Bulletin Fall 2014

OFFICER JOHN WOLFE State College Borough Police Department

BULLETIN PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

USPS 425940 • ISSN 0031-4404

FALL 2014 - VOL. 116; ISSUE 3

IN THIS ISSUE

17

ARTICLES

16 Section IV Representative-Elect of the FBI National Academy Associates Chief Ken Truver

17 Amendments to Pennsylvania’s Safe Haven Law (Act 2014-91)

19 Conference Raffle Winners 20 The Dangers of Vehicle Pursuits: New Emerging Issues

24 Radar for Locals 25 IACP and NCMEC Launch Cyberbullying Tip Card for Law Enforcement

18

ARTICLES

26 Encountering Mentally Ill People and Potential Liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act

29 Retail Theft Amended 30 Reducing Auto Theft in Pennsylvania – A 20-Year Partnership

32 Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board: Local Law Enforcement Grant Program

33 Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety: an Effective and Efficient Model for Law Enforcement Agencies

30

COLUMNS & DEPARTMENTS

4 President’s Message 5 Executive Director’s Message 6 PCPA Executive Board and Committees 6 PCPA Staff 9 Memberships 10 Our Newest Accredited Agencies 11 The Chiefs Legal Update 18 Technology Update

38 Certificate of Appreciation Awarded to CODY Systems

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.

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, There were dramatic increases in the number of vendors and members attending this year’s Conference and excellent reviews by both groups. Congratulations, and “Thank you” to all who were involved, but especially Executive Director Dane Merryman and the entire PCPA staff!

WHAT A CONFERENCE & CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION! On behalf of Board Chairman Tom King, and all of the members of our Association’s Executive Board, I want to thank all who contributed to, and participated in, our Centennial Conference and Celebration in Valley Forge last month. It was the beginning of our New Century as an Association, but it was also so much more!

There were dramatic increases in the number of vendors and members attending this year’s Conference and excellent reviews by both groups. Congratulations, and “Thank you” to all who were involved, but especially Executive Director Dane Merryman and the entire PCPA staff! Also, I send a special “Thank you” to the many volunteers from my Department and our friends at MAGLOCLEN who assisted us throughout the Conference.

THE FUTURE DIRECTION… This Conference saw our Association produce the first multi-disciplinary (Police, Schools, EMS, etc.) “School Safety Symposium,” breaking down the “silos” that have kept many of us from training, planning and drilling together with our schools and EMS in the past. Hopefully 4 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

it will be the beginning of a new, and more effective, model for effective Police/ Schools relationships!

This Conference also provided the first glimpse of our Association’s newest two programs. The “Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Executive Certification Program” will be ideal for our members who wish to continue their personal and professional development – and have a way to show it! And the “Chiefs Orientation and Mentoring Program” will provide the critical help, training and guidance for our Association’s newest members. These programs are among my top priorities for this year, and next year’s conference will provide the first concrete opportunity for you to become involved.

More information will be available in the next PCPA Bulletin.

Also important this next year will be to continue to push for even more participation in our Association’s two “Flagship” programs: Agency accreditation through our Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission (PLEAC) and outstanding, costeffective training through our PAVTN (Pennsylvania Virtual Training Network.)

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6u

www.pachiefs.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

DEAR MEMBERS, As we are going to press with this edition of our Bulletin, I am happy to say our Annual Training Conference was a successful event. Our attendance was the best in four years, and our Exhibit Hall was a sell-out.

There were many timely and relevant presentations, providing meaningful training to our participants. We celebrated our 100 years as an Association with special activities and entertainment.

Here are some results from our past conference surveys that are worth sharing: • 89% of the survey respondents rated the conference Excellent or Very Good.

• 87% of the survey respondents indicated they would recommend the conference to a friend or colleague.

• 97% of the survey respondents indicated the conference was Extremely or Well Organized.

• More than 98% of respondents felt the presenters at our conference were Excellent or Very Good.

• 91% of survey respondents felt the information presented at the conference was either Extremely or Very Useful.

We also learned some things that will help us provide an even better conference. For example: • Where possible, we will try to schedule programs for presentation at two different times, allowing members

www.pachiefs.org

to overcome conflicting presentation times.

• When holding activities with our vendors, like hospitality, buffet meals, and entertainment, we will try to keep the activities physically within the Exhibit Hall, rather than adjacent, to facilitate interaction between our attendees and the exhibitors.

• When holding classes in the exhibit area, we need to ensure we minimize distractions that make it difficult to focus on the presentation.

• While it is important to recognize and honor numerous persons and groups at the Wednesday night banquet, the banquet would benefit if we can find a way to shorten the formalities.

Some of the best comments we received told us the conference demonstrated a commitment to professionalism and quality training. We are working on some modifications to the Conference format right now that we think will enhance your conference experience next year.

In this issue of the Bulletin, Chris Braun of our staff, has written an article on CONTINUED ON PAGE 7u

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 5

PRESIDENT ’S MESSAGE

EXECUTIVE BOARD & COMMITTEES OFFICERS

BUDGET & PERSONNEL

William Kelly

Thomas R. King, Chair John W. Mackey, Vice Chair

President Chief of Police • Abington Township

Robert Jolley

1st Vice President Chief of Police • Dallas Township

Mark Hall

Members:

Joseph J. Daly • Mark E. Hall Richard E. Hammon • Robert G. Jolley William J. Kelly • Michael A. Klein David A. Mettin • William F. Richendrfer David J. Spotts

2nd Vice President Chief of Police • Clarion Borough

EDUCATION & TRAINING

David Spotts

David A. Mettin, Chair S. Michael Murphy, Vice Chair

3rd Vice President Chief of Police • Mechanicsburg Borough

Scott Bohn

4th Vice President Chief of Police • West Chester Borough

Thomas King

Chairman Chief of Police • State College Borough

William Richendrfer

Secretary- 2017 Chief of Police • South Centre Township

David DiSanti

Treasurer - 2017 Chief of Police • Oakmont Borough

BOARD MEMBERS Richard Hammon – 2017 Superintendent of Police • Silver Spring Township

