PCPA Fall Bulletin 2015

OFFICER JENNIFER DOYLE AND K9 BELLA • Abington Township Police Department

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

LEGAL UPDATES TECHNOLOGY REVIEW JNET: THE POWER OF INFORMATION OPOID OVERDOSE REVERSAL WITH NALOXONE IMPROVING YOUR NEXT PROMOTIONAL PROCESS

PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

BULLETIN USPS 425940 • ISSN 0031-4404

FALL 2015 - VOL. 117; ISSUE 3 IN THIS ISSUE

15

ARTICLES

28

ARTICLES

COLUMNS & DEPARTMENTS

7

Welcome to Our Newest Accredited Agencies

28

JNET: The Power of Information at your Fingertips

12

PCPA Annual Education and Training Conference Wrap-Up

26 27 30

Technology Update

14 15 21 23

PCPA Leaders Making a Difference Engaging Law Enforcement in Overdose Reversal Initiatives: Authorization and Liability for Naloxone Administration

PCPA Member Services Planning a promotional process in the coming months? Use the Pennsylvania First and Second Line Supervisor Test to improve your next promotional process.

IACP Invitation

32

Commonwealth Court Answers the Question: “Are Police Mobile Video Recordings a Public Record in Pennsylvania?” With a Resounding “Yes They Are” - PSP v. Grove

Legislation Will Help Rural Households Stay Connected With Police, Other First Responders

33

The Pennsylvania Violent Death Reporting System (PA-VDRS)

Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association BULLETIN (ISSN 0031-4404) is published quarterly (March, June, September and December) by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Subscription to PCPA BULLETIN is included in PCPA annual dues. Periodicals Postage paid at Harrisburg, PA. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to PA Chiefs of Police Association BULLETIN, 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1536.

32

4 5 6 6 7 8 35

President’s Message Executive Director’s Message PCPA Executive Board and Committees PCPA Staff Memberships The Chiefs Legal Update PCPA Membership Application

The content of the PCPA BULLETIN is to be a practical reference featuring PCPA information of specific interest and relevance to law enforcement professionals. Topics of interest include professional development, current legislative and goals, news items, PCPA upcoming events and legal issues. PCPA Reviews, reports and articles are submitted by members, experts and other interested law enforcement personnel. PCPA Articles or ideas for content should be submitted to PCPA Headquarters c/o R. Dane Merryman, 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1536 or emailed to dmerryman@pachiefs.org.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

DEAR PCPA MEMBERS, Time goes by so fast, it feels like we just got home from the conference! I would like to thank everyone for making the 2015 PCPA Education and Training Conference such a memorable event. The hotel, facilities and presenters were just outstanding. A special thanks to the City of Lancaster, Mayor Gray, Chief Sadler, and the members of the Lancaster Police Department who welcomed us with their comments at the opening ceremony and a great static display of Lancaster Police Department equipment and personnel.

As you can imagine the planning for such an event is a tremendous undertaking. I am very happy to say our new Conference format, with the Sunday opening ceremony, keynote speaker on Monday morning, and the consolidation of our business meetings into one session was well received by the attendees who completed our post-conference survey. Thanks to our Executive Director and headquarters staff, the vision of your Executive Board became a reality.

Once again, thanks to all.

We remain busy at headquarters with the many successful programs and initiatives in place. Should you be in need or searching for an answer, please consider PCPA a resource for you to use. We make Accreditation, PAVTN and our Testing services available across the Commonwealth. Please refer municipalities looking to fill a chief ’s position to our executive search service.

Work will be continuing on both Executive Certification and New Chiefs Program. To facilitate new initiatives, I will be forming ‘Working Groups’ to address the task. We are on the lookout to form new partnerships that

4 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

provide benefits to members in the most fiscally responsible way.

It is my intention to reach out to the membership for input regarding the direction of our Association. To that end, please, take part in surveys you may receive. Your response is important. Don’t wait to share your thoughts and ideas. I welcome your email or telephone call.

I have had the pleasure to speak with several members in the past few weeks. Interacting with our members is one of my favorite responsibilities. If you happen to be in the Back Mountain area, stop in at Dallas Township PD to say hello!

Bob Jolley PCPA President, 2015-2016

www.pachiefs.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

DEAR MEMBERS, It is traditional for the Executive Director to write about the Annual Education and Training Conference in the Fall issue of the Bulletin, and I am following tradition with my perspective on this year’s conference.

Last year, following our 100th Education and Training Conference, I took numerous suggestions from our members to the Executive Board with recommendations for consideration in our conference planning for this year. I also suggested some things like an opening ceremony, a keynote speaker, eliminating one night “on your own,” and moving the Installation and Awards Banquet up a night, resulting in one less night in the hotel. We also acted on the many comments received through the post conference survey and shortened the formalities during the Banquet to provide more time for fun and networking.

OK, with 98% of survey respondents rating the overall conference as Good or Excellent.

These positive responses and comments we received through the survey were gratifying.

Thank you.

Operationally, aside from two pretty minor glitches, I feel the conference was a success. The Association staff at Headquarters worked hard and long hours to make it happen, and I am grateful for their service. Here at Association HQ, we aim for continuous improvement, so we expect next year’s conference to be even better!

Incoming President Bob Jolley and I met in September last year and made decisions concerning core training topics, and committed to finding top shelf presenters. We also decided to provide training that would be beneficial to our spouses and significant others. Dr. Jim Reese and Clarke Paris were booked to present on issues related to our jobs’ stressors in ways that help us be more aware as Chiefs, and help our families who share the effects of law enforcement stressors. Spouses and significant others were invited to both sessions. Being able to provide MPOETC MIST credit for the Clarke Paris training was a bonus.

Regrettably, I am compelled to offer a few comments regarding the conference attendance.

For whatever reason, our numbers were low and very disappointing.

The Association needs member participation to sustain superior quality conferences with professional grade presentations and activities.

Additionally, when we have poor attendance, our exhibitors are dissatisfied with the level of engagement they experience at their booths, and they become reluctant to return to our conferences. This is concerning because more than any other single factor, the support we get from vendors contributes to the cost of putting on the conference. I hope we can do better in this regard next year.

Our post conference survey results for this year’s conference seem to indicate we did

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6X

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 5

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

EXECUTIVE BOARD & COMMITTEES OFFICERS

BUDGET & PERSONNEL

Robert Jolley

Mark Hall

Bob Jolley, Chair Jim Adams (C) Bill Richendrfer (NE) Dave DiSanti (W) Scott Bohn (SE)

1st Vice President Chief of Police • Clarion Borough

EDUCATION & TRAINING

President Chief of Police • Dallas Township

Scott Bohn

Mark Hall, Chair Bill Herkert (C) Al Walker (NE) Ken Truver, (W) Bill Daly (SE)

3rd Vice President Chief of Police • West Chester Borough

LEGISLATIVE

David Spotts 2nd Vice President Chief of Police • Mechanicsburg Borough

William Kelly

Tom King, Chair Mike Beaty, (SE) Dave Spotts, (C) Bryan Kelly, (W) Ashley Heiberger, (NE) M Angelo Martin (C)

Chairman Chief of Police • Abington Township

MEMBERSHIP/BYLAWS

Albert Walker 4th Vice President Chief of Police • Hanover Township

William Richendrfer Secretary - 2017 Chief of Police • South Centre Township

David DiSanti

Ken Truver, Chair Dave Steffen, (C) Dave Hiester, (C) Leonard Mickavicz (NE) Mike Foltz (SE)

Treasurer - 2017 Chief of Police • Oakmont Borough

I leave you with these thoughts: The PCPA is a great organization with tremendous opportunity to provide important support to Pennsylvania Law Enforcement. Central Booking, Live Scan, CPIN, PAVTN, Accreditation, POST testing and consulting are all capabilities we provide or facilitate. How would your agency’s operations be affected if those services were not available? We need your support in the form of membership dues and conference participation to continue our work. It is your Association. Please help us be as good as we are capable of being by keeping your dues current and attending our annual Education and Training Conferences.

Best wishes to all of you. Stay safe.

R. Dane Merryman Executive Director

BOARD MEMBERS William D. Smith – 2017 Retired Chief of Police • Derry Township Police

Thomas Gross – 2017 Chief of Police • York Area Regional Police

Howard Kocher – 2017 Chief of Police • Lehman Township

James Sabath – 2017 Chief of Police • Tinicum Township

Bill Daly – 2016 Chief of Police • Horsham Township

Larry Palmer – 2016 Chief of Police • Palmer Township

Ken Truver – 2016 Chief of Police • Castle Shannon Borough

James Adams – 2018 Chief of Police • Upper Allen Township

Michael Scott – 2018 Chief of Police • Baldwin Borough

Mark Toomey – 2018 Chief of Police • Upper Providence Township

PCPA STAFF R. Dane Merryman, Executive Director, dmerryman@pachiefs.org Alexandra Boutselis, Administrative Assistant, aboutselis@pachiefs.org Joseph Blackburn, Consulting and Member Services Manager, jblackburn@pachiefs.org Christopher Braun, Grants Management and Technology Coordinator, cjbraun@pachiefs.org Cheryl Campbell, Administrative Manager, ccampbell@pachiefs.org Dick Hammon, Accreditation Program Manager, rhammon@pachiefs.org Jerry Miller, Offender Identification Technology Program Manager, jmiller@pachiefs.org Andrea Sullivan, Administrative Assistant and Accreditation Assistant, asullivan@pachiefs.org Bill Gibson, Physical Fitness, fitcop@hotmail.com

6 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

www.pachiefs.org

NEW MEMBERS ACTIVE Ronald Denbow Captain Coraopolis Police Department

Sean McGinley Captain Pennsylvania State Police

David Johnston Chief Curwensville Borough Police Department

James Mileshosky Lieutenant Amity Township Police Department

David Kerestes Chief Elizabeth Township Police Department

Anthony Morelli Chief Troy Borough Police Department

Thomas Szoke Chief White Haven Borough Police Department

Matthew Porter Assistant Chief Pittsburgh Port Authority Police

Brian Uhrmacher Chief Hopewell Township Police Department Adam Zeppuhar Chief Borough of Brentwood Police Department

WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST ACCREDITED AGENCIES

KINGSTON TOWNSHIP

ALLEGHENY COUNTY SHERIFF’S

LUZERNE COUNTY CHIEF MICHAEL A. MORAVEC

ALLEGHENY COUNTY SHERIFF WILLIAM P. MULLEN

THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES WERE RE-ACCREDITED AT THE PLEAC MEETING IN JULY: Douglass Township Montgomery County Chief Barry L. Templin, Jr.

Springettsbury Township York County Chief Daniel E. Stump

Delaware County Sheriff’s Delaware County Sheriff Mary McFall Hopper

Falls Township Bucks County Chief William J. Wilcox

Towamencin Township Montgomery County Chief Paul T. Dickinson

Horsham Township Montgomery County Chief William J. Daly

Spring Garden Township York County Chief George J. Swartz, Jr.

Upper Southampton Township Bucks County Chief Ronald MacPherson

Penn Township York County Chief James W. Laughlin

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 7

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Provided by Chris Boyle, Esq. and reprinted with permission from Marshall, Dennehey, Coleman

• “You are restricted from any use of a motor vehicle without a valid drivers’ license and insurance;” …

• “’NO GANG ACTIVITY’ You are prohibited from associating with, meeting with, talking to, contact with, or communication with current or former members of any gangs or gangs with whom you have ever associated or been affiliated. You will not wear or display any gang colors or paraphernalia,” …

• “Do not meet or communicate with persons who you know, or should know, have ever been criminally charged with a controlled substance offense, or who use, possess or sell controlled substances without license or prescription to do so.” … …In addition, Defendant executed the following as a condition of his parole:

“You will not use, possess or control any illegal drug or controlled substances unless it has been prescribed for you by a licensed physician and is in its original container with the prescription affixed on it.”

