for Failure toTrain

Lewis did not deal with municipalliability for the conduct of officersduring pursuits based on failure totrain its officers properly. In fact, infootnote 2, at page 1712, the Courtnotes “...the issue of municipal liabilityis not before us.” As each citizen’sright to life is constitutionallyprotected, a municipality may beexposed to liability for its failure totrain officers with respect to high-speed pursuits because the risk ofinjury and death to the public issubstantial.

In a “failure-to-train” case against amunicipality, an injured party seekingrecourse bears the burden of provingthe municipality was deliberatelyindifferent to the risk of constitutionalinjury stemming from a failure to train.In discussing the methods by which aplaintiff may hold a defendant liable ina failure-to-train case, the SupremeCourt in City of Canton v. Harris, 489U.S. 378 (1989) stated,

[I]t may happen that in light of theduties assigned to specific officersor employees the need for more ordifferent training is so obvious, andthe inadequacy so likely to result inthe violation of constitutional rights,that the policymakers of the city canreasonably be said to have beendeliberately indifferent to the need.1

In that event, the failure to provideproper training may fairly be said torepresent a policy for which the cityis responsible, and for which the citymay be held liable if it actuallycauses injury. Id. at 390.

Pursuant to Canton, a plaintiff mayprove municipal liability in a failure-to-train case by showing that 1) the need

for training in a particular area isobvious, or 2) while the need fortraining in a particular area may nothave been obvious at first, a pattern ofconduct by its officers was sopervasive as to imply actual orconstructive knowledge bypolicymakers, whose deliberateindifference, evidenced by a failure tocorrect or train once the need fortraining became obvious, would beattributable to the municipality. Basedon research findings, a police agencymust know there is an obvious needfor training on pursuits. Ifpolicymakers made a consciousdecision to allow untrained oruncertified officers to drive policevehicles and engage in high-speedpursuits, the decision woulddemonstrate deliberate indifferenceunder the first prong of Canton.

The Canton holding was recentlyreaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Courtin Board of the CountyCommissioners of Bryan County,Oklahoma v. Brown, 117 S.Ct. 1382(1997). In Brown, the U.S. SupremeCourt clearly reaffirmed the holding inCanton that a failure to train an officerin an area in which there is an“obvious” need for training reflectsdeliberate indifference in and of itself.The failure to train officers regardinghigh-speed pursuits reflects a“deliberate indifference” to the tragicconsequences of such pursuits.

A good explanation of the interrelationof the standards of culpability forindividual officers and municipalitiesunder a Fourteenth Amendmentsubstantive due process analysis iscontained in the Fagan decisions.2

In Fagan I, the Third Circuit heldthat in a substantive due processcase arising out of a police pursuit,an underlying constitutional tort canstill exist even if no individual policeofficer violated the Constitution...Afinding of municipal liability doesnot depend automatically or


necessarily on the liability of anypolice officer. Even if an officer’sactions caused death or injury, hecan only be liable under section1983 and the FourteenthAmendment if his conduct “shocksthe conscience.” Id. The fact thatthe officer’s conduct may not meetthat standard does not negate theinjury suffered by the plaintiff as aresult. If it can be shown that theplaintiff suffered that injury, whichamounts to deprivation of life orliberty, because the officer wasfollowing a city policy reflecting thecity policymakers’ deliberateindifference to constitutionalrights, then the City is directlyliable under section 1983 forcausing a violation of the plaintiff’sFourteenth Amendment rights.The pursuing police officer ismerely the causal conduit for theconstitutional violation committedby the City . Id. at 1292. (Emphasisadded).

Accordingly, in Fagan I, the ThirdCircuit clearly states the standard ofculpability for a municipality under a“failure-to-train” theory is “deliberateindifference” regardless of thestandard of proof necessary to holdan individual officer liable forviolating a third party’s substantivedue process rights. In addition,Fagan I clearly states a municipalitymay be held liable under a failure-to-train theory if the municipality is“deliberately indifferent” to the rightto life and personal security of theinjured victim, even if the individualofficer’s conduct does not rise to thelevel of a constitutional violation.Accordingly, even though the ThirdCircuit held that an individual officer

violates an injured party’s substantive due process rights only if his actions“shock the conscience,” the standard of liability of a municipality under a “failure-to-train” theory remains “deliberate indifference.” While the standard of a failure-to-train case may be established, there remains a question as to whether there ismunicipal liability when there is no underlying constitutional violation.