James Sabath – 2017

Chief of Police • Tinicum Township

Thomas Gross – 2017

Chief of Police • York Area Regional

Howard Kocher – 2017

Members:

T. Robert Amann • Charles J. Crawford William J. Daly • Joseph G. Elias Milton Fields • Michael J. Flanagan Douglas E. Grimes • William L. Harvey Ashley J. Heiberger • Robert G. Jolley David M. Laux • John T. Maxwell Catherine R. McNeilly • James L. Santucci Carl Scalzo • Kevin J. Stoehr George J. Swartz • Oscar P. Vance, Jr. Robert W. Wilson • Raymond F. Zydonik

LEGISLATIVE Diane Conrad, Chair

Members:

James W. Adams • Darryl L. Albright Scott L. Bohn • Randolph G. Cox Joseph J. Daly • Richard M. Danko Michael A. Donohue • Eric D. Gill Erik P. Grunzig • Bryan B. Kelly Daniel J. Kortan, Jr. • Joseph F. Lawrence Marshall A. Martin • Coleman J. McDonough Dean E. Osborne • Lawrence R. Palmer David Souchick • David J. Spotts David E. Steffen • Michael J. Vogel Dennis H. Walters • Steven R. Wheeler Frank E. Williamson

MEMBERSHIP/BYLAWS

Chief of Police • Lehman Township

Mark G. Pugliese I, Chair

Brian Kelly – 2015

Kenneth M. Truver • Curt A. Martinez Donald J. Aubrecht • Guy A. Salerno Harold C. Lane • John E. Petrick John F. Slauch • Keith Keiper Mark L. Bentzel •Mark E. Hall • Paul Yost Samuel J. Gallen • Timothy P. Trently William P. Grover

Chief of Police • Shaler Township

James Adams – 2015

Chief of Police • Upper Allen Township

Mark Toomey – 2015

Chief of Police • Upper Providence Township

Kenneth Truver – 2016

Chief of Police • Castle Shannon Borough

Lawrence Palmer – 2016

Chief of Police • Palmer Township

William Daly – 2016

Chief of Police • Horsham Township

Members:

RETIRED CHIEFS J. William Schmitt, Chair

Members:

Donald G. Hunter, Sr. • Joseph F. Ferrelli Keith D. Guthrie • Richard E. Hammon Stephen W. Ott • Wendell A. Rich William L. Eckert • William L. Howatt William S. Weaver

PCPA STAFF R. Dane Merryman, Executive Director, dmerryman@pachiefs.org Deb Skonezney, Administrative Assistant, dskonezney@pachiefs.org Joseph Blackburn, Accreditation Coordinator, jblackburn@pachiefs.org Christopher Braun, Technology Coordinator, cjbraun@pachiefs.org Cheryl Campbell, Financial Coordinator, ccampbell@pachiefs.org Jerry Miller, Offender Identification Technology, jmiller@pachiefs.org Andrea Sullivan, Accreditation Assistant, asullivan@pachiefs.org Bill Gibson, Physical Fitness, fitcop@hotmail.com

FINALLY, I WANT TO INVITE YOU: TO CONTACT OUR ASSOCIATION….

If you have ANY QUESTIONS or SUGGESTIONS, or NEED ASSISTANCE, do not hesitate to call PCPA Headquarters at 717-236-1059! You will find that our Association has a very friendly, helpful and professional staff that understands that they are there for you and our other members! …OR, GET INVOLVED… While I will always appreciate the great effort many members have displayed in the past to make our Association so great, the fact is that many of them have retired recently or will be retiring soon. As a result, we want to involve our younger members more than ever before by giving them a chance to get involved as a member of one of our Committees. So, if you want to be more involved in our great profession and want to have a bigger role in directing its future, please step forward and contact me or PCPA Headquarters. You will be able to “make a difference” with just a minimal commitment of your time. …OR INVITE US TO YOUR LOCATION...

As we all know, our profession is experiencing a period of rapid change. So if you would like me, and/or a member of our Association’s staff or Executive Board to attend a meeting of your regional or County Association, we will come out to your location and update your members on the latest information on the quickly-changing Law Enforcement Issues in our State. …OR CALL ME DIRECTLY… Finally, I want to say to you that I am honored and humbled to have the opportunity to serve as the President of our great Association. I know that it is my job to represent you. As a result, I especially value your comments, suggestions, questions, etc. so please feel free to contact me at your convenience. I look forward to hearing from you!

Best regards,

William J. Kelly 267-536-1061 wkelly@abington.org

6 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

concerning planning for developing and deploying FirstNet, and advising local police know how and when they will participate in the process.

We have included some great articles that we saw in the IACP magazine. You will not want to miss the pieces on Vehicle Pursuits. There is also an article from the State Police Communicator magazine concerning Radar for Local Police. It is a good indicator of the support we have from the Pennsylvania State Police in our effort to secure radar for municipal police. Chief Tom King from State College PD is quoted in the article.

Having previewed good reading from other publications, I encourage our members to submit articles for the Bulletin. We would love to include content that showcases local programs and services or significant events. Share your successes and your challenges with others who can benefit from your department’s experience. If you have some ideas for an article, please contact me at dmerryman@pachiefs.org, or call me at 717.236.1059, and we can discuss how to prepare your story for submission.

Respectfully submitted,

R. Dane Merryman Executive Director

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 2014 | 7

JOCELYN MERIWEATHER JMERRIWEAT @PA . GOV 717-736-7463

DDAP

MDAIR

2014

NATE MYERS

NAMYERS @PA . GOV

717-736-7467

Methadone MDAIR

GARRISON GLADFELTER GGLADFELTE @PA . GOV 717-736-7451

PROMOTING SAFETY, REDUCING METHADONE-RELATED DEATHS AND INCIDENTS AND IMPROVING TREATMENT PRACTICES Methadone is an opioid medication used to reduce withdrawal symptoms in people addicted to heroin or other narcotic drugs. It is also used as a pain reliever and as part of drug addiction detoxification and maintenance programs. On October 24, 2012, the General Assembly enacted Act 148 to examine methadone-related deaths and incidents in order to make the use of methadone for treatment of addictions and pain management safer for the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Joint Investigations Act 148, also known as the Methadone Death and Incident Review (MDAIR) Act, establishes the MDAIR team and provides for its powers and duties. The purpose of this legislation is to examine the circumstances surrounding deaths and incidents in Pennsylvania that involve or may involve methadone.