UNITED STATES V. GAY, 2015 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 97470 (W.D. PA. JULY 27, 2015) Presently before the Court is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Defendant Tony Gay… The credible evidence offered at the … suppression hearing, including the testimony of Parole Officer Michelle Contis and Parole Supervisor Timothy Wolfe …, established the following facts.

Defendant is charged by way of indictment with: (1) possession with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, …(2) possession of a firearm after having been previously convicted of a felony, … (3) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime... On January 28,

2013, Defendant was paroled from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections … As a parolee, Defendant was subject to certain conditions of release. Amongst Defendant’s conditions are the following: • “Effective 1/30/13 your nightly curfew is from 8:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.;” …; • “You will not use, possess or control any illegal drug or controlled substances unless it has been prescribed for you by a licensed physician and is in its original container with the prescription affixed on it. You will not be present at or frequent any place where such illegal drugs or controlled substances are sold, kept or used;” …

• “You are not to possess any drug paraphernalia …;

8 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

I expressly consent to the search of my person, property and residence, without a warrant, by agents of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Any items, the possession of which constitutes a violation of parole, shall be subject to seizure, and may be used as evidence in the parole revocation process. …On a daily basis, Officer Contis receives reports complied by the City of Pittsburgh Police, which contain information from police complaints and any police contact. … Among the reports are daily briefs from the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Criminal Intelligence Unit. …. These briefs serve as a source of information for parole officers to track the activities of their parolees. … Parole officers regularly rely on the briefs in the course of supervising their parolees. …. The Criminal Intelligence Unit that prepares these briefs is made up of police detectives, at least some of whom provide training and presentations at gang conferences attended by parole officers.

(Tr. 128:1-129:11).

Officer Contis and her supervisor, Timothy Wolfe, have previously identified violations of conditions committed by www.pachiefs.org

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT other supervisees and conducted searches of their residences based on information contained in these briefs. … Officer Contis and Supervisor Wolfe rely on the information set forth in these briefs and have no reason to question their veracity. …. …On November 5, 2013, Officer Contis read the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Criminal Intelligence Unit Daily Intelligence Brief from November 4, …. Of relevance, the Brief included the following paragraph: ZONE 3 … On 11/2/13 at 0031 hrs, Detail Officers conducted a traffic stop on a 2013 tan Chevy …occupied by the driver Northview Heights Crips member Tony GAY … front passenger Tawain CLARK … and rear passenger Northview Heights Crips member Brian PINKNEY … CLARK and PINKNEY admitted they had marijuana in the vehicle. ROs recovered from CLARK a blunt, a burnt marijuana roach and $2925. ROs recovered from PINKNEY a small baggie of marijuana. GAY does not have a valid license and the vehicle was towed. …

Upon reading the Brief, Officer Contis identified multiple violations of Defendant’s conditions of parole, including being out past curfew; driving without a valid license; being with purported gang members; and being in the presence of illegal drugs. ... Officer Contis believed that the information contained within the Brief indicated that Defendant might be engaged in illicit activity. .. Specifically, the facts that Defendant was identified as a gang member, was with another individual identified as a gang member, and the amount of cash recovered caused concern. … The combination of these facts with Defendant’s background (i.e., his charges for possession with intent), as reported in the Brief, caused Officer Contis to believe that Defendant may have been engaged in the drug trade as of the time of the Brief. … …Based on their conclusions, Supervisor Wolfe ordered that Defendant’s residence www.pachiefs.org

be searched. … The search, known as a “compliance check,” was conducted the following day, November 6, 2013, at a time when Defendant was already due to report to the parole office. ...

When Defendant arrived at the parole office on November 6, 2013, he did not volunteer information about the police encounter reported in the Brief until after Officer Contis told him she knew about it. …Officer Contis then handcuffed Defendant and placed him in a holding cell. … Officer Contis and Supervisor Wolfe, joined by several other parole officers, transported Defendant, handcuffed, to his residence. … Upon arriving at the residence, the team knocked on the door, but got no response. … Defendant did not have his key with him. … The team could not find a hidden spare, … nor were they able to reach his mother, … and the remaining doors and windows were locked, …

Accordingly, the team removed a board over a window and sent an agent through the window who then unlocked the front door. …

Officer Contis and Supervisor Wolfe began to search what they previously knew to be Defendant’s bedroom. …

When searching the closet, Officer Contis found a firearm concealed in a purse. … Officer Contis also located what she suspected to be heroin in another bag in the closet. .. Supervisor Wolfe also located suspected heroin within another bag. … Because they had uncovered evidence of possible criminal misconduct, rising above the level of mere technical violations of Defendant’s conditions of parole, Supervisor Wolfe then called the Pittsburgh Police. …When the Pittsburgh Police arrived, Officer Contis and Supervisor Wolfe showed the police what they found and where they found it. … The police then took custody of Defendant, whereupon they obtained a search warrant. …

in accordance with constitutional search and seizure provisions as applied by judicial decision… The second factor, “information provided by others,” includes information that is received from other law enforcement officials during the course of an investigation, which is generally presumed to be reliable. …

This Court must look at the “totality of the circumstances’ of each case to see whether the officer has a ‘particularized and objective basis’ for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” … This type of determination permits “officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that ‘might well elude an untrained person.’” …[T] he information learned from the Brief and pointed out by Officer Contis and Supervisor Wolfe as supporting their decision to search Defendant’s house, when viewed collectively, is ample to support a finding of reasonable suspicion. …

Finding the Government’s arguments more persuasive given the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court is not convinced by Defendant’s arguments, his Motion to Suppress shall be denied.

An appropriate Order follows.

COMMENT: This is a fine piece of cooperative law enforcement. Pittsburgh PD getting the 411 out to someone who can use it, and Probation and Parole getting it on with the search. Can you dig it? I knew that you could. A key piece here is that the PD provided the information to Parole. They didn’t direct, or even request, a compliance check. Obviously, the PD needs probable cause, and Parole has a lesser burden, of reasonable suspicion, so the po-po shouldn’t be using Parole to skirt the warrant requirement. Here, the pieces fell into place exactly as they should and all the troops deserve a “Well Done”.

…In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: The reasonableness of suspicion to search [a parolee] shall be determined

CONTINUED ON PAGE 10X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 9

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT UNITED STATES V. MAILLOUX, THE CHIEF’S 2015 U.S. DIST. LEXIS 95295 (E.D. PA. JULY 22, 2015)

In a four count indictment, the United States charges Christopher Mailloux with production and possession of child pornography. Mr. Mailloux claims that Berks County detectives seized evidence and took statements in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He moves to suppress this evidence. … I will grant Mr. Mailloux’s motion in part…

On December 12, 2012, Berks County Detectives executed a search warrant at 348 Pearl Street in Reading. The search warrant was based on probable cause that Danny Evans, Jr., a resident at the address, was harassing juvenile girls online. The search warrant authorized detectives to seize all computer hardware at the address. The computers were to be “searched for evidence relating to the electronic harassment by communications incidents.” … In total, seven detectives, …, executed the search warrant.

There is no dispute that detectives had probable cause to search 348 Pearl Street.

The manager of an online gaming website complained to Berks County Detectives that an individual, going by the name Danny Femis Appollo, had been utilizing congregate.com to harass minor females and demanding sexually explicit photos and videos of the girls. Detectives learned the IP address of the Danny Femis Appollo, and Comcast Cable, the internet service provider, informed detectives that the IP address was assigned to Colleen Morton at 348 Pearl Street in Reading.

Colleen Morton is Danny Evans’ mother.

Detectives also located a facebook page for Danny Femis Appollo which included photographs of Danny Evans, Jr. and identified Danny Evans, Sr. as Danny Femis Appollo’s father. The United States has charged Mr. Evans with production of child pornography in docket number 13-cr-333.

Detectives arrived at 7:40 a.m. Christina Evans let the detectives into the home.

The detectives gathered Danny Evans,

Christina Evans, Robert Mailloux and

LEGAL UPDATE Christopher Mailloux in the living room.

At the April 23 hearing, the detectives’ attempts to recount the details of what occurred in the living room were challenged by defense counsel. Detectives R and S testified that Detective R read the occupants the warrant and that Detective S informed the occupants that they were not under arrest and that they were free to leave. Despite robust cross examination from defense counsel, both detectives affirmed multiple times that no one in the house was handcuffed.

Following the April 23 hearing, counsel for the government wrote a letter to the court alerting the court and defense counsel that the detectives recalled, at some point after the hearing, that, in fact, the occupants of the house, with the exception of Colleen Morton, were handcuffed in the living room before the search. We reconvened on May 14 solely to explore the issue of who was handcuffed, when and for how long.

Both Detectives R and S recanted their earlier testimony. They explained that when they returned to their offices they reviewed the case file and found photos of the occupants in the living room in handcuffs. Detective S was the photographer. Additionally, the detectives were no longer certain that the occupants were informed of their right to leave the premises during the search.

At the conclusion of the second hearing, Detective Weaver testified that the decision to handcuff the occupants was made by “a supervisor” at approximately 7:50 a.m. He explained that the residents were informed of their right to vacate the property prior to being handcuffed, and that Detective R was not in the living room when the occupants were restrained.

No one knows when the handcuffs were removed.

At approximately 8:00 a.m., Detective S read Miranda warnings to Danny Evans and questioned Mr. Evans in the kitchen. Mr. Evans admitted that he harassed young girls online and that he captured screen shots of the girls engaged in sexual activity. Mr. Evans wanted to

10 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

make clear, however, that he only went after teenage girls unlike Christopher Mailloux who downloaded pornographic images of toddlers. Mr. Evans made a written statement which he signed at 9:12 a.m. …… The detention of an occupant of a home during the execution of a search warrant is one such limited intrusion and is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. … Accordingly, Mr. Mailloux’s detention during the execution of the search warrant at 348 Pearl Street did not violate the Fourth Amendment. …If I were to find a constitutional error in the detention and questioning process, it would appear to be harmless error.

The detectives had every right to seize all computers in the house, regardless of whether they could remember who they handcuffed and when, or regardless of whether they asked questions of the defendant in custody or otherwise. There is no basis to exclude the images found on Mr. Mailloux’s computers or any derivative evidence. b) Fifth Amendment Persons subject to custodial interrogation are entitled to be informed of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and their right to have a lawyer appointed for them. … …At the first hearing, Detective S claimed that he personally told the occupants they could go. At the second hearing, he had no memory of informing the occupants of that right. Detective R never heard anyone instruct the occupants that they were free to leave, but he assumed the occupants were notified pursuant to department policy. Detective Weaver’s testimony was unpersuasive. In any event, handcuffing Mr. Mailloux at around the same time he was told that he could leave the premises would send a mixed message, at best. If I am to apply an objective standard to this scenario, it would seem a statement like “you are free to leave” would have a hollow ring to someone who is in handcuffs, was in handcuffs or is about to be placed in handcuffs. I could understand how

www.pachiefs.org

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT someone in that circumstance would believe he was not, in fact, free to go. …

As Mr. Mailloux was in handcuffs, the fourth King factor is easily met.

Testimony established that Mr. Mailloux was handcuffed for a significant, yet undetermined, period of time. It was the government’s burden to prove that Mr. Mailloux was unrestrained during questioning, and it failed to meet this burden. If he was unrestrained during questioning, it is possible, even likely, that his roommates remained handcuffed in the living room. No witness could recall, and the government could not establish when, or if, the handcuffs were removed from the occupants gathered in the living room. How would this have impressed Mr. Mailloux? If he refused to speak to detectives, would he be placed back in handcuffs and returned to the living room? The use of handcuffs during the search supports a finding of custody and is nearly dispositive of the entire custodial inquiry. …

IV. Conclusion I will exclude Mr. Mailloux’s incriminating statements made without the benefit of Miranda warnings from evidence at trial. …The Miranda violation does not warrant the suppression of the images found on Mr. Mailloux’s computer …

COMMENT: I left out a fair amount of the facts in a lengthy opinion, to concentrate on the handcuffing portion, and to assure no one fell asleep before getting to the end. I would recommend a read of the whole thing if you have the time. Anyway, there is a lot to like in this case, even if some of the evidence was suppressed. Officers obtained a search warrant. That’s good. They went right back to the ADA when they realized they made a mistake in their testimony. That’s good too. Losing one of the statements?