Municipal Liability Without Underlying Constitutional Liability

As previously discussed in Fagan I, many courts have held that a municipalitymay be liable even if the police officer does not violate the individual’sconstitutional right. Other circuits have reached similar results. [Chew v. Gates, 27F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994) and Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 1991),Parrish v. Luckie, 963 F.3d 201 (8th Cir. 1992) and Cannon v. Taylor, 782 F. 947,951 (11th Cir. 1986).] The Eleventh Circuit opined that an underlying constitutionalviolation is not necessary in order to hold a municipality liable for the actions of apolice officer involved in a high-speed pursuit regardless of whether the officer’sconduct during the course of the chase amounted to a constitutional violation.

Conclusion

While Lewis has answered some questions concerning the liability surroundingpursuit driving, its unanimous opinion left many questions open for debate andfuture litigation. As the Lewis Court suggested, pursuit litigation must balance theever-present danger of pursuit driving against its potential crime-fighting benefits.Decisions involving pursuit driving and other police activities likely to result inproperty damage or personal injury must consider moral or ethical dimensions aswell as the legal standards. Fortunately, some police agencies are recognizing theirmoral responsibility to their officers and the public. For example, the Virginia Beach,Virginia, Department of Police modified its pursuit policy shortly after the Lewisdecision was announced. Rather than taking advantage of the apparent open-ended license to chase that apparently was granted by Lewis, Virginia Beach optedto take a more responsible approach to its pursuit operations and protection of thepublic. The memorandum from Chief Wall, dated May 28, 1998, included thefollowing:

"As you are aware, General Order 8.04 - Vehicular Pursuit Policy - has been underrevision for some time. I am concerned, as you should be, about the dangersinherent in police pursuits of vehicles. The conflict between our efforts to protectthe lives of citizens to the best of our ability as we enforce the law and perform ourother daily responsibilities, and engaging in high-speed pursuits on the congestedstreets of our City should be obvious. While none of us likes the thought of lettingsomeone go who has committed a violation and compounded that by fleeing whenwe signal them to stop, the overriding factor guiding all of our actions must be ourconcern for the safety of the officers involved and the citizens of our community,

1 For example, city policymakers know to a moral certainty that their police officers will be required to arrest fleeing felons. The city has armed its officers with firearms, in part to allow them to

accomplish this task. Thus, the need to train officers in the constitutional limitations on the use of deadly force, see Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d.1 (1985), can be said

to be "so obvious" that failure to do so could properly be characterized as "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights. It could also be that the police, in exercising their discretion, so often

violate constitutional rights that the need for further training must have been plainly obvious to the city policymakers, who, nevertheless, are "deliberately indifferent" to the need.

2 It is important to note that there are two Fagan decisions. Fagan I, 22F.3d 1283 (3rd Cir. 1994) and Fagan II, 22F3d. 1292 (3rd Cir. 1994) (en banc). Fagan II was an en banc opinion in which the

Court solely considered the applicability of the "shocks the conscience" standard to an officer's individual liability.

Continued on Page 22

B O A R DB U L L E T I N

If you have any information ornotices you would like to see inthe next issue of the Exchange,or any comments on this issue,send them to Lisa Hopkins, c/oFDLE, IRM,PO Box 1489, Tallahassee,FL, 32302Fax 850-410-8514 orE-Mail:[email protected]

The Exchange is now availableon the IALEP Web Site! If youwould like to get your newsthrough the Web and do notwish to receive a "paper" copyof the Exchange, please notifyLisa Hopkins. We can cut yourassociation costs and save atree by eliminating unnecessarydocuments.

PLANNER CERTIFICATION

The International Association of Law Enforcement Planners providescertification as Certified Law Enforcement Planner or Advanced LawEnforcement Planner. The Planner Certification Program recognizesprofessionals dedicated to and experienced in law enforcement planningthrough a process attesting to the professional achievement of theseindividuals.