The MDAIR team conducts a review of the circumstances surrounding methadone-related deaths and incidents for the purpose of promoting safety, reducing methadone-related deaths and incidents and improving treatment practices.

Act 148 provides the team with review procedures that include law enforcement records and interviews with law enforcement officials as long as the release of such records will not jeopardize an ongoing criminal

investigation or proceeding. Act 148 provides protection from liability.

Specifically, an individual or agency that in good faith provides information or records to the team shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability as a result of providing the information or record.

The proceedings, deliberations and records of the team are privileged and confidential and shall not be subject to the Right to Know Law, discovery, subpoena or introduction into evidence in any civil or criminal action.

Contact MDAIR Staff

If you have any questions regarding the MDAIR ACT and/or you have an incident or death where Methadone may have been a contributing factor, please contact the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Division of Accountability and Program Improvement, MDAIR staff. Emails can also be sent to RA-DAMDAIR@pa.gov

NEW & DECEASED MEMBERS NEW MEMBERS – ACTIVE Mark Bernstiel Tammy R. Marsh Deputy Chief Lieutenant Montgomery County East Hempfield Township Police Dept.

Detective Bureau Thomas A. Nerlinger Jason Brown Chief of Police Chief of Police Royersford Borough Brookville Borough Police Department Police Department Kevin J. Brown Deputy Superintendent Capitol Police

K. John Potts Lieutenant Horsham Police Department

Jennifer Brubaker Lieutenant East Hempfield Township Police Dept.

Kent J. Werkheiser Chief of Police Pocono Township Police Department

John W. Dougherty Chief of Police Bridgeport Police Department Bradley P. Hare Chief of Police City of Sunbury Brian D. Hughes Chief of Police North Strabane Township Police Dept.

Shawn M. Hummer Chief of Police Tiadaghton Valley Regional Police Department

DECEASED MEMBERS Retired Chief of Police Harry T. Edmundson member since 1994 Borough of Christiana Retired Chief of Police David Lee Shiffler member since 1995 Hollidaysburg Police Department Investigator Supervisor Lee Torbin member since 2009 PA Gaming Control Board, Bureau of Investigations and Enforcement

PENNSYLVANIA LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION

THE SYMBOL OF THE SYMBOL THE SYMBOL OF OF

ONGOING RISK ONGOING ONGOING RISK RISK MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT Featuring a credible, affordable and practical law enforcement accreditation program unique to Pennsylvania

Steven Junkin Chief of Police Hampden Township

TRAINING AND START-UP MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED

Ronald A. LaRotonda Chief of Police DuBois City Police Department

CALL PCPA HEADQUARTERS AT

Alex H. Levy Chief of Police North Wales Borough www.pachiefs.org

(717) 236-1059 Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association A program funded by PCCD

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 9

WELCOME TO OUR NEWEST ACCREDITED AGENCIES

PALMER TOWNSHIP

PHOENIXVILLE BOROUGH

NORTHAMPTON COUNTY CHIEF LAWRENCE R. PALMER

CHESTER COUNTY CHIEF WILLIAM J. MOSSMAN

THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES WERE RE-ACCREDITED AT THE PLEAC MEETING IN JUNE: Lower Paxton Township Dauphin County Director David J. Johnson

Upper Dublin Township Montgomery County Chief Terrence P. Thompson

Whitemarsh Township Montgomery County Chief T. Michael Beaty

York Area Regional York County Chief Thomas C. Gross

Newberry Township York County Chief John C. Snyder

Upper Gwynedd Township Montgomery County Chief David W. Duffy

Quakertown Borough Bucks County Chief Scott McElree

Abington Township Montgomery County Chief William J. Kelly

Penn Township Westmoreland County Chief John M. Otto

Carlisle Borough Cumberland County Chief Stephen L. Margeson

East Norriton Township Montgomery County Chief Karyl J. Kates

Pocono Mountain Regional Monroe County Chief Harry W. Lewis

North Coventry Township Chester County Chief Robert A. Schurr

Warminster Township Bucks County Chief James C. Donnelly, III

Coal Township Northumberland County Chief William J. Carpenter

Springfield Township Delaware County Chief Joseph J. Daly

State College Borough Centre County Chief Thomas R. King 10 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

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

Responding to an anonymous tip that drug dealing was occurring in the vicinity, the Detectives, joined by Detective W. G., approached an address on East 11th Street in Bayonne on the evening of April 29, 2010. The parties dispute what happened when they arrived.

UNITED STATES V. JACKSON, 2014 U.S. APP. LEXIS 14646 (3RD CIRCUIT JULY 31, 2014) On December 7, 2006, at approximately 11:08 p.m., Philadelphia Police Officers Randy Cole and Gerald Logan reported to Kellis, a bar in Philadelphia, in response to a radio call relaying an anonymous informant’s tip regarding a black male wearing a black Adidas hooded sweatshirt and fatigue pants and possessing a gun. Upon entering the bar, the officers noticed Jackson, who was seated at the bar and was wearing a black Adidas hooded sweatshirt and blue jeans. The officers approached Jackson and asked him if he would accompany them to the back of the bar to talk, and Jackson agreed to do www.pachiefs.org

so. He walked to the rear of the bar with Officer Logan beside him and Officer Cole directly behind him. Officer Logan testified that, while walking to the back of the bar, he placed his hand on Jackson’s shoulder. Officer Cole testified that he may have placed his hand on Jackson’s back. Both officers testified that the touching was brief and intended to guide Jackson through the crowd towards the back of the bar.