Not so good, but I suspect the lawfully seized child pornography will still be Mr. Sickpuppy’s undoing.

STUMP THE CHUMP Chump: Why does the Americans with Disabilities Act even apply to law enforcement? I understand why we can’t throw them out of a wheelchair, but aren’t we treating a disabled person the same as everyone else when we lock them up the same as everyone else?

Lost in the Swamp Dear Swamp: What if the wheelchair is on fire? Can’t we throw them out of it then? JK, as the kids say. The ADA applies because locking someone up is a “service” as far as the law is concerned, and a disabled scumbag lowlife drug dealer is entitled to the same arrest as a non-disabled scumbag lowlife drug dealer. The law isn’t designed to make law enforcement not arrest disabled people who commit crimes. It is designed to make sure we aren’t giving disabled people a harder time because they are disabled, and to make sure we aren’t locking up disabled people because they are disabled, rather than because they

commit a crime. For instance, an autistic person may desperately want to grab a hold of your badge. Are they “assaulting” you? No. Their disability shows itself by their attraction to the badge. The ADA demands that we make an allowance under these circumstances. How about a guy without legs who is making his way around town in a stolen wheelchair? Can we arrest him for the theft? You bet. Can we make him drag himself along the ground to the wagon to teach him a lesson about stealing? No. No we can’t. There is a lot more to the ADA than that, of course, but the gist of what I am saying is this- First, deal with the emergency.

When that has calmed down sufficiently, accommodate the disability.

The Chump Presented by the Public Entity and Civil Rights Practice Group. Christopher P. Boyle, Esq., Public Entity and Civil Rights Practice Group Phone: (610) 354-8476 • Fax: (610) 354-8299 E-mail: cpboyle@mdwcg.com Should you have additional inquiries, please contact Chris, or: Joseph J. Santarone, Esq. Chair, Public Entity and Civil Rights Practice Group Phone: (215) 575-2626 E-mail: jjsantarone@mdwcg.com

FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, CARFAX HAS PARTNERED WITH THOUSANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO REDUCE CRIME AND KEEP COMMUNITIES SAFER. CARFAX HAS MORE THAN 12 BILLION VEHICLE HISTORY RECORDS AND RECEIVES MORE THAN 3.5 MILLION RECORDS EACH DAY FROM MORE THAN 76,000 SOURCES. USING DATA, WE PROVIDE SEVERAL NO-COST SOLUTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CARFAX®, VISIT WWW.CARFAXFORPOLICE.COM. Matthew Simpson | matthewsimpson@carfax.com | 610-858-7304

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 11

PCPA ANNUAL Education and Training

CONFERENCE

Photo captions – Top row from left: Opening Ceremony; Installation Banquet; Annual Education and Training Conference Attendees presenting Winning the Battle; Mary-Ellen Jolley & Incoming President, Chief Robert Jolley at the Annual Education & Training

Pursuing the Mission: Leadership in Law Enforcement July 12-15, 2015 Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square

at the Installation Banquet. Middle row from left: Tracie Paris, RN, BSN, presenting Winning the Battle; Sergeant Clarke Paris (ret.), Conference. Bottom row from left: PCPA Executive Board; Accreditation Award; PCPA Executive Board at the Business Meeting.

14 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

www.pachiefs.org

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES: AUTHORIZATION AND LIABILITY FOR NALOXONE ADMINISTRATION

By Corey S. Davis, JD, MSPH, Derek Carr, JD, Jessica K. Southwell, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH Reprinted with permission, American Journal of Public Health, August 2015; 105(8) 1530-1537

O

pioid overdose is reversible through the timely administration of naloxone, which has been used by emergency medical services for decades. Law enforcement officers (LEOs) are often the first emergency responders to arrive at an overdose, but they are not typically equipped with naloxone.

This is rapidly changing; more than 220 law enforcement agencies in 24 states now carry naloxone. However, rollout in some departments has been hampered by concerns regarding officer and agency liability.

We systematically examined the legal risk associated with LEO naloxone www.pachiefs.org

administration. LEOs can be authorized to administer naloxone through a variety of mechanisms, and liability risks related to naloxone administration are similar to or lower than those of other activities in which LEOs commonly engage. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print June 11, 2015: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2015.302638) THE NUMBER OF US LIVES LOST to opioid overdose has been increasing for nearly 2 decades, in an epidemic that affects people of all ages, races, and geographic areas.1-4 This 6-fold rise has been driven mainly by opioid analgesics,5,6 although heroin-involved deaths have recently begun to increase as well.7-12 The most recent data have shown a continued

increase in fatal opioid overdoses, with painkiller-linked deaths remaining near their highs and heroin-related fatalities doubling from 2010 to 2012.12,13 Fatal opioid overdose is a solvable public health problem. Whether caused by heroin or prescription painkillers, opioid overdose is reversible through the timely administration of the prescription medication naloxone and, when necessary, the provision of ancillary emergency care.14-17 Opioids kill by depressing respiration to the point that insufficient oxygen is available to brain and other cells, a condition termed hypoxia.18-20 Naloxone displaces opioids from the brain receptors to which they attach, reversing their effects and restoring normal respiration.15,21 It is not a controlled substance, has no abuse potential, and has been used for decades to reverse opioid overdose.14,22,23 The public health challenge is ensuring that it is available when and where it is needed.

Beginning in the 1990s, community programs in several states began distributing naloxone and overdose rescue training to people who use drugs and the friends and family members of people at high risk for overdose.24-28 As of 2010, nearly 200 such community-based naloxone distribution programs were in operation, and participants reported reversing more than 10,000 overdoses.29 Initial results from these efforts have been positive. A community naloxone distribution program in Massachusetts was associated with lower opioid overdose death rates,16 and a simulation model demonstrated that distributing naloxone to heroin users for use at witnessed overdoses is cost-effective.30 Although most early efforts to increase access to naloxone operated without clear legal authorization, many states have recently modified law and policy to encourage the wider prescription, distribution, and administration of naloxone.31,32 By mid-2014, 25 states and the District of Columbia had authorized the prescription of naloxone to friends and family members of those at risk for opioid overdose, and 21 had enacted legal CONTINUED ON PAGE 16X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 15

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES... protections for overdose bystanders who summon help in the event of an overdose.33 The goal of these laws is to increase the likelihood that naloxone will be available when and where it is needed and to encourage overdose bystanders to summon emergency responders, who in many areas remain the only source for overdose rescue with naloxone.33 Paramedics have been carrying and administering naloxone for decades, but the first emergency personnel to arrive at the scene of an overdose are often not paramedics but rather emergency medical technicians (EMTs), emergency medical providers with a lower level of training than paramedics, or law enforcement officers (LEOs).34 Nationwide, EMTs outnumber paramedics approximately 3 to 1, and LEOs are approximately 10 times more numerous.35,36 These disparities are typically more pronounced in rural areas and other underserved locations such as tribal lands.37 Equipping EMTs and LEOs with naloxone may therefore reduce the amount of time between the onset of respiratory depression and the administration of naloxone.34,38 Because damage to the brain and other organs generally increases the longer the victim remains hypoxic, the quicker normal respiration is restored, the better outcomes are likely to be.16,39,40 In conjunction with legal changes expanding naloxone access to laypeople, states have also rapidly modified laws and regulations to grant EMTs the authority to administer naloxone. In 2013, only 13 states included naloxone administration in the EMT scope of practice38; by September 2014, this number had risen to 24.41 Because in many jurisdictions LEOs are also dispatched to overdose calls and are often the first on scene, there has been intense interest in equipping them with naloxone as well. The Office of National Drug Control Policy has urged law enforcement agencies to take that step, and its director has declared that naloxone “should be in the patrol cars of every law enforcement professional across the nation.”42(p1) The attorney general of the United States recently announced plans for

federal LEOs to explore carrying naloxone, joining themany agencies that have already initiated the intervention and setting the tone for those that have not.43 As of September 2014, more than 220 law enforcement agencies in the United States were carrying naloxone, after a period of rapid scale-up. One of the intervention’s early adopters, the Quincy, Massachusetts, Police Department, launched its law enforcement overdose reversal program in 2010 and has reversed more than 300 overdoses to date.34,44 More recently, New York State allocated $5 million in drug forfeiture funds to purchasing naloxone and funding law enforcement overdose training,45 which has resulted in adoption of naloxone initiatives by more than 150 law enforcement agencies in the state, including the New York City Police Department, in which more than 20 000 street-level personnel will carry the medication.46 Despite this enthusiastic response from many agencies, rollout in some departments has been hampered by concerns regarding officer and agency liability, with officials in several jurisdictions citing liability fears as a reason for not equipping officers with the medication.47-49 We provide here an overview of the current landscape of law enforcement naloxone access and the legal risk environment associated with LEO overdose reversal activities.50 We conclude that LEOs can be authorized to administer naloxone through a variety of mechanisms, and liability risks related to naloxone administration to reverse suspected opioid overdose are similar to or lower than those of other activities in which LEOs commonly engage.

AUTHORIZATION Because naloxone is a prescription medication, it can only be administered by a person operating under a valid prescription order.51 Both EMS and LEO responders who administer naloxone typically do so under what is termed a protocol or standing order, whereby a medical professional who is authorized to prescribe the medication empowers authorized individuals to administer

16 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

it to a person who meets specified criteria.17 Although most law enforcement agencies that carry naloxone are located in states that have directly or indirectly permitted that practice via law or regulation, as of September 2014 LEOs in 2 states (Pennsylvania and Michigan) administer the medication under the authority of medical orders issued by the local emergency medical services agency’s medical director (Daniel Schwartz, MD, personal communication, August 26, 2014; Sheriff Ted Schendel, personal communication, August 13, 2014) without any additional authorization.

Through a systematic legal analysis, we identified 11 states that have added naloxone administration to the scope of practice of law enforcement personnel, which explicitly permits them to administer the medication under a standing medication order. Of those 11, this authority has been granted via statute in 10 (Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) and by regulation in 1 (Massachusetts). An additional 10 states in which officers carry naloxone (California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Utah, Tennessee, and Vermont) have passed laws that permit the medication to be prescribed to and administered by a variety of individuals but do not specifically mention law enforcement. In Rhode Island, officers carry naloxone under the authority of regulations promulgated by the state Department of Health (Figure 1).

IMMUNITY Using standard legal research methods, we systematically searched the Westlaw legal database to determine whether and to what extent naloxone administration in the outof-hospital setting has been the grounds for a lawsuit. We discovered no cases brought as a result of naloxone administration by LEOs, which is perhaps not surprising because that practice is relatively new.

However, we also did not find any cases regarding the prescription, distribution, or administration of naloxone via community www.pachiefs.org

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

distribution programs, which have been operating for more than a decade and have been involved in more than 10,000 reversals.29 Although a few cases in the emergency medical services context have involved naloxone administration, they all center on otherwise tortious acts by emergency medical services personnel rather than the administration of the medication itself.

Some law enforcement officials may find these results surprising. Surveys demonstrate that LEOs, like physicians, consistently overestimate their likelihood of being found legally liable for their onthe-job actions.52-54 In reality, however, the legal risk to any person who acts in good faith to rescue another is very low.51 In nearly all cases, it is reduced further when the individual involved is an LEO acting in the course of his or her professional duties.