Criteria for Certified Law Enforcement Planners includes:

-verification of achievement (college education, CEU's, training certificates,work experience, etc.) in 12 of the 24 topic areas set forth in the CertificationApplication.

- verification of six semester hours or equivalent of one year of Englishcomposition and literature.

-verification of three semester hours or equivalent of general statistical coursework.

-verification of three semester hours or equivalent in research methods.

-verification of college degree and one year of planning experience - workexperience may substitute for college degree.

Criteria for Advanced Law Enforcement Planner includes:

-meet all requirements for Certified Law Enforcement Planner.

-5 years of law enforcement experience with a minimum of three yearsassigned to a planning or comparable position.

-minimum of a four-year college degree.

-verification of achievement (college education, CEU's, training certificates,work experience, etc.) in 18 of the 24 topic areas set forth in the CertificationApplication.

If you meet the qualifications for both levels of certification, you may apply forboth at the same time. The cost for each level of certification is $50. To receivea copy of the Certification Application, call Phil Keith at 423-521-1229 or fax 423-971-1412. The application is also available on the IALEP websitewww.dps.state.ak.us/ialep.


Exchange c/o Lisa HopkinsFDLE / PO Box 1489Tallahassee, FL 32302or e-mail [email protected]

Got any news aboutIALEP Chapter

activities? Send to:

IALEP ANNUALPLANNER OF THEYEAR & PROJECT OFTHE YEAR AWARDS

IALEP is now reviewingnominations for the annualawards, Planner of the Yearand Project of the Year.

The nomination deadline forthese awards is June 30, 1999.

Winners of these awards will berecognized at the 1999 AnnualMembership Conference in SanAntonio, Texas. Limited fundsare available to assist anywinner who is unable to attendthe conference because offiscal restraints.

To receive a copy of theNomination Form or for moreinformation about the AwardsProgram, contact:Judi Martin or Phil KeithKnoxville Police DepartmentPO Box 3610Knoxville, TN 37927 423-521-1339

Lisa Hopkins, PresidentFlorida Department of Law EnforcementPO Box 1489Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489850-410-8513 / 850-410-8514 [email protected]

Bill Meyrahn, Executive Vice PresidentOntario Police Department200 N. CherryOntario, CA 91764909-988-6481 ext 7572 / 909-467-2741 fax

Mike Wilson, Staff Vice PresidentKansas City (MO) Police Dept.1125 LocustKansas City, MO 64106816-889-6049 / 816-234-5355 [email protected]

Chris Stockard, Past PresidentAlaska Department of Public SafetyPO Box 111200Juneau, AK 99811-1200907-465-4806 / 907-465-4362 [email protected]

Holly Christian, TreasurerScottsdale Police Department9065 East Via LindaScottsdale, AZ 85258602-391-5090 / 602-391-5092 [email protected]

Wilke Bermudez, SecretaryPort Authority Police of New York & New JerseyOne PATH Plaza - 2nd FloorJersey City, NJ 07306201-216-6819 / 201-216-6763 fax

Paula Emery, Repository DirectorKansas City (MO) Police Department1125 LocustKansas City, MO 64106816-889-6049 / 816-234-5355 [email protected]

Clarke Combe, Chapter RepresentativeOgden Police Department2549 Washington BoulevardOgden, UT 84401801-629-8060 / 801-629-8086 fax


IALEP has changed itsmain mailing address!

Please send ALLcorrespondence,applications, etc., to:

IALEPc/o Kansas City (MO)Police Department1125 LocustKansas City, MO 64106

Web Sites of Interest:

www.sacsheriff.comSacremento County Sheriff's Office

cad.chp.ca.govCalifornia Highway PatrolCommunications Center HomePage

www.mostwanted.org/The world's most wanted fugitives

www.missingkids.comNational Center for Missing andExploited Children

www.wichitapolice.comWichita Kansas PoliceDepartment

www.copsonline.comCops Online

www.fbi.govFederal Bureau of Investigation

broadway.vera.org/pub/ocjsites.htmlJustice and links to criminaljustice sites

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nijNational Institute of Justice

www.customs.ustreas.gov/US Customs Service


LEWIS (continued)

as well as the violator themselves.While the recent Supreme Courtdecision in the case of County ofSacramento et al. v. Lewis, No. 96-1337, decided May 26, 1998, clearlylessens the liability of police involvedin pursuits in most instances, the issueof liability is not the only factor toconsider. More importantly, ouractions must be guided by ourmission, purpose and the principle ofdoing what is right. Given thoseconcerns, effective immediately anduntil such time as the revisions toGeneral Order 8.04 are finalized andadopted, vehicle pursuits shall only beinitiated when an officer can articulatea reasonable belief that theoccupant(s) of the fleeing vehicle havecommitted or attempted to commit aviolent felony or offense involving theunlawful use, discharge, threateneduse, display or possession of a firearmor destructive/explosive devise orbomb. All other pursuits areprohibited."

This message - about the police“mission, purpose and the principle ofdoing what is right” - sets forth astandard that goes beyond liabilityconcerns. It introduces the moral andethical basis for policing.

It is difficult to justify to an injuredparty a continued, dangerous pursuitfor a traffic violation or minor offense.Police officers have to ask themselveswhat is considered moral and ethicalbehavior in the case of a dangerouspursuit, and how they would respondif a family member were injured or killedby a fleeing suspect being chased for aminor crime by a fellow officer. Whilethe United States Supreme Court hasanswered some questions concerningconstitutional liability, it is nowincumbent upon American policeadministrators to decide the proper

way to manage pursuits.

Geoffrey P. Alpert is a professor at theCollege of Criminal Justice at theUniversity of South Carolina inColumbia, South Carolina.

Andrew Clarke is a partner at the lawoffices of Bailey and Clarke in Memphis,Tennessee.

Copyright 1998 Police ExecutiveResearch Forum. Reproduced withpermission.

BALANCING LIBERTYAND SECURITY

Supreme Court CaseRecognizesCommunities and PoliceDepartments Have toWeigh Risks

by Chief Robert K. Olson

Finally! The Supreme Court hasrecognized that professionally trainedpolice officers do not have the luxuryof judicial review before they makelaw enforcement field decisions.America’s police profession hassignificantly enhanced its selectionprocesses and educational andtraining requirements for new officersduring the past decade. They havealso established structured in-serviceprograms and retraining sessions tokeep them abreast of not only legal,but technological and philosophicalchanges in this most important publicbusiness of policing.

There are, of course, a lot ofunanswered questions - as manyquestions as there are differentscenarios during which pursuitsbegin and terminate. In spite of allthese enhancements to our

professional operations and recentfavorable court rulings affirming thoseenhancements, police executives stillmust be on guard for the inevitablelitigation that will occur when tragedystrikes, particularly when innocentvictims are involved.

The perpetrators of these tragediesrarely have assets, but plaintiffs’attorneys know state and localgovernments have the deep pockets tonot only compensate their clients forthe wrongs of another, but pay theirfees as well. Many attorneys across thenation have almost made a specialty oftrying cases against governmentagencies. As long as that remainsprofitable, there is no reason to believethere will be a shortage of lawyerslooking for weaknesses, loopholes orfresh approaches to the law to gainaccess to those deep pockets for theirclients. For every door closed by anenlightened judiciary, legalentrepreneurs will find new doors toopen, even if no door was there before.

Sacramento v. Lewis has strengthenedmost progressive chase policies acrossthe country, but police administratorscannot relax. They must proactivelyidentify those new doors and adjusttheir policies, procedures and trainingto effectively minimize that ever-presentliability exposure.

Law enforcement can not and shouldnot abdicate responsibility forpreserving order in our communities.Recent law enforcement initiatives inNew York, New Orleans, Minneapolisand many other cities across the nationhave shown a clear and convincingcorrelation between the level of ordermaintenance enforcement and thenumbers of serious crimes perpetratedagainst our citizens.

Americans want to feel they and theirfamilies are safe. They agree liabilityand compensation is appropriate when


anyone, including government,conducts business in a way that“shocks the conscience” and injuresinnocent people.