At some point after Officer Cole touched Jackson’s back, Jackson informed him that he was carrying a firearm.

Officer Cole was unable to recall whether this admission occurred while his hand was still on Jackson’s back. When the officers and Jackson reached the back of the bar, Officer Cole ordered Jackson to

place his hands on the wall. Officer Cole seized Jackson’s firearm, handcuffed him, and placed him under arrest.

Outside the bar, Officer Logan searched Jackson and recovered forty-two small Ziploc baggies containing crack cocaine from his sweatshirt pocket. Officer Logan also recovered a glass jar containing marijuana from Jackson’s sweatshirt pocket. Officer Logan did not find any drug paraphernalia on Jackson.

Before trial, Jackson moved to suppress his statement that he possessed a firearm, as well as the firearm, the Ziploc baggies of crack, and the glass jar of marijuana.

Jackson argued that the evidence must be suppressed because he was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court denied Jackson’s motion. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Jackson on all counts.

Jackson moved for acquittal and arrest of judgment or, in the alternative, a new trial, arguing that the denial of the motion of suppress was in error and the evidence underlying his convictions was insufficient. The District Court denied the motion. On November 1, 2012, the District Court sentenced Jackson to 101 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Jackson filed a timely appeal.

“Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law, subject to plenary review.” United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 206 (3d Cir. 2012). A defendant claiming insufficient evidence bears a heavy burden; this Court will overturn a verdict “only when the record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighted, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In making this determination, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government.”

Jackson first argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence. Specifically, he asserts that Officers Cole and Logan had already seized him, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, when he told CONTINUED ON PAGE 12u

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 11

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT them he was carrying a handgun. present, that they did not brandish THE CHIEF’S LEGAL UPDATE Evidence discovered during or pursuant weapons, and that they did not use to an unreasonable search and seizure language or a tone of voice indicating that is inadmissible at trial as “fruit of the Jackson’s compliance might be compelled. poisonous tree.” Accordingly, we must Although Jackson asserts that no determine whether Jackson was seized reasonable person would feel free to before he informed Officers Cole and ignore a request from police officers, the Logan that he possessed a firearm.

Supreme Court has stated that “while “A seizure occurs when there is either most citizens will respond to a police (a) a laying on of hands or application of request, the fact that people do so, and physical force to restrain movement, even do so without being told they are free when it is ultimately unsuccessful, or (b) not to respond, hardly eliminates the submission to a show of authority.” The consensual nature of the response.” To test for “existence of a show of authority is hold otherwise would threaten the ability an objective one: not whether the citizen of law enforcement officials to approach perceived that he was being ordered to people and ask questions in the course of restrict his movement, but whether the their duties. officer’s words and actions would have Accordingly, we hold that it was not conveyed that to a reasonable person.” A error for the District Court to deny seizure does not occur, however, “simply Jackson’s motion to suppress physical because a police officer approaches an evidence. individual and asks a few questions. So …For the foregoing reasons, we will long as a reasonable person would feel affirm the District Court’s judgment of free to disregard the police and go about conviction. his business, the encounter is consensual . . . . The encounter will not trigger Fourth UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ, 2014 Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its U.S. APP. LEXIS 15288 (3RD CIRCUIT AUGUST 8, 2014) consensual nature.” Jackson asserts that the facts that the officers approached him, Following a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern asked him to go to the back of the bar, District of Pennsylvania, Axel Gomez was and placed their hands on his back and convicted of various crimes, including 21 shoulders indicate that he was seized by U.S.C. § 841 (distribution of cocaine and the officers before he stated that he had a heroin), 21 U.S.C. § 846 (conspiracy), 18 handgun, such that any physical evidence U.S.C. § 924(c) (possession of a firearm obtained after this seizure is inadmissible. in furtherance of drug trafficking offense), An analysis of the facts demonstrate and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (possession of a that Jackson’s argument is without merit. firearm by a convicted felon). On appeal, The District Court found, and Jackson Gomez challenges these convictions on does not dispute, that the officers placed two grounds: (1) that police violated their hands on Jackson’s shoulder and his Fourth Amendment rights by using back only after he had already agreed pen registers and trap and trace devices to accompany them to the back of the without a warrant, and (2) that the bar. The initial encounter, accordingly, evidence adduced at trial was insufficient was consensual. Merely placing a hand to sustain a conviction for conspiracy on Jackson’s shoulder and back to guide under 21 U.S.C. § 846.1 For the reasons him through a crowded bar, without that follow, we will affirm the judgment more, is insufficient to shift the nature of the District Court. of the interaction from consensual to I. The DEA began investigating Gomez involuntary. for drug distribution in 2009. In In addition, the evidence reflects that May 2009, the DEA arranged the the two officers were the only officers 12 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

sale of 20 grams of heroin from Gomez to a government informant.

This informant provided the DEA with the number to Gomez’s cellular telephone, and from July 9, 2009, to at least August 18, 2009, the DEA used a pen register and a “trap and trace” device to monitor this phone’s activity pursuant to court orders issued under 18 U.S.C. § 3123. [C]all data revealed that Gomez regularly communicated with suspected drug traffickers and individuals using prepaid phones, which suggested that Gomez was involved in the distribution of illegal drugs. During this period, the DEA also successfully arranged and recorded multiple drug purchases from Gomez to confidential informants.

II. A pen register records outgoing dialing information from the subject’s phone (i.e., what numbers the subject dialed, when he dialed them, whether the call was connected, and the duration of the call).

III. A “trap and trace” device records incoming dialing information to the subject’s phone (i.e., when the caller dialed the subject’s number, whether the call was connected, and the duration of the call).

Using the call data and the evidence obtained through the undercover purchases, the DEA obtained an order for a wiretap and began intercepting and recording Gomez’s cell phone conversations on August 24, 2009. On September 12, 2009, Gomez abruptly stopped using the tapped phone. A confidential informant provided the DEA with Gomez’s new cell phone number and the DEA obtained authorization for a wiretap for the new phone. Both wiretaps yielded additional evidence that Gomez was engaged in the distribution of illegal drugs.