As a general matter, to succeed in a suit claiming damages attributable to the administration of naloxone, the aggrieved party would be required to show that he or she suffered an injury that was caused by the negligence of the person administering the medication. Such negligence can generally be shown by proving that the administrator acted in a way other than how a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have acted. www.pachiefs.org

Although LEO naloxone administration is a relatively new practice, the use of the medication to reverse overdose in the prehospital setting is well established,17,22 and the number of law enforcement agencies adopting it is rapidly expanding.

Whether a particular LEO’s actions were reasonable as a legal matter would depend on the particular circumstances of each situation, but the long-standing use of naloxone for emergency overdose reversal combined with explicit support from both federal and state governments strongly weighs in favor of a determination that the general practice of LEO naloxone administration is reasonable. Once the administrator shows that his or her actions were reasonable, the plaintiff cannot prevail.51 Even if a claimant is able to successfully argue that the administration was unreasonable and therefore negligent, he or she must still show that it was the cause of harm that the claimant suffered.55 Although no medication is without some risk, naloxone administration has a low risk of serious side effects. 56-61 In addition, most states permit the LEO to argue that the actions of the person who overdosed must be taken into account in assigning legal responsibility.55,62

Several additional immunities are also available to LEOs. In general, officers cannot be held legally accountable for any acts or omissions undertaken in good faith and within the scope of their employment.63 This broad immunity stems from several sources. First, LEOs are generally immune from liability for civil claims arising from what are termed discretionary acts or omissions.64 Discretionary acts are any in which the LEO must exercise his or her professional judgment by considering the specific factual circumstances of a situation and making a subjective determination based on these circumstances, as in deciding whether naloxone administration is indicated in a particular situation.65,66 Moreover, the law in most states either permits or requires governmental entities to indemnify an officer against lawsuits arising out of an alleged act or omission made in the performance of the officer’s duties.67 In these states, an individual officer will not be personally liable for any monetary damages that might be assessed.68 In addition, in most instances an LEO is entitled to be defended by an attorney either working for or paid for by the government or the union representing the officer.69 A recent survey of federal CONTINUED ON PAGE 18X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 17

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES... civil rights claims found that even when LEOs are not explicitly covered by such a law they are almost never required to personally cover lawsuit costs, even when their conduct was so egregious that it led to them being disciplined, terminated, or criminally prosecuted.70 In the same vein, LEOs would generally not be liable for failing to provide overdose rescue, and equipping them with naloxone does not, in general, expose them to liability for failure to deploy it in an overdose emergency. In nearly all states, LEOs have no legal duty to assist others, even when they are in a position to do so.67 An LEO, of course, may face administrative discipline for violating the standard operating procedures of his or her employing agency if such procedures mandate particular actions.

Other immunity may also apply in some states. For example, all states have enacted at least 1 law that provides civil immunity to good Samaritans who provide aid in the event of an emergency.32 These laws vary from state to state, with little consistency in the classes of people to whom protection is extended, whether and to what extent training is required for their protections to apply, and the extent of the protection.71 Although these laws are intended to encourage laypeople and others who would not otherwise provide emergency care to do so, some also extend full or partial immunity to professional rescuers.72,73 In some states off-duty LEOs may be covered by these laws to the same extent as an ordinary citizen, and off-duty officers acting under the auspices of a nonprofit organization or governmental agency would likely be covered by the federal Volunteer Protection Act.74 These protections, particularly when layered atop the low baseline liability risk associated with good-faith naloxone administration, would make it extremely difficult for a lawsuit against an LEO, employing agency, or overarching governmental entity to succeed.

GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY In general, states may be sued only with their consent, a doctrine known as sovereign immunity.67 Although nearly

every state has partially waived this immunity, these waivers generally retain immunity for the discretionary acts of or omissions by officers made in good faith and within the scope of their employment.

Also, state laws often prohibit punitive damages or otherwise cap the amount of money the government can be required to pay should it lose a suit, often to the amount covered by insurance. 62,69,75 In at least 11 states, claims against the state are heard by special boards on which administrative judges, appointed and employed by the government, have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine claims.69 In many of these states, the administrative board’s decision can be appealed to a traditional court only with permission of a state agency.

At the local level, municipalities and other political subdivisions such as counties and towns generally enjoy similar protections as those available to state governmental entities.67 In more than three quarters of states, the same or substantially similar provisions apply to both state and local governmental entities. Illinois and Oregon permit local government liability only if the employees themselves are not immune, and West Virginia excludes localities from immunity only if the acts result in injury, death, or loss to persons or property.76 Of the remaining states, at least 8 place monetary limits on amounts a plaintiff can recover.

NALOXONE-SPECIFIC IMMUNITY LAWS As of September 2014, 25 states and the District of Columbia had enacted laws to encourage the prescription, dispensing, and administration of naloxone.32 Although these laws have some variation, most permit prescribers acting in good faith to prescribe the medication to people who are likely to have the opportunity to use it to reverse overdose and permit those people to administer the medication. Most also provide all parties with immunity from civil liability and criminal charges, and some provide protection from administrative charges such as practicing medicine without a license.33

18 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

LEOs in 11 such states carried naloxone as of September 2014. Nine of these states provide civil immunity for people who administer naloxone as long as the person does so in good faith. Several states add additional requirements, such as that the administrator exercise reasonable care or act without gross negligence or willful misconduct. Two require that the administrator have received training or relevant information (Table 1). Although many of these laws were aimed mainly at increasing access among family members, friends, and other laypeople likely to witness an overdose, their language is typically broad enough that they can reasonably be read to include LEOs. Of the 11 states that directly authorize LEOs to administer naloxone, 7 (Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin) provide officers with civil immunity as long as the LEO meets certain standards.

Five require that the officer act in good faith. Georgia law requires that the LEO act in good faith, without gross negligence or intent to harm, or as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would act.

Indiana and Louisiana require the absence of gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Although the Oklahoma law does not contain an explicit immunity provision, it dictates that LEOs acting as authorized are covered under the state’s broad Good Samaritan act (Table 1).

In Delaware, the immunity applies only if the LEO has completed a training course approved by the Department of Health, and Wisconsin officers are provided immunity only if they act in accordance with an agreement entered with an ambulance provider or physician.

By contrast, Georgia law explicitly notes that civil immunity applies even if the LEO administers naloxone without being trained in its use. In all cases, the immunity granted by these laws is in addition to the immunity described earlier.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The opioid overdose epidemic in the United States shows no signs of abating.

Naloxone has been used for more than www.pachiefs.org

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

40 years to reverse opioid overdose, and many states and the federal government are acting quickly to expand access to the medication. We conclude that LEOs can be authorized to administer naloxone through a variety of means, that adding the administration of naloxone to an LEO’s duties is unlikely to meaningfully affect liability risk for either officers or agencies, and that the passage of laws explicitly permitting LEOs to administer naloxone in the event of an overdose emergency greatly increases the chances that they will do so.

Although the expansion of naloxone administration authority to LEOs shows promise as an overdose reduction measure, research is needed to identify best practices and to determine whether LEO naloxone programs are a good use of scarce public resources in all jurisdictions.

In areas in which LEOs are typically the first emergency responders to arrive at an overdose, equipping them with naloxone can reduce time to overdose rescue, possibly lowering morbidity and mortality by decreasing the amount of time the victim remains in respiratory depression.34 This research demonstrates that many of the states in which this is most likely to be the case (generally those with large rural regions) have not modified state law to encourage or explicitly permit LEOs to administer naloxone (Figure 1). Adoption of such measures by those states should be a high priority.

Although cost-effectiveness studies on law enforcement overdose reversal initiatives are not yet available, the price www.pachiefs.org

of the medication is relatively low, at approximately $60 to $80 per 2-dose rescue kit—a relatively small price when weighed against potential reductions in fatal overdose and nonfatal morbidity.

In addition, law enforcement naloxone initiatives may have benefits beyond overdose rescue. Initial evidence has suggested that training officers in evidencebased public health initiatives can improve their receptiveness to those initiatives,77,78 and officers report that participating in naloxone programs improves public perception of law enforcement and LEOs.34 The training that accompanies LEO naloxone initiatives may be an opportune time to educate officers regarding addiction and overdose risk, possibly increasing their understanding of and support for overdose-related public health initiatives and strengthening relations between LEOs and the communities they serve. Encouraging LEOs to view individuals suffering from overdose as patients in need of care instead of criminals in need of arrest may, in time, discourage the use of policing policies and practices that increase the risk of overdose and other drug-related harms.77-80 In closing, we note that increased naloxone access is by no means the only tool to address the epidemic of opioid overdose. LEO naloxone initiatives should not come at the cost of scaling up or initiating community-based naloxone programs, which have a demonstrated record of success, 16 and should be paired with laws that encourage bystanders

to summon emergency responders by providing meaningful immunity for those that do.32 Although the rapidly expanding efforts to reduce time to overdose rescue are long overdue, they are unlikely to have much lasting effect in the absence of a comprehensive strategy to scale up evidence-based drug treatment and counseling, modify punitive drug policies, and reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing. The question is not whether these interventions work, but how to most effectively bring them to scale as part of a comprehensive, cross-sectoral effort to reduce the epidemic of drug overdose.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Derek Carr and Corey S. Davis are with the Network for Public Health Law— Southeastern Region, Carrboro, NC. Jessica K. Southwell is with the North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Leo Beletsky is with the Northeastern University School of Law and Bouvé College of Health Sciences, Boston, MA. Correspondence should be sent to Corey S. Davis, Network for Public Health Law— Southeastern Region, 101 E. Weaver St. Carrboro, NC 27510 (e-mail: cdavis@ networkforphl.org). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link.

This article was accepted February 16, 2015.

CONTRIBUTORS C. S. Davis conceptualized the article, conducted and supervised research, and led the writing. D. Carr and L. Beletsky conducted research and contributed to the article. J. K. Southwell conducted research, created tables and figures, and contributed to the article.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 20X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 19

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work of C. S. Davis, J. K. Southwell, and D. Carr was partially supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Network for Public Health Law program.

Note. All opinions are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders. Human Participant Protection Institutional review board approval was not needed for this research, which did not involve human participants.

REFERENCES 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Vital signs: overdoses of prescription opioid pain relievers and other drugs among women–United States, 1999-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2013;62(26):537–542.

2. Rossen LM, KhanD,WarnerM. Trends and geographic patterns in drug-poisoning death rates in the US, 1999–2009.AmJ Prev Med. 2013;45(6):e19–e25.

3. Chien LH, Hedegaard H, Warner M. Drugpoisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics: United States, 1999–2011. NCHS Data Brief.

2014;(166):1–8.

4. Warner M, Chen LH, Makuc DM, Anderson RN, Miniño AM. Drug poisoning deaths in the United States, 1980– 2008. NCHS Data Brief.

2011;(81):1–8.

5. Okie S. A flood of opioids, a rising tide of deaths. N Engl J Med. 2010;363 (21):1981–1985.

6. Modarai F, Mack K, Hicks P, et al. Relationship of opioid prescription sales and overdoses, North Carolina. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;132(1– 2):81–86.

7. Peavy KM, Banta-Green CJ, Kingston S, Hanrahan M, Merrill JO, Coffin PO. “Hooked on” prescription-type opiates prior to using heroin: results from a survey of syringe exchange clients. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2012;44(3):259–265.

8. Pollini RA, Banta-Green CJ, Cuevas- Mota J, Metzner M, Teshale E, Garfein RS. Problematic use of prescription-type opioids prior to heroin use among young heroin injectors. Subst Abuse Rehabil. 2011; 2(1):173–180.

9. Jones CM. Heroin use and heroin use risk behaviors among nonmedical users of prescription opioid pain relievers—United States, 20022004 and 2008-2010. Drug Alcohol Depend.