We must all understand that there arerisks to living in a free society – thebalancing point between liberty andsecurity is not always clear. Eachcommunity must decide where thatbalance is as they makeconstitutionally appropriate policydecisions about their law enforcementstrategy for keeping their citizens safe.

Quality personnel, training andsupervision are keys to affecting well-thought-out and balanced pursuitpolicies that maximize the ability of acommunity to maintain peace andorder and, at the same time, minimizethe risks to innocent people associatedwith that enforcement.

Chief Olson is chief of police inMinneapolis, Minn., and a PERFmember.

Copyright 1998 Police ExecutiveResearch Forum. Reproduced withpermission.

ABOUT PERF

The Police Executive Research Forum(PERF) is a national professionalassociation of chief executives of largecity, county and state law enforcementagencies. PERF’s objective is toimprove the delivery of police servicesand the effectiveness of crime controlthrough several means:

1. the exercise of strong nationalleadership,

2. the public debate of police andcriminal justice issues,

3. the development of research andpolicy, and

4. the provision of vital managementand leadership services to police

agencies.

PERF members are selected on the basis of their commitment to PERF’s objectivesand principles. PERF operates under the following tenets:

1. Research, experimentation and exchange of ideas through public discussionand debate are paths for the development of a comprehensive body ofknowledge about policing.

2. Substantial and purposeful academic study is a prerequisite for acquiring,understanding and adding to that body of knowledge.

3. Maintenance of the highest standards of ethics and integrity is imperative inthe improvement of policing.

4. The police must, within the limits of the law, be responsible and accountableto citizens as the ultimate source of police authority.

5. The principles embodied in the Constitution are the foundation of policing.

For more information about PERF, please call 202/466-7820. For a free catalog ofPERF’s publications, please call 888/202-4563.

CHAPTERNEWS

SPOTLIGHT ON:

Regional Association of Police Planners(commonly known by its initials, RAPP)

Region: New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,Delaware, Connecticut, Washington, DCFee: US $15 - Activities: Conducts Meetings/Seminars on planning topics

Contacts:President: Andrew Clemson, Lt.Ferguson Township Police Deptartment - 3147 Research Drive, State College, PA16801814-237-1172 / FAX: 814-237-4446 [email protected]

Vice President: Keith I. Faulkner , MajorDover City Police Department - 400 South Queen Street, Dover, DE 19901302-736-7102 / FAX: 302-672-1842

Treasurer: Lawrence Kiser, LieutenantCarlisle Police Department - 53 W South St, Carlisle, PA 17013VOICE: 717-243-5252 / FAX: 717-240-6670

Secretary: Lawrence A Canty, CaptainAmtrak Police Department - 30th Street Station, 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104202-906-3262 / FAX: 202-906-3282

Registrar: Theresa McElwain - Director, Special Services SectionState College Police Department - 118 S. Fraser Street, State College, PA 16801-3852(814)234-7164 / FAX (814)235-3324 - [email protected]

IALEP Exchangec/o Lisa HopkinsFlorida Department of Law EnforcementPost Office Box 1489Tallahassee, Florida 32302

WINTER 1999

Bulk RateU.S. Postage PaidTallahassee, FLPermit No. 883

In This Issue:

Sweat About the Threat .....................................................................Page 2IALEP 1999 Annual Training Conference .......................................Page 6Informal Information Sharing Among Police Agencies .........................Page 12Police Corruption and Drug Trafficking ..............................................Page 13White House School Safety Conference ............................................Page 14New Report on Kids and Guns .........................................................Page 14Alarm Aggravation ..........................................................................Page 15County of Sacramento V. Lewis ......................................................Page 17Balancing Liberty and Security .........................................................Page 22

Check out the new IALEP Chapter web sites!

Visit the SouthWest Chapter at:

http://ialepsw.cihost.com

and the Florida Chapter at:

www.naplesnet.com/sheriff/ialep.htm

The IALEP Web site iswww.dps.state.ak.us/ialep

TakeNote!

INTERNATIONAL E LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION OF … · overall view of economic, social,...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL E LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION OF … · overall view of economic, social,...