Using all of the foregoing evidence, the DEA obtained and executed a search www.pachiefs.org

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

Using the call data and the evidence obtained through the undercover purchases, the DEA obtained an order for a wiretap and began intercepting and recording Gomez’s cell phone conversations on August 24, 2009. On September 12, 2009, Gomez abruptly stopped using the tapped phone. A confidential informant provided the DEA with Gomez’s new cell phone number and the DEA obtained authorization for a wiretap for the new phone. Both wiretaps yielded additional evidence that Gomez was engaged in the distribution of illegal drugs. warrant for Gomez’s apartment, where they recovered almost $6,000 in cash, drug packaging materials and a digital scale, and a loaded .40 caliber handgun with an obliterated serial number.

Thereafter, Gomez was indicted on charges of distribution of controlled substances, conspiracy, and possession of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking.

Prior to trial, Gomez moved to suppress the introduction of much of the foregoing evidence, arguing that the DEA violated his Fourth Amendment rights by engaging in extensive call pattern surveillance without a warrant. The District Court denied this motion.

At trial, Government cooperators Raphael Pagan and Ramon Sanchez testified that they sold large quantities of heroin to Gomez on a regular basis.

Importantly, they testified that they always sold Gomez heroin on credit and were not paid until after he distributed the drugs to his customers. They also testified that Gomez occasionally sold them cocaine, and that they had sometimes helped Gomez cook crack cocaine.

The jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts and the District Court sentenced Gomez to a term of 25 years’ imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.

When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and will sustain the verdict if any rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Gomez first argues that the DEA’s prolonged warrantless use of a pen register and trap and trace device violated his privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. We agree with the District Court that this argument is foreclosed by Smith. Gomez provided a third party— in this case, Sprint—with all the data that the DEA obtained through the use of the pen register and trap and trace device. In so doing, Gomez abandoned his privacy interest in this data because he “assumed the risk that the information would be divulged to police.” Although Justice Sotomayor has urged the Court to reconsider Smith’s holding that “an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties,” we remain bound by Smith until a majority of the Court endorses this view...

Justice Alito’s concurrence did not explicitly seek to limit Smith, and indeed relied heavily on the fact that drivers of automobiles do not expect third parties to possess detailed, long-term data regarding their location. By contrast, cell phone users do expect service providers to possess detailed, long-term data regarding the numbers they dial because this information is necessarily conveyed in the course of connecting a call. By disclosing this data, cell phone users, unlike drivers of automobiles, “assume the risk” that a third party will convey it to law enforcement. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the two concurrences in

Jones have limited Smith to short-term call monitoring.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have found the essential elements of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Pagan and Sanchez testified that they always provided Gomez with heroin on credit. In the context of large-scale drug distribution, this fact alone provided the jury with sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. Additionally, these witnesses testified that Gomez sold them cocaine, and that they helped Gomez cook crack cocaine. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb Gomez’s conspiracy conviction.

In light of the foregoing analysis, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

COMMENT: Anybody get the feeling that the Third Circuit isn’t real keen on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Smith?: “ we remain bound by Smith until a majority of the Court endorses this view” It’s like when dad says to his kid “I know mom said it’s okay to get your nose pierced, but I don’t like it.” Not the Chump’s kid, mind you, but somebody else’s kid. I mention it because it means you may see this court chip away at it when they can. Good case for those who represent and insure police officers, on the difference between a trap and trace, and a pen register, along with demonstrating the intricacies of a long term narcotics investigation, so it was also worth a read for that.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 14u

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 13

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT CREDICO V. WEST GOSHEN POLICE, 2014 U.S. APP. LEXIS 13670 (3RD CIRCUIT JULY 17, 2014) Justin Credico alleged in his complaint that while walking through a cemetery, he encountered a plain-clothes detective.

Credico raised his middle finger in an insulting well-known gesture, and the detective gave him a citation for disorderly conduct. A magistrate found Credico guilty of an upgraded charge of harassment. On appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the charges were dismissed on technical grounds.

Credico also claimed that a sheriff struck him on the arm in an elevator and another took a pencil from him during his trial.

The District Court granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss, and Credico filed a notice of appeal.

PROBABLE CAUSE Most of Credico’s claims—retaliatory prosecution, malicious prosecution, and retaliation for First Amendment expression— fail if there was probable cause for Detective Maurer to issue Credico a citation for disorderly conduct. Probable cause exists when the facts known to the officer are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the offense has been committed. Generally, the existence of probable cause for arrest is a question of fact. However, a district court may conclude “that probable cause exists as a matter of law if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the Plaintiff, reasonably would not support a contrary factual finding.”

Credico was cited for disorderly conduct in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5503(a) (4). A person is guilty of disorderly conduct under this subsection if, “with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.” (“physically offensive condition” includes direct assaults on the physical senses of another.)

At the trial before the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Appellee Detective Maurer testified that he was in the cemetery investigating stolen grave markers when Credico

approached him, giving him the middle finger with both hands and saying “f*** you, a**h***.” When Maurer identified himself as a police officer, Credico said he didn’t care and was allowed to give him the middle finger. Maurer testified that Credico was three to five feet away from him and was very agitated. Maurer was alarmed and concerned that there would be a physical fight. Maurer called for other officers and when they arrived, Credico continued to argue with them.

Maurer testified that Credico was saying “f***” very loudly and that cemetery employees forty yards away stopped what they were doing to watch. Another officer confirmed that as he approached the situation, Credico was being very vocal and animated and was waving his arms. He had clenched fists and was aggressive, argumentative, and using very loud and profane language.

Credico testified and admitted to giving Detective Maurer the middle finger, cursing at him, and calling him an a**h***. He admitted that he got very close to Detective Maurer. Credico confirmed that the cemetery employees stopped and watched the confrontation. Credico testified that he had previously been acquitted of disorderly conduct for giving police officers the finger and purposely sets up officers by giving them the finger and cursing at them in order to provoke them into stopping him so he can sue them. The Court of Common Pleas dismissed the charges because the citation was not properly amended from disorderly conduct to harassment. The Court also found that Credico had approached the officer in a menacing manner.