2013;132(1-2):95–100.

10. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Unintentional drug poisoning (overdose) deaths in New York City, 2000-2012.

Epi Data Brief. 2013; (33):1–4.

11. Markon J. Holder calls deaths from heroin overdoses an “urgent and growing public health crisis.” Washington Post. March 10, 2014. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ holder-callsdeaths-from-heroin-overdoses-anurgentand-growing-public-health-crisis/2014/

03/10/1a99720a-a7cf-11e3-b61e8051b8b52d06_story.html. Accessed October 25, 2014.

12. Rudd RA, Paulozzi LJ, Bauer MJ, et al.

Increases in heroin overdose deaths—28 States, 2010 to 2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014; 63(39):849–854.

13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2013 drug overdose mortality data announced [press release]. Atlanta, GA: January 12, 2015.

14. Chamberlain JM, Klein BL. A comprehensive review of naloxone for the emergency physician.

Am J Emerg Med. 1994;12(6):650–660.

15. Kim D, Irwin KS, Khoshnood K. Expanded access to naloxone: options for critical response to the epidemic of opioid overdose mortality. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(3):402–407.

16. Walley AY, Xuan Z, Hackman HH, et al.

Opioid overdose rates and implementation of overdose education and nasal naloxone distribution in Massachusetts: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f174.

26. Clark AK, Wilder CM, Winstanley EL. A systematic review of community opioid overdose prevention and naloxone distribution programs. J Addict Med. 2014; 8(3):153–163.

27. Piper TM, Stancliff S, Rudenstine S, et al. Evaluation of a naloxone distribution and administration program in New York City. Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(7): 858–870.

28. Doe-Simkins M, Walley AY, Epstein A, Moyer P. Saved by the nose: bystander-administered intranasal naloxone hydrochloride for opioid overdose. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(5): 788–791.

29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Community-based opioid overdose prevention programs providing naloxone—United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(6): 101–105.

30. Coffin PO, Sullivan SD. Costeffectiveness of distributing naloxone to heroin users for lay overdose reversal. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(1):1–9.

17. Ashton H, Hassan Z. Best evidence topic report. Intranasal naloxone in suspected opioid overdose. Emerg Med J. 2006; 23(3):221–223.

31. Beletsky L, Rich JD, Walley AY. Prevention of fatal opioid overdose. JAMA. 2012;308(18):1863–1864.

18. Leino K, Mildh L, Lertola K, Seppala T, Kirvela O. Time course of changes in breathing pattern in morphine- and oxycodoneinduced respiratory depression. Anaesthesia.

1999;54(9):835–840.

32. Davis C, Webb D, Burris S. Changing law from barrier to facilitator of opioid overdose prevention. J Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(suppl 1):33–36.

19. Bouillon T, Bruhn J, Roepcke H, Hoeft A. Opioid-induced respiratory depression is associated with increased tidal volume variability.

Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2003; 20(2):127–133.

20. Pattinson KT. Opioids and the control of respiration. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100(6): 747–758.

21. Lewanowitsch T, Irvine RJ. Naloxone methiodide reverses opioid-induced respiratory depression and analgesia without withdrawal. Eur J Pharmacol. 2002;445(1-2):61–67.

22. Barton ED, Ramos J, Colwell C, Benson J, Baily J, Dunn W. Intranasal administration of naloxone by paramedics. Prehosp Emerg Care.

2002;6(1):54–58.

23. Davis CS, Banta-Green CJ, Coffin P, Dailey MW, Walley AY. Intranasal naloxone for opioid overdose reversal. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015; 19(1):135–137.

24. Maxwell S, Bigg D, Stanczykiewicz K, Carlberg-Racich S. Prescribing naloxone to actively injecting heroin users: a program to reduce heroin overdose deaths. J Addict Dis. 2006;25(3):89–96.

25. Galea S, Worthington N, Piper TM, Nandi VV, Curtis M, Rosenthal DM. Provision of naloxone to injection drug users as an overdose prevention strategy: early evidence from a pilot study in New York City. Addict Behav.

2006;31(5):907–912.

20 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

33. Davis CS. Legal Interventions to Reduce Overdose Mortality: Naloxone Access and Overdose Good Samaritan Laws. St. Paul, MN: Network for Public Health Law; 2014.

34. Davis CS, Ruiz S, Glynn P, Picariello G, Walley AY. Expanded access to naloxone among firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians in Massachusetts. Am J Public Health.

2014;104(8):e7–e9.

35. US Department of Transportation Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services. National EMS Assessment. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. 2012.

36. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. EMS Workforce for the 21st Century: A National Assessment. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2008.

37. Rawlinson C, Crews P. Access to Quality Health Services in Rural Areas Emergency Medical Services: A Literature Review. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, School of Rural Public Health, Southwest Rural Health Research Center; 2003.

38. Davis CS, Southwell JK, Niehaus VR, Walley AY, Dailey MW. Emergency medical services naloxone access: a national systematic legal review.

Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(10):1173–1177.

39. Strachan L, Noble DW. Hypoxia and surgical patients—prevention and treatment of an unnecessary cause of morbidity and mortality. J R Coll Surg Edinb. 2001;46(5):297–302. www.pachiefs.org

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

40. Sporer KA. Strategies for preventing heroin overdose. BMJ. 2003;326(7386): 442–444.

41. Davis C. Legal Interventions to Reduce Overdose Mortality: Emergency Medical Services Naloxone Access. St. Paul, MN: Network for Public Health Law; 2014.

42. Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Announcing the opioid overdose toolkit [press release]. Washington, DC: August 28, 2013.

43. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs.

Attorney General Holder announces plans for federal law enforcement personnel to begin carrying naloxone [press release]. Washington, DC: July 31, 2014.

44. Ronan P. Quincy police successfully use Narcan for 300th time. Patriot Ledger. October 8, 2014. Available at: http://www.patriotledger.com/ article/20141008/News/141006435. Accessed October 23, 2014.

45. Letter from Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, to Law Enforcement Agencies, April 3, 2014. Available at: http://www. ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/features/cop/ COP_Letter.pdf. Accessed October 23, 2014.

46. Goodman D. In expanded program, officers across New York City will carry antidote for heroin overdoses. New York Times. May 27, 2014. Available at: http://www.nytimes.

www.pachiefs.org

com/2014/05/27/nyregion/in-expanded-programofficers-across-newyork-city-will-carry-antidotefor-heroinoverdoses.html. Accessed October 23, 2014.

47. Ortega O. Police union, Somerville at odds on Narcan. Boston Globe. September 22, 2014. Available at: http://www.bostonglobe. com/metro/2014/09/21/required-carry-narcansomervillepolice-union-argues-for-new-contract/ ATzxFwi8VYDy3NV1I7nWfI/story.html.

Accessed October 20, 2014.

48. Terry N. Join the conversation: should Asbury Park cops and firefighters be allowed to give opiate antidote Narcan? Asbury Park Press. March 10, 2014. Available at: http://www.app.com/article/ 20140309/NJNEWS/303090028/-1/UPDATE/ Asbury-Park-won-t-allow-copsfirefighters-to-giveopiate-antidote-Narcan.Accessed October 23, 2014.

49. Dinan E. Pols, first responders debate letting officers give overdose antidote. Seacoast Online. May 6, 2014. Available at: http:// www.seacoastonline.com/article/20140506/ News/405060407. Accessed October 23, 2014.

50. Rhodes T. The “risk environment”: a framework for understanding and reducing drugrelated harm. Int J Drug Policy. 2002;13(2):85–94.

51. Burris S, Norland J, Edlin BR. Legal aspects of providing naloxone to heroin users in the United

States. Int J Drug Policy. 2001;12(3):237–248.

52. Lawthers AG, Laird NM, Lipsitz S, Hebert L, Brennan TA, Localio AR. Physicians’ perceptions of the risk of being sued. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1992;17(3):463–482.

53. Carrier ER, Reschovsky JD, Mello MM, Mayrell RC, Katz D. Physicians’ fears of malpractice lawsuits are not assuaged by tort reforms. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010; 29(9):1585–1592.

54. Hughes T. Police officers and civil liability: “the ties that bind”? Policing. 2001; 24(2):240– 262.

55. Burris S, Beletsky L, Castagna C, Coyle C, Crowe C, McLaughlin JM. Stopping an invisible epidemic: legal issues in the provision of naloxone to prevent opioid overdose. Drexel Law Review.

2009; 1(2):273–339.

56. Yealy DM, Paris PM, Kaplan RM, Heller MB, Marini SE. The safety of prehospital naloxone administration by paramedics. Ann Emerg Med. 1990;19(8): 902–905.

57. Hsu W, Rao RB, Nelson LS. Naloxone hazards overstated. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol.

1997;35(2):215–217, 219–220.

58. Buajordet I, Naess AC, Jacobsen D, Brors O. Adverse events after naloxone treatment of CONTINUED ON PAGE 22X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 21

ENGAGING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN OVERDOSE REVERSAL INITIATIVES...

IS YOUR INFORMATION UP-TO-DATE? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO VISIT THE PCPA WEBSITE AT WWW.PACHIEFS.ORG AND LOG IN AT THE TOP RIGHT CORNER USING YOUR EMAIL AND PASSWORD.

episodes of suspected acute opioid overdose. Eur J Emerg Med. 2004; 11(1):19–23.

59. Wermeling DP. Review of naloxone safety for opioid overdose: practical considerations for new technology and expanded public access. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2015;6(1):20–31.

60. Belz D, Lieb J, Rea T, Eisenberg MS. Naloxone use in a tiered-response emergency medical services system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006;10(4):468–471.

61. Osterwalder JJ. Naloxone—for intoxications with intravenous heroin and heroin mixtures— harmless or hazardous? A prospective clinical study. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1996;34(4):409–416.

62. American Law Institute. Restatement (Second) of Torts. Philadelphia, PA: American Law Institute; 1979.

63. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 SW 2d 650. (TX 1994).

64. Everitt v. General Elec. Co., 932 A. 2d 831 (NH 2007).

65. De Geest G. Who should be immune from tort liability? J Legal Stud. 2012; 41(2):291–319.

66. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 US 800 (1982).

67. Dobbs D, Hayden T, Bublick E. Dobbs’ Law of Torts. 2nd ed. Eagan, MN: Thomson West; 2011.

Logging in will allow you to gain access to members-only pages and information as well as the full membership directory. Here you can make changes to your contact information and department information.

Increasingly, the PA Chiefs of Police Association uses electronic methods, such as our web site, to keep our membership up-to-date and informed.

Please make sure your email address is current and correct so that you don’t miss out on pertinent information between magazines.

68. Jeffries JC Jr. In praise of the Eleventh Amendment and Section 1983. Va Law Rev. 1998;84(1):47–82.

69. Shepard’s Editorial Staff. Civil Actions Against State and Local Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers. 2nd ed. Eagan, MN: Thomson West; 2002.

70. Schwartz JC. Police indemnification. New York Univ Law Rev. 2014;89(3): 885–1005.

71. Sutton V. Is there a doctor (and a lawyer) in the house? Why our Good Samaritan laws are doing more harm than good for a national public health security strategy: a fifty-state survey. J Health Biomed Law. 2010;6:261–300.

72. Waisman DA. Negligence, responsibility, and the clumsy Samaritan: is there a fairness rationale for the Good Samaritan immunity? Ga State Univ Law Rev. 2013; 29(Spring):609–683.

73. Reuter SR. Physicians as good Samaritans.

Should they receive immunity for their negligence when responding to hospital emergencies? J Leg Med. 1999; 20(2):157–193.

74. Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. 14501–14505.

75. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981).

76. W. Va. Code Ann. § 29-12A-4(c)(2).

77. Davis CS, Beletsky L. Bundling occupational safety with harm reduction information as a feasible method for improving police receptiveness to syringe access programs: evidence from three US cities. Harm Reduct J. 2009;6:16.