The facts known to Detective Maurer were sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that the offense of disorderly conduct had been committed. Probable cause determinations have to be made “’on the spot’ [and] under pressure.” By approaching Detective Maurer in a menacing manner, getting very close to him, and loudly cursing at him—all in the hopes of creating the basis for a lawsuit—Credico caused Maurer to reasonably believe that he was creating a physically offensive condition with no legitimate purpose and with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm. Thus, there was probable

Most of Credico’s claims—retaliatory prosecution, malicious prosecution, and retaliation for First Amendment expression—fail if there was probable cause for Detective Maurer to issue Credico a citation for disorderly conduct. Probable cause exists when the facts known to the officer are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the offense has been committed. Generally, the existence of probable cause for arrest is a question of fact. However, a district court may conclude “that probable cause exists as a matter of law if the evidence, viewed most favorably to the Plaintiff, reasonably would not support a contrary factual finding.”

14 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

We need not reach the issue of whether the middle finger gesture is obscene, as Credico’s claims fail on other grounds. To state a claim for malicious prosecution, Credico must show, inter alia, a deprivation of liberty consistent with a seizure as a consequence of the legal proceeding. While pretrial custody and other restrictions can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, attendance at trial does not. Mere questioning by the police does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. cause to issue him a citation for disorderly conduct, and his claims against Maurer and the West Goshen Police Department fail.

MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT Credico argues that he should have been granted leave to amend his complaint to include a claim against the West Chester Police, Officer Murray, and Officer O’Donnell. Credico alleged that Officer O’Donnell questioned him after Credico gave him the finger. No citation was issued. He also alleged that on another occasion, Officer Murray issued him a citation for disorderly conduct when Credico gave him the finger. A magistrate judge later found Credico not guilty. Credico argued that this constituted malicious prosecution, abuse of process, deliberate indifference, and failure to train. The District Court denied the motion to amend with respect to these claims, concluding that the proposed claims were frivolous because Credico’s gestures were obscene.

We need not reach the issue of whether the middle finger gesture is obscene, as Credico’s claims fail on other grounds.

To state a claim for malicious prosecution, Credico must show, inter alia, a deprivation of liberty consistent with a seizure as a consequence of the legal proceeding. While pretrial custody and other restrictions can constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure, attendance at trial does not. Mere questioning by the police does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. To state a claim for abuse of process, Credico must show that his prosecution, although it may have been initiated lawfully, was then used for a purpose not intended by the law.

Because Officer O’Donnell only questioned Credico, the allegations against him fail to state a claim for malicious prosecution or abuse of process. With respect to Officer Murray, Credico’s allegations of receipt of a citation and attendance at trial do not state a claim for malicious prosecution, and Credico did not allege any facts to support an abuse of process claim.

Because Credico failed to state any claims against the officers, he cannot state claims against the West Chester Police Department for failure to train or deliberate indifference. Thus, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying him leave to amend.

www.pachiefs.org

OTHER CLAIMS Credico challenges the District Court’s dismissal of his claim against a sheriff who took away his pencil at the end of his trial in the Court of Common Pleas. Credico contends that this action constituted a denial of access to the courts. He states that the pencil was taken away while he was expressing his anger at being prosecuted; however, this was at the end of the hearing after the court had dismissed the charges. Credico has not shown that the removal of his pencil infringed his ability to bring a legal claim.

Credico also argues that the District Court erred in dismissing his claim against Deputy Reeves for slapping him on the arm.

We agree with the District Court that this action did not constitute excessive force. For the reasons above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 15

Section IV Representative-Elect of the FBI National Academy Associates

CHIEF KEN TRUVER Borough of Castle Shannon Police Department

On July 29, 2014 Chief Ken Truver, Borough of Castle Shannon Police Department, was sworn in as Section IV Representative-Elect of the FBI National Academy Associates (FBINAA), to take office on January 1, 2015. Chief Truver is an Executive Board member of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association.

Chief Truver was elected during the FBINAA Annual Conference held in Philadelphia from July 27-29, 2014.

Section IV includes the Chapters of Connecticut, Eastern PA, New England, New Jersey, New York and Eastern Canada, Ohio, Western PA, West Virginia and Europe.

The National Executive Board of the FBINAA is comprised of nine members, a Past President and two representatives from each section. The annual election takes place at the National Training Conference. Section representatives are elected serve for four years and are then elevated to Third Vice President, moving up to FBINAA National President in their 8th year on the Board. Truver will be the FBINAA President in 2022.

Chief Truver was the President of the Western Pennsylvania Chapter for 2011-12 and announced his candidacy at the 2012 annual Section IV meeting in Pittsburgh in September 2012. He spent most of 2013 traveling, visiting every Chapter except Europe.

The FBI National Academy Associates, Inc. is a nonprofit, international organization of nearly 18,000 senior law enforcement professionals dedicated to providing our communities, states, countries, and profession with the highest degree of law enforcement expertise, training, education and information. We are the strongest law enforcement leadership network in the world and are dedicated to strengthening the rule of law around the globe.

The Association is comprised of forty-four domestic chapters and four international chapters, the Association’s Executive Board, and the Executive Office. The Association’s Executive Office is located at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

Membership in the Association is limited only to those law enforcement leaders who have completed the FBI’s prestigious National Academy Program.

To continue the opportunity for graduates to receive training and networking opportunities following graduation, the Association sponsors major training and development conferences each year, both domestically and internationally.

The Association is firmly guided by its historic values and faithfulness to its values, vision and mission.

As a Section Representative, Chief Truver will serve on committees designed to assist the organization to meet various goals. All of the committees invite input from individual members, chapters and sections; Section Representatives assist in the communication loop. The Executive Board is committed to inviting and disseminating information. That process is mostly carried out through the Section Representatives at two annual meetings and as the Section Reps travel throughout the year.