78. Silverman B, Davis CS, Graff J, Bhatti U, Santos M, Beletsky L. Harmonizing disease prevention and police practice in the implementation of HIV prevention programs: up-stream strategies from Wilmington, Delaware.

Harm Reduct J. 2012;9(1):17.

79. Strathdee SA, Beletsky L, Kerr T. HIV, drugs and the legal environment. Int J Drug Policy.

2015;26(suppl 1):S27–S32.

80. Davis CS, Burris S, Kraut-Becher J, Lynch KG, Metzger D. Effects of an intensive street-level police intervention on syringe exchange program use in Philadelphia, PA. Am J Public Health. 2005; 95(2):233–236.

Your accurate information will allow us to better serve you!

Thank you!

22 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

www.pachiefs.org

COMMONWEALTH COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION...

COMMONWEALTH COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION: “ARE POLICE MOBILE VIDEO RECORDINGS A PUBLIC RECORD IN PENNSYLVANIA?” WITH A RESOUNDING “YES THEY ARE” - PSP V. GROVE

By Chris Boyle

The short story: • The video portion of a mobile video recording is a public record and must be turned over pursuant to a Right to Know request.

• The audio portion of a mobile video recording may be redacted (at the agency’s expense) if the agency can show either: 1) that the audio is truly a criminal investigative record, or 2) that the civilian being recorded was unaware that the recording was being made.

• Police Departments are required to maintain all video recordings for thirty-one (31) days, minimum.

• Police Departments may destroy or tape over a mobile video recording in the time period between thirty-two (32) and ninety (90) days, UNLESS: www.pachiefs.org

o The incident resulted in a citation being issued; o The recording is necessary as part of an investigation or prosecution; o A criminal defendant requests it in writing; o A civil litigant requests it in writing o A Police Department is utilizing the video as training material.

The Long Story: When a case like this comes down from the Commonwealth Court, we are reminded that the landscape of open records in Pennsylvania is not the Rocky Mountains, subject to change only over millennia, but more like a Philadelphian winter, changed overnight by a passing snowstorm. That storm’s name is Michele Grove and the blizzard arrived on July 7, 2015 in the matter of

Pennsylvania State Police v. Grove, in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.

Borrowing liberally from the Court’s opinion, the underlying case lines up as follows: On March 24, 2014, Requestor [Grove] submitted to PSP a request under the RTKL [Right to Know Law] seeking “a copy of the police report and any videos/ audio taken by the officers” at the site of a two vehicle accident on State Route 144 in Potter Township….PSP partially denied the request, providing the public information release report of the accident, but withholding other records on the ground that they were exempt from disclosure as criminal investigative records under Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL…PSP also asserted that video and audio recordings were exempt as records “pertaining to audio recordings, telephone or radio transmissions received by emergency dispatch personnel, including 911 recordings” under Section 708(b)(18)(i).

On appeal to this court, PSP does not contend that the recordings at issue are transmissions or recordings received by emergency dispatch personnel and does not claim any exemption from disclosure under Section 708(b)(18)(i) of the RTKL. Rather, PSP argues that its vehicle video recordings are exempt under Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL and Section 9106(c)(4) of CHRIA [Criminal History Record Information Act] as criminal investigative records….

[T]here are two PSP video recordings… the Vanorden MVR contains no audio component…Trooper Thomas, is the author of the incident report, and the MVR from his vehicle contains both video and audio….

Requestor timely appealed to OOR [Officer of Open Records] Of particular note in the sections of the opinion quoted above, is the fact that while the recordings at issue were mobile CONTINUED ON PAGE 24X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 23

COMMONWEALTH COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION... video recordings from the troopers’ patrol cars, Grove’s original request covered body worn cameras as well, as she sought “body recorders” in her original request. While some might argue that the opinion only covers mobile video cameras, and not body worn cameras, there is definitely an argument to be made that the opinion can be read widely enough to cover both.

In any event, under the Right to Know Act, the burden rests with the agency to prove an exception under the Act, and the presumption under the law will be that the video from a body worn camera is also a “public record”. Under the Right to Know Act that presumption of a public record is overcome only by: 1. Exceptions under Section 708 of the Act; or 2. Information protected by a recognized privilege; or 3. Exemptions from disclosure under federal or state law, regulation or judicial order.

Cases interpreting this section, and allowing for the agency carrying the burden, have found that exemptions from disclosure must be narrowly construed.

See McGill, 83 A.3d 476, 479 (Pa. Commw. 2014).

While there are some similarities between the Right to Know Act and the Criminal History Record Information Act, when it comes to an exception for video, only CHRIA provides a definition for “investigative” information: Information assembled as a result of the performance of any inquiry, formal or informal, into a criminal incident or an allegation of criminal wrongdoing and may include modus operandi information.

198 Pa. C.S. § 9102. CHRIA also provides that this investigative information shall not be disseminated under most circumstances, and never “unless the department, agency or individual requesting the information is a criminal justice agency which requests the information in connection with its duties, and the request is based upon a name,

fingerprints, modus operandi, genetic typing, a voice print or other identifying characteristic.” 18 Pa. C.S. § 9106(c)(4).

The court is then left to decide whether the two videos at issue in Grove meet the definitions, and are therefore worthy of exemption. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is a mixed bag that comes out of the Commonwealth Court, and one not particularly in favor of exemption.

The court points out that the evidence produced in the underlying matter (and the majority of police department policies that this writer has reviewed) make it clear that videos are not overwhelmingly utilized as evidence in a criminal investigation, but rather, as a means to document and evaluate an officers’ performance. Such a use does not fit squarely under the investigative exclusions found in either CHRIA or the RTKL. Perhaps more importantly, the court recognizes that because MVR videos are recorded in a public place, the video portion is not entitled to protection under either law, or the Wiretap Act for that matter, as there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in a video recorded in a public place. See also Tagouma v. Investigative Consultant Services, Inc., 2010, Pa. Super. 147, 4 A.3d 170, 177-78 (Pa. Super. 210), cited by the Grove court. The mere fact that a record “has some connection to a criminal proceeding does not automatically exempt it under Section 708(b)(16) of the RTKL or CHRIA. Grove, citing Cole v.

Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, 77 A.3d 694, 697-98 (Pa. Commw. 2013).

Further, the court went the extra step, pointing out that if the speaker was put on notice by the troopers of the recording (as required by Pa. C.S. § 5104(16)), even that portion of the audio is offered no protection from disclosure as a public record. Of course PSP personnel, who knew the recording was being made, are entitled to no expectation of privacy, and no exclusion under either Act. Left unsettled in the Grove opinion, however, is whether PSP can redact the portions of conversation of citizens that was recorded.

The second video in this matter, which contains audio recordings as well, captured

24 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

conversation with non law enforcement personnel. It was not clear on the record before the Commonwealth Court, as to whether those individuals were aware that they were being recorded. While some would see the fact that the Grove court allowed for redaction of such audio as itself forming an exception, the court actually left the door open for yet another appeal, should PSP redact such information.

The opinion does make clear, however, that if the civilians were not aware they were being recorded, the audio would be properly redacted. The opinion also does not prevent a law enforcement entity, or other agency, from redacting truly investigative information but, again, the burden will be on the agency to prove that it is in fact “investigative”.

With all said and done, after reminding the reader that the burden to prove an exclusion rested squarely on the shoulders of the agency, the court found that all of the video in the two recordings was, in fact, a “public record” and had to be turned over. As to the audio portion, the agency remained free to redact true “investigative” information and audio where a citizen was not aware of the recording, but did not foreclose further appeal if the State Police choose to redact.

The reaction in law enforcement circles was swift and certain, condemning, privately, the holding of the court as creating an undue burden on law enforcement and other government agencies in the Commonwealth. “I can’t redact the audio portion. If I could, it wouldn’t really be tamper-proof now, would it?” “Editing video, are they kidding me? I’m no Spielberg.” These comments, and many more like them, lead to a few important points for the reader to remember: 1. The opinion allows an agency to redact certain audio. It does not require it, and the Right to Know Act itself allows an agency to turn over information even when it fits an exception and could be redacted.

2. The belief that an agency may pass along the cost of additional software for www.pachiefs.org

COMMONWEALTH COURT ANSWERS THE QUESTION... redaction, or the officer-hours required for personnel to retrieve and edit video may be passed along to the citizen, is misplaced. The Act specifically provides that if a record is only maintained electronically, or in other non paper media, duplication fees shall be limited to the lesser of the fee for duplication on paper or the fee for duplication in the original media (unless the requestor specifically requests a more expensive median). See Section 1307(a).

3. The court’s opinion does not address many of the myriad other exclusions under the Right to Know Act, including redaction of information identifying a juvenile. Presumably, however, as the burden is on the agency, some editing technique to protect the identity of a juvenile would be required, again, a cost that could not be passed along to the citizen.

While some have suggested scrapping video recording all together, this would appear to be a heat of the moment decision, that does not withstand further scrutiny. In the vast majority of cases handled by my office, the video has proven to be a godsend in one form or another.

For most of the time, the video supports the officer’s version of events, and disproves one or more of plaintiff ’s theories of recovery in a civil rights action. The video provides incredible training opportunities for departments, and is admissible evidence in criminal and civil proceedings that might otherwise be declared hearsay.

Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Scott v. Harris from a few years back, it is often also the best evidence of what actually occurred, rather than what a plaintiff might say occurred. All of that said, it is of course understandable why a department would not want to keep much video around for any longer than it has to, while still protecting itself in the event of civil litigation. Under the Rules of Evidence, video that exists at the time a lawsuit is filed, or where a police department could reasonably be said to be on notice that a lawsuit was imminent, must be retained. If a department wishes www.pachiefs.org

to delete video, however, it must still comply with state law: That law is found at 18 Pa. C.S. § 5749 “retention of certain records.” The statute provides that law enforcement shall maintain all recordings of oral communications intercepted under Section 5704(16) (relating to exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communications) for a minimum of 31 days after the date of the interception. All recordings made under Section 5704(16) shall be recorded over or otherwise destroyed no later than 90 days after the date of the recording unless any of the following apply:

notice to the [law enforcement] commander indicating a desire that the recording be maintained. The written notice must specify the date, time and location of the recording; the names of the parties involved; and, if a civil action has been initiated, the case caption and docket number.

5. The [law enforcement] commander intends to use the recording for training purposes.

In a perhaps more simple format, the statute provides that a recording must be held for at least 31 days, and no more than 90 days, unless: it is requested by a criminal defendant or litigant, it could

The amendment of Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act last year may have left unsettled the question as to whether video and audio would be considered a public record. The Grove case answers that question pretty clearly. Video is a public record, and audio may also be under the right circumstances. Transparency is the buzz word in the Commonwealth and the courts have shown us that that transparency will require adjustment.

1. The contents of the recordings result in the issuance of a citation…

2. The commander or a law enforcement officer on the recording believes that the contents of the recording or evidence derived from the recording may be necessary in a proceeding for which disclosure is authorized under Section 5717…or 5721.1…

3. A criminal defendant who is a participant on the recording reasonably believes that the recording may be useful for its evidentiary value at some later time in a specific criminal proceeding and, no later than 30 days following the filing of criminal charges, provides written notice to the commander indicating a desire that the recording be maintained…

4. An individual who is a participant on the recording intends to pursue a civil action or has already initiated the civil action and, no later than 30 days after the date of the recording, gives written

be used as evidence, or is to be used for training purposes.

The amendment of Pennsylvania’s Wiretap Act last year may have left unsettled the question as to whether video and audio would be considered a public record. The Grove case answers that question pretty clearly. Video is a public record, and audio may also be under the right circumstances.