Chief Truver comments “It was truly an honor and a privilege to represent the prestigious group of law enforcement executives who are fellow NA graduates and friends in Western PA at the Chapter level, and I am even more blessed to have made so many more friends across the Commonwealth and at the national level, and to have this additional responsibility and experience.”

Truver will be balancing his responsibilities as FBINAA Section IV Representative and President of the Western PA Chiefs of Police in 2015, as well as his positions on the Executive Boards of the Allegheny Chiefs of Police and the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, all while performing his Chief ’s duties at Castle Shannon.

The PCPA is proud to have Chief Truver as a member of the Executive Board, where he will be sharing his expertise and experience with our membership.

16 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

By: Patrice M. Turenne & Christopher Boyle, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

Amendments to

PENNSYLVANIA’S SAFE HAVEN LAW (Act 2014-91)

Effective August 31, 2014, Pennsylvania’s Safe Haven Law has been amended by Act 91 to allow police stations to serve as safe havens. The legislation was enacted to allow parents to seek assistance from law enforcement when they are unable to care for their newborn children without fear of prosecution. Under Act 91, a parent of a newborn (a child less than 28 days of age) may leave the newborn in the care of a police officer (any full-time or parttime employee assigned to criminal or traffic law enforcement duties of a police department) at a police station provided that the parent expresses, either orally or through conduct, their intention to have the police officer accept the newborn. Once a newborn has been taken into protective custody by a police station, the police officer accepting the newborn must ensure that the newborn is transported to a hospital and placed into the care of a health care provider. Under the Act, a health care provider is defined as any administrative, managerial, or security staff employed by a hospital.

If possible, the police officer accepting the newborn should attempt to obtain information about the newborn’s medical history and any identifying information from the parent. The police officer is then permitted to relay any information collected to the health care provider accepting the newborn.

No police department, police officer, or administrative or managerial personnel www.pachiefs.org

of a police department shall be subject to civil or criminal liability solely by reason of complying with the provisions of the Act. There are three practical implications of Act 91 for police officers and stations. First, it is important that all police officers and police station personnel are advised that, as of August 31, 2014, police officers can, and should, accept any newborn that a parent wishes to leave at the police station. Furthermore, it should be made clear that only police officers, as defined by the Act, are authorized to accept newborns at police stations.

Second, many hospitals in Pennsylvania have signs directing parents to safe

locations where newborns can be left.

It may be helpful for police stations to post signs directing parents to such a location within each station. Finally, it may be beneficial for supervisors to train subordinate personnel on how to interact with a parent wishing to leave their newborn. Specifically, subordinate personnel should be trained on how to obtain any information possible about the newborn’s medical history and identifying information, all while assuring the parent that the information is not being gathered for the purpose of criminal prosecution but rather to ensure the health and safety of the newborn.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 17

TECHNOLOGY

UPDATE

By Christopher J. Braun, MSIT, PCPA Technology Coordinator

provide emergency responders with an interoperable high-speed broadband national network dedicated to public safety. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Currently, FirstNet has a proposed budget of seven billion dollars that will come from the sale of the old television frequencies.

FirstNet, by law, is required to consult with each state to ensure that the network is designed to meet the needs of public safety. FirstNet is working through the state’s designated single point of contact, Major Scott Neal, Pennsylvania State Police, Director Bureau of Communications and Information Service. Major Scott led a ten person Pennsylvania delegation at the first national regional workshop held in Virginia, May 2013. Subsequently, Major Scott has hosted several meetings with Pennsylvania stakeholders.

THE FUTURE OF POLICE COMMUNICATIONS:

FIRSTNET, 4G LTE WIRELESS NETWORK FOR FIRST RESPONDERS While I have written before about FirstNet, the feedback has been very ho-hum with little interest. I think this is for two reasons. First, many departments are already enjoying the benefits of commercial 4G LTE broadband provided by Verizon, AT&T and Sprint to connect their vehicles and officers to RMSs and other databases as well as make voice phone calls .

Second, critical 911 dispatch and voice communications are largely controlled by county communications. However, in an emergency those commercial

networks can quickly be overloaded and there is no way to make sure first responders get the bandwidth they need.

Typical LMRs, Land Mobile Radios, even those with interoperability, can be insufficient to get critically needed data and information to the first responders and the scene of the emergency.

Today, we do not say if a mass scale incident occurs we will respond. Rather we say when it occurs we have a plan.

FirstNet is the legislative answer to the last 911 report recommendation,

18 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

Pennsylvania applied and received funds from the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP). As a result of that grant, in the spring of 2014, PSP contracted TreCom Systems Group, Inc., from just outside of Harrisburg. They have also sub-contracted with Digital Decision, LLC, out of Virginia, and also with Black and Veatch, which is a multinational company. They introduced the contractor at their June planning meeting and laid out a rough plan for the work ahead. This work includes gathering information from the state’s first responders and other public safety officials. Sometime this fall, there will be an outreach to police departments to get their input as to their needs for this network.

www.pachiefs.org

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE It is important that police departments be prepared and respond to this outreach. FirstNet will consult with Pennsylvania before the end of the year. Under the federal law, Pennsylvania within three months of that consultation, must decide to accept the FirstNet Plan or seek approval to lease the radio spectrum from FirstNet and build its own network. Either decision comes with a cost but the choice needs your feedback.

The PA FirstNet team is finalizing an outreach plan which aims to engage ALL stakeholders throughout the Commonwealth in the planning efforts.

The approach will combine various activities including speaking at statewide, regional, and county meetings. PAFirstNet is also working to collaborate with as many industry associations as possible to disseminate the message to their members. In addition to the various outreach efforts, they will be hosting regional workshops to collect vital information including user requirements for coverage and capacity, current mobile data usage and spend, the types of applications that would be leveraged along with much more.