Transparency is the buzz word in the Commonwealth and the courts have shown us that that transparency will require adjustment. Whether the reader chooses to more strictly adhere to the retention schedule of Section 5749, or prepare to turn over more video than perhaps they ever expected, at least we can say we finally have a bright line rule.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Christopher Boyle is an attorney at Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin in their King of Prussia office. He may be reached at (610) 354-8476, cpboyle@mdwcg.com.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 25

TECHNOLOGY

UPDATE

By Christopher J. Braun, MSIT, PCPA Technology Coordinator

MOBILE FINGERPRINT ID, RAPID DNA AND OFFENDER IDENTIFICATION

MPOETC elective courses, 3 hours of Tactical Medicine, 3 hours of the Eye Witnesses as Evidence and 3 hours for Substance Abuse for Police officers.

MOBILE FINGERPRINT ID The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association has a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency to assist municipal police departments obtain mobile fingerprint identification devices. These devices allow police officers in the field to make a fingerprint identification by transmitting the fingerprint to the Pennsylvania State Police Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

The Association issued a request for proposal in August to find vendors to supply the devices. The proposals are due in late September. It is anticipated that the devices will be available before the end of the year. More information will become available once a vendor or vendors have been selected to provide the devices.

PAVTN

The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association online training, the PA Virtual Training Network, is now serving over 14,000 officers. In the first six months of 2015, over 21,000 courses were completed. This saved Pennsylvania municipal police departments hundreds of thousands of dollars in travel expenses and lost time.

In the fall of 2015, the PAVTN will introduce a new online course for those that conduct sexual offender registration and verifications. The course will cover the legal requirements of the Pennsylvania Sexual Offender Registration and Notification ACT, using PA SORT, using Livescan for fingerprinting, and taking DNA samples. The current Livescan/ CPIN training will be updated to include the new all in one system and new software.

For 2016 the PAVTN is working on 9 hours of MPOETC Mandatory InService, 3 hours for Legal Updates and 6 hours of Use of Force. In addition, the PAVTN is working on 9 hours of

26 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

Access to the PSP Mobile ID system will only be provided to Criminal Justice agencies with an ORI on file with PSP. Agencies interested in submitting Mobile ID transactions to the state, will have to ensure the following requirements are met and required information provided: • Current CLEAN/USER Agreement (the CLEAN/USER Agreement will be updated to include PSP MID requirements and these are subject to inspection during the triennial Agency CLEAN Audit process).

• Advanced Authentication (if required) consistent with FBI CJIS Security Policy.

• Make and model of MID device to be used (only FBI-Approved devices may be used and no personally owned devices will have access to the PSP MID system).

• A copy of the Agency Appropriate Use Policy on Agency letterhead. www.pachiefs.org

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE Application packets will be submitted through the PA Chiefs of Police Association and are subject to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s Local Technology subcommittee review in the same manner as the Live Scan application process, prior to PSP processing.

RAPID DNA The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency’s local technology subcommittee are working with the Cumberland County District Attorney’s Crime Lab and Shippensburg University studying some of the advances in DNA analysis and equipment that can provide results in 90 minutes or less. This has the potential to radically change crime investigations and crime prevention.

Now the use of DNA becomes a powerful tool to prevent crime. It will find more criminals, while clearing the innocent faster.

In June Shippensburg began a study to scientifically validate the collection methods and the rapid DNA instrument.

As this study moves forward I will continue to report on its progress.

OFFENDER IDENTIFICATION All the 3800 model Livescan unit reach end of life in March 2016. These units must be replaced or taken offline by then.

PCPA continues to provide the new combined Livescan/CPIN units as an upgrade for the cost of $19,000 using the existing cabinet and $22,500 for a new cabinet. A completely new unit will cost $37,750. For more information on these units contact Jerry Miller at jmiller@pachiefs.org For more information about the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association’s technology projects contact Chris Braun at cjbraun@pachiefs.org. www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 27

JNET: THE POWER OF INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

JNET: THE POWER OF INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS “It’s the best officer safety tool currently available as it brings all information essential to our safety on traffic stops within seconds.”

Robert Wood Northern Berks Regional P.D. Berks County

B

y combining no-cost access to criminal justice data and innovative tools for officers to use it effectively on the job, the Pennsylvania Justice Network (JNET) has become a “go-to” resource for over 35,000 law enforcement and public safety professionals across Pennsylvania.

IMPROVING OFFICER SAFETY JNET’s secure online portal features 40 applications that leverage data from 19 municipal, county, state and federal sources.

The newest application, Traffic Stop, is a mobile-friendly, police officer-focused tool that gathers information from multiple data sources and packages them into one user interface.

Designed to be used while pulling over a vehicle, an officer can search by license plate number, operator license number, or operator name and date of birth. Traffic Stop queries records from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), Pennsylvania State Police (PSP), Administrative Office of Pennsylvania

28 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

Courts (AOPC), and Domestic Relations and returns data based on the vehicle’s license plate and/or the owner or operator of that vehicle. The vehicle tag search returns information such as make, model year, registration status, owner’s name and address, if the vehicle is stolen and if the vehicle owner is wanted, has active warrants or has protection from abuse orders. Searching by operator will return the driver’s name, address, driving status, photographs, driver history, if the operator is wanted, has active warrants or has protection from abuse orders.

The vehicle tag search uses information www.pachiefs.org

JNET: THE POWER OF INFORMATION AT YOUR FINGERTIPS

JNET’s secure portal provides comprehensive data and tools that can improve officer safety. from PennDOT and PSP while the operator search uses the same plus information from AOPC and Domestic Relations.

DELIVERING RESULTS Since April, officers have conducted over 130,000 person and vehicle inquiries using Traffic Stop. Feedback from users has been overwhelmingly positive: “It’s the best officer safety tool currently available as it brings all information essential to our safety on traffic stops within seconds,” said Robert Wood, Northern Berks Regional Police Department, Berks County.

“The application is amazing. I can run information quicker than a dispatcher. www.pachiefs.org

I have already made several arrests for expired and suspended registrations,” said Nathan Groft, Carroll Valley Borough Police Department, Adams County.

“I stopped a vehicle the other day operated by an Ohio resident. When I queried his Ohio driver’s license through Traffic Stop it revealed that he had two outstanding traffic-related warrants issued out of my county,” said Jeremy Davis, Hermitage Police Department, Mercer County.

“I caught a person with an AOPC Warrant for a traffic violation and Domestic Relations Warrant for $11,000 in arears while using the application,” said Joseph Scalera, West Shore Regional

Police Department, Cumberland County.

Prior to deploying Traffic Stop, an officer would be required to make as many as six separate searches in JNET to return the same information. As a result, officers can spend less time looking up information about a driver and vehicle and be alerted sooner to potentially dangerous situations during traffic stops.

MORE INFORMATION Traffic Stop is just one example of how JNET can help your police department.

For more information about JNET and to inquire about access, please visit www.pajnet.pa.gov or contact the JNET Service Desk at (877) 327-2465.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 29

PLANNING A PROMOTIONAL PROCESS IN THE COMING MONTHS?

PLANNING A PROMOTIONAL PROCESS IN THE COMING MONTHS? Use the Pennsylvania First and Second Line Supervisor Test to improve your next promotional process.

The importance of having a quality command staff cannot be understated.

Most Police Chiefs will tell you that the individuals at the ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant will make or break your department (depending on your department’s rank structure you could substitute or add the ranks of Corporal, Captain, etc. to that list). These supervisors are often the first resource for officers to help them understand a particular policy, or procedure, aspect of the Crimes Code, Vehicle Code, etc. The smaller the agency, the more important it is to promote individuals

who can both lead and mentor their fellow officers.

One of the most challenging human resources initiatives for any agency is conducting a promotional process that helps identify those individuals who are most suited for the target position while also ensuring a fair and level playing field for all candidates. As the first step in the promotional process, typically agencies will use a written promotional exam followed by other assessments such as an oral board interview, inbasket exercise, assessment exercise,

30 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

and/or performance evaluation. To assist Pennsylvania agencies with the written promotional exam component, Stanard & Associates, Inc. (S&A), developed off-the-shelf promotional exams to help departments determine whether individuals who are eligible for moving up in the department also possess the relevant job knowledge for supervisory or command positions.

The Pennsylvania First Line Supervisor Test (PFLST) and The Pennsylvania Second Line Supervisor Test (PSLST), available through the PCPA (http:// www.pachiefs.org/pcpa-testing-andconsulting-programs) were created to address the topics that are pertinent to those responsible for supervising and mentoring lower ranks. Different from other published promotional exams, the development of the PFLST and PSLST included input from Pennsylvania Law Enforcement officials regarding statespecific knowledge areas necessary to perform as a supervisor in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania First Line Supervisor Test (PFLST): This exam measures the critical knowledge areas for the firstline supervisor, typically the corporal or sergeant positions. Subject areas include Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, PA Rules of Criminal Procedure, PA Crimes Code, PA Contemporary Criminal Procedure, supervisory principles, patrol tactics, criminal investigation and case law affecting law enforcement.

The Pennsylvania Second Line Supervisor Test (PSLST): This exam measures the critical knowledge areas for second-line supervisors, typically the lieutenant or captain positions.

Subject areas include Personnel Laws, Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, PA Criminal Code, PA www.pachiefs.org

PLANNING A PROMOTIONAL PROCESS IN THE COMING MONTHS?

One of the most challenging human resources initiatives for any agency is conducting a promotional process that helps identify those individuals who are most suited for the target position while also ensuring a fair and level playing field for all candidates. As the first step in the promotional process, typically agencies will use a written promotional exam followed by other assessments such as an oral board interview, in-basket exercise, assessment exercise, and/or performance evaluation. To assist Pennsylvania agencies with the written promotional exam component, Stanard & Associates, Inc. (S&A), developed off-the-shelf promotional exams to help departments determine whether individuals who are eligible for moving up in the department also possess the relevant job knowledge for supervisory or command positions.

Contemporary Criminal Procedure, management principles, leadership, police administration, and relevant case law.

For both tests, study guides are available and required for each candidate sitting for the promotional process. In fairness to the candidates, a minimum of 30 days should be allowed for studying prior to the test administration.

www.pachiefs.org

However, most agencies provide 45 to 90 days for test preparation as longer study periods will help candidates to achieve their best possible score on the exam. Please note these tests must be sent back to S&A for scoring; there is not an agency-scored option for the promotional exams. The PFLST and PSLST were developed as a budgetfriendly promotional exam option and can be used as stand-alone exams

or easily integrated into your agency’s promotional process.

For more information on how your department can benefit from these promotional exams, please contact Joe Blackburn at the PCPA at 717-2361059, or Mike Thomason at Stanard & Associates at 800-367-6919.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 31

LEGISLATION WILL HELP RURAL HOUSEHOLDS STAY CONNECTED

LEGISLATION WILL HELP RURAL HOUSEHOLDS STAY CONNECTED WITH POLICE, OTHER FIRST RESPONDERS

By J. L. Kennedy, for the Pennsylvania Telephone Association

if it works at all in some areas, and cable doesn’t deploy everywhere.”

The landline networks maintained by the rural carriers are being threatened by uneven rules in the marketplace, and the falling off of support from Washington.

The trouble is the rural carriers are losing some of their lower cost customers to wireless, cable and other competitors who are under no regulatory obligation to offer service. And the redirection of a fund administered by the Federal Communications Commission means less support there.

The trouble is the rural carriers are losing some of their lower cost customers to wireless, cable and other competitors who are under no regulatory obligation to offer service. And the redirection of a fund administered by the Federal Communications Commission means less support there.

Legislation that will ensure households in rural areas keep their basic dial tone service, and their ability to call their local police departments and other first responders, if needed, awaits action in the House Consumer Affairs Committee.

House Bill 1417 will help rural households, and businesses, keep their affordable landline service by extending the life of a state fund, the PaUSF, that supports service in some of the costliest areas of the state to provide it.

The bill has strong bipartisan support, with Reps. Sandra Major (R-Susquehanna/ Wayne) and Mike Hanna (D-Centre/ Clinton) as prime sponsors.

Without the PaUSF, the cost of basic dial tone service in some areas would become unaffordable leaving some consumers with no choice but to drop it, according to the President of the Pennsylvania Telephone Association (PTA), Steven J. Samara.

“Virtually from the beginning of landline telephone service it was a tenant that everyone should have basic dial tone to say in touch with neighbors and friends, and emergency help if they needed it,” Samara said. “If the customers of my member companies have to drop service it’s no guarantee that wireless or cable will be there for them. Wireless is spotty

32 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

“My member companies have always been the carriers of last resort, the carriers who are obligated to provide affordable service to everyone in their service areas,” Samara said. “This legislation not only extends the PaUSF but reaffirms that commitment to rural customers.”

Samara said the Telephone Association is reaching out to groups supporting rural consumers and businesses, and other interested parties around the state to support the legislation.

“Anyone serving consumers in rural areas -- schools, businesses, health care facilities, police departments will have a significant stake in this legislation,” Samara said.

www.pachiefs.org

THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM

THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM (PA-VDRS) “To stop violent deaths, we must first understand all the facts.”

– Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Prior to 2002, the United States did not have a national surveillance system for violence. This was problematic because there are over 56,000 preventable violent deaths occurring in the United States each year.1 Effective prevention initiatives cannot be created without a clear understanding of what types of violent deaths are happening, how many are happening, and why these incidences are occurring.

The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) came into existence in 2002. This system gathers detailed data on all homicides, suicides, deaths of an undetermined intent, and unintentional firearm deaths in participating states. This data is being collected so that interested stakeholders can create prevention initiatives based on current, complete, and accurate aggregate data for their specific region of interest. The aim is for this system to gather information from all 50 states and to be able to provide a census of www.pachiefs.org

all violent deaths occurring in the United States. Currently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is funding 32 states.

This violence surveillance system is unique for several reasons: 1) This system links together the victim(s) and suspect(s) for each case.

This allows stakeholders to create prevention initiatives designed to address factors that are common in victims or suspects. This also allows stakeholders to create prevention initiatives that look at relationships between the victims and the suspects.

2) This system links related cases together. This is useful when looking at homicide-suicides and mass killings. This allows data users to see the whole scenario instead of just an isolated incident within the scenario.

3) This system looks at the who, what, when, where, and how of each death so that there can be a better

understanding of why the death occurred.

4) The system looks at multiple sources for each death. These sources include: vital statistics records, medical examiner/coroner reports, law enforcement, and crime labs.

By looking at multiple sources, the system gets more complete data, and data entry errors can be caught. (Ex: If the police and the death certificate said a man was 89 but the coroner report said 98, we could call to verify the actual age.)

This violence surveillance system has had many success stories. Here are two examples of how states have used the surveillance system to implement efforts to prevent violent deaths and trauma in children of victims.

• In North Carolina, Adult Protective Services data and the North Carolina Violent Death Reporting System data were linked. The Division of Aging and Adult Services used the data to work with Adult Protective Services in counties where violent deaths occurred to better target elder maltreatment prevention programs and improve staff training to identify violent death risks.

A new adult fatality review process will also begin for every adult in Adult Protective Services who dies.

• In Utah, a policy change was created to close a gap in services for children of domestic violence-related homicide victims. This is because the Utah Violent Death Reporting System found that, in 44 percent of intimate partner violence incidents, one or more children under the age of 18 were living at the victim’s house at the time of the incident, and 147 children under the age of 18 were directly exposed to the homicide.

In 2015, Pennsylvania received funding to participate in NVDRS. The Pennsylvania Violent Death Reporting System (PAVDRS) will begin collecting data from a pilot of six counties in 2015. These counties are Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Philadelphia.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 34X

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015 | 33

THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM These counties make up roughly 50 percent of all violent deaths in the state.2 In 2016, PA-VDRS will expand to 16 more counties. These counties are Beaver, Cambria, Chester, Cumberland, Dauphin, Erie, Franklin, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lehigh, Luzerne, Northampton, Schuylkill, Washington, Westmoreland, and York. The pilot counties and the 16 additional counties are the source for roughly 80 percent of the violent deaths in the state of Pennsylvania.2 The mission of PA-VDRS is: “Collaborate with state and local stakeholders to collect and integrate violent death data in Pennsylvania. The program will disseminate objective and accurate data on violent deaths in order to support development of violent death prevention initiatives.”

Pennsylvania needs a violence surveillance system. There are over seven violent deaths per day in the state.3 Many of these deaths could be prevented. The Pennsylvania Department of Health is dedicated to collecting data on violent deaths and distributing the information to interested stakeholders so that effective prevention efforts can be created, deployed, and used effectively to reduce the number of violent deaths in Pennsylvania.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Pennsylvania Violent Death Reporting System Program Administrator: Alizabeth Dively at 717-787-5900 (office) or aldively@pa.gov.

CITATIONS: 1 “National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS).” National Violent Death Reporting System. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/

violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs_factsheet-a.pdf on August 6, 2015 8:33:00 AM. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

Underlying Cause of Death 1999-2010 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2012. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2010, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/ ucd-icd10.html on May 6, 2014 1:52:06 PM 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

Multiple Cause of Death 1999-2013 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2015.

Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2013, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/ mcd-icd10.html on May 22, 2015 9:03:38 AM

PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM (PA-VDRS) WHAT IS THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM? The Pennsylvania Violent Death Reporting System (PA-VDRS) is a state-based, national surveillance system funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This surveillance system is used to track homicides, suicides, unintentional firearm deaths, and deaths with an undetermined manner. The surveillance system gathers information from death certificates, coroner/medical examiner reports, and law enforcement for each violent death. Combining data from these three sources creates a more complete picture of the circumstances leading up to the violent death.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM? The main goal of this surveillance system is to inform public health practices surrounding violent deaths in order to reduce the number of violent deaths occurring. The data gathered for all the violent deaths is entered into the surveillance system; then the data is aggregately disseminated to organizations interested in creating violent death prevention practices and policies.

WHY IS THE PENNSYLVANIA VIOLENT DEATH REPORTING SYSTEM NEEDED? On average, there are over seven preventable violent deaths occurring in Pennsylvania each day.1 This system is needed to create public health practices and policies that are data driven to help prevent violent deaths from occurring. Currently, in the state of Pennsylvania, there is no system being used to track and distribute detailed aggregate data about violent deaths. This system would allow for aggregate data to be distributed on a regional or county level. This information can be used to tailor violent death prevention practices to targeted populations.

Suicides occur more than any other form of violent death (in some counties there are up to five times more suicides than homicides);

however, there is no data available at a regional or county level to analyze trends in suicides or to determine who the target populations for prevention practices should be.1 WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT? Pennsylvania law enforcement plays a vital role in ensuring that PA-VDRS has an accurate understanding of the circumstances surrounding each violent death. PA-VDRS needs participation from law enforcement to help paint a complete picture of the circumstances surrounding each violent death by providing a narrative of the situations that occurred at the scene and providing information about the victim and suspect. Since law enforcement is often one of the first responders at the scene, the information they gather is key to understanding why a violent death has occurred.

Law enforcement data is also compared to data gathered from other sources to make sure that all the information for each case is accurate and as complete as possible.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION (PCPA)?

The PCPA is partnering with the Pennsylvania Department of Health to provide outreach to its members about the PA-VDRS and the importance of establishing a VDRS in Pennsylvania If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Pennsylvania Violent Death Reporting System program administrator: Alizabeth Dively at 717-787-5900 (office) or aldively@pa.gov.

CITATION: 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.

Multiple Cause of Death 1999-2013 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released 2015. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999-2013, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed at http://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10.html on May 22, 2015 9:03:38 AM

34 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2015

www.pachiefs.org

PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

APPLICATION TYPE:

APPLY ONLINE!

Active Membership $150 per year plus $100 Initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application) Affiliate Membership $150 per year plus $100 initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application)

3905 North Front Street | Harrisburg, PA 17110 | Tel: 717-236-1059 | Fax: 717-236-0226 | www.pachiefs.org CHECK HERE FOR A MAILED COPY OF THE BULLETIN...$25 PER YEAR Please type or print clearly.

APPLICANT INFORMATION

RECOMMENDING MEMBER

Full Name of Employer __________________________________

Please list a current member of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association who has recommended that you apply for membership. If the applicant holds a rank lower than Chief, your recommending member must be your Chief, Superintendent or Commissioner.

Office Address _________________________________________

Recommending Member Name and Title:

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

Name_________________________________________________ Rank ___________________________ Date of Appt __________

______________________________________________________ County _____________________ Phone ___________________

Department Name and Phone Number: ______________________________________________________

Fax ___________________ Email __________________________

APPLICANT DEPARTMENT INFORMATION

Are you a sworn police officer? Y or N

Provide the number of sworn police officers in your department

Full Time Police Officer in Above Department? Y or N

Full time ___________ Part time __________

MPOETC # ___________________________________________ If not applicable, please explain why MPOETC number is not present ______________________________________________________ Residence Address _____________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ County ____________________ Phone ____________________ Date of Birth _______________ Region ____________________ Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Record of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor? Y or N

If yes, explain on a separate sheet of paper and attach to application form.

Signature of Applicant: ______________________________________________________

MAIL TOTAL FEE AND THIS FORM TO: PA Chiefs of Police Association 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 For office use: Check Amount & No. ______________ Date __________________________

If industry, number of security officers under applicant’s command ___________ If other, state nature of business in relation to law enforcement ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS

Section 4. Active Membership. “Active” membership shall be open to the following: (a) All full-time sworn chiefs of police, superintendents, or commissioners of municipal police agencies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have police powers and MPOETC Certification (b) All full-time sworn municipal police officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have police powers, MPOETC Certification and hold the rank of captain or above and persons who hold the rank of Captain or above that are members of the Pennsylvania State Police; (c) Special agents in charge, assistant special agents in charge, and resident agents of any law enforcement entity of the United States government if, at the time of application, such persons are headquartered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and; full-time persons with command-level responsibility in any law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided that these individuals are not elected to their position by a popular vote of citizens Section 5. Affiliate Membership. “Affiliate” membership shall be open to those persons who, by occupation are Chiefs of Police who work part time, Police Officers In Charge of Police Departments, Directors of Police Agencies, and Ranking officers who have a supervisory role in a police department. This category also includes agency heads of Corporate Security and Police Academies . These individuals must share a mutuality of interests with the Association and its membership, enabling them access to information from the Association that is regularly provided to Active Members. Affiliate members may attend the Association’s Annual Meeting at the invitation of the Executive Board and under no circumstances shall such members have or exercise the privilege of voting, either by voice or ballot, on Association business. For the full by-laws regarding membership, please visit our website at www.pachiefs.org.

66% Decrease in Reporting Time means increased efficiency “Since we implemented our CODY System, we have effectively cut our ur officers’ reporting time by almost two-thirds. We have also found better, more efficient ways to complete and document our job performance through the CALEA accreditation program. Great thing g is, n with CODY Records, we’ve actually increased our officers’ efficiency in handling calls, both at the station and more importantly, in the field me through CODY Express. In fact, we noted a 66% reduction in the time it takes an officer to put a simple complaint in and that’s huge. aWith this 66% efficiency boost, we well exceeded my high expectations. This means less time doing paperwork, and more time for ourr .” officers to be interacting with and serving our citizens in the field.”

Frank Williamson, Lower Allen Twp, PA Public Safety Director

Data Driven.

info@codysystems.com

www.codysystems.com

Real People.

Real Technology.

Real ^ŽůƵƟŽŶƐ͘