While PA-FirstNet is charged with oversight of the planning efforts, all public safety stakeholders should be involved in the process to make sure that the program is successful and the vision of PA Safety Broadband Network can be achieved to help Pennsylvania First Responders more safely and efficiently perform their duties of saving lives and protecting property. The PA FirstNet team is in the process of finalizing the website which will have much more information available. In the meantime if you have any events that you would like to engage PA-FirstNet, please contact Niki Papazoglakis, Outreach & Education Coordinator, at c-npapazog@ pa.gov or 225-615-4570. www.pachiefs.org

CONFERENCE RAFFLE WINNERS WINNERS OF THE EXHIBIT HALL RAFFLES Chief Mark Hall – Clarion Borough

PRIZES $100 Sponsored by CODY Systems

Chief Bryan Kelly – Shaler Township Shirt & Best Buy Gift Card Sponsored by Policeapp.com Chief Raymond Klinger of Scott Township

Flashlight and Street Crimes Seminar Sponsored by Officer Phil Program Crime in America

Lt. Mark Freeman – Upper Providence Twp $100 Cabela’s Gift Card Sponsored by L-Tron Corporation Lt. Jason Loper – Fairview Township $250 Sponsored by the PCPA Steve Gillen – Upper Gwynedd Township $250 Sponsored by the PCPA Chief Allen Breach – Locust Township $500 Sponsored by the PCPA Chief Bryan Rizzo – Northeast Regional Lantern Sponsored by Samzie’s Uniforms Chief Mike Klein – Harrison Township Products Booth Giveaway Sponsored by the PCPA Chief Mark Kocsi – East Brandywine Twp. (2) 1-year Memberships Carol Allman, guest of Chief Mike Allman - Sponsored by LifeLock Identity Blairsville Borough Theft Protection Program Assistant Chief County Detective Douglas Demangone - York County District Attorney’s Office

$200 Winner of “CHIEF” Bingo Sponsored by the PCPA

Chief Richard Ficco – Richland Township Chief Mike Klein – Harrison Township Chief Jesse Lesko – Findlay Township Chief Bill Petures – Monaca Borough

(4) $25 Gift Certificates Sponsored by Patriot Workwear

Chief Scott Fogel – Lehigh Township Body Camera Sponsored by Digital Ally Inc. MONDAY BUSINESS MEETING RAFFLES Chief Steve Stinsky – Fleetwood Borough $250 Sponsored by the PCPA Chief Dean Osborne – Grove City Borough

$250 Sponsored by the PCPA

Chief Mike Beaty – Whitemarsh Township

$500 Sponsored by the PCPA

TUESDAY BUSINESS MEETING RAFFLES Chief Dave Latoski – Swoyersville Borough

$250 Sponsored by the PCPA

Chief Mike Beaty – Whitemarsh Township

$250 Sponsored by the PCPA

Chief Dave Steffen – Northern Lancaster Co. Regional

$500 Sponsored by the PCPA

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 19

THE DANGERS OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: NEW EMERGING ISSUES

THE DANGERS OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: NEW EMERGING ISSUES

BY RICHARD JOHNSON, PHD, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, OHIO; AND HARRY DOLAN, CHIEF (RET.), RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA, POLICE DEPARTMENT

A

s long as crime has existed, criminals have been attempting to elude justice. The invention of the automobile gave criminals one more way to attempt to escape the grasp of law enforcement. While the use of motor vehicles by criminals is widespread, one could assume that vehicle pursuits have become safer for officers over time.

Improvements in vehicle safety technology have made cars more maneuverable and safe, increasing the likelihood of surviving a high-speed crash. Advances in emergency trauma medicine have also increased the survival rate of traffic crash victims. Today, most law enforcement agencies have policies limiting the circumstances under which a vehicle pursuit may occur, how it will be monitored by management, and when it will be called off to avoid undue risks to the officers and the public. Police pursuit training has become more extensive and realistic, involving intense computer simulations and hands-on practice with real vehicles. Finally, anti-pursuit technologies have become common, such as devices used to deflate the tires of suspects’ vehicles.

But have pursuits really become safer?

Both authors have encountered high-speed vehicle pursuits that ended in the fleeing suspect surrendering to the police, without injury to officers, citizens, or suspects.

On the surface, these incidents appear to be textbook successes. Many of these same pursuits, however, have also involved numerous assisting officers racing across the city at extremely high speeds, traveling through stop signs and red lights at rush hour, to assist in the pursuit by trying to get ahead of it to lay tire-deflation devices in the path of the pursuit. The authors have witnessed officers, miles from the pursuit, racing through intersections at breakneck speeds, just narrowly missing the cars of innocent people on their way home from work or school—even witnessed assisting officers, pumped with adrenaline, loudly cursing innocent citizens who did not move aside fast enough. While officers in direct pursuit are often governed by strict department policies limiting the pursuit to reasonable speeds, additional officers who are not in direct pursuit are often traveling at unsafe speeds all across the area to assist in the pursuit.

20 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

These observations led to a broader examination of the risks vehicle pursuits pose to officers. This broader study examined not only officers in direct pursuit, but also the danger and risks to officers assisting in these pursuits. This analysis of officer deaths associated with vehicle pursuits revealed that police vehicle pursuits have not become safer over time. In fact, some types of officer deaths associated with pursuits have been on the increase for the last few decades. The study reveals trends in officer deaths related to pursuits and provides a backdrop for an exploration of suggestions to mitigate the trends and understand the potential effects on police pursuit policies and practices.

STUDY METHODOLOGY The study began with an investigation of law enforcement officers killed while involved in vehicle pursuits from 1960 through 2011. Data were gathered on all police officers killed in a motor vehicle– related death from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) reports published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), death descriptions offered on the Officer Down Memorial Page website, and archived newspaper articles surrounding each officer’s death. These information sources were reviewed to identify officers whose deaths were associated with a vehicle pursuit in some way. This review identified 455 officer deaths related to vehicle pursuits during the 52-year study period.

Data were gathered on the role each of these officers played in the pursuits, revealing that 75 percent were directly involved in pursuing a fleeing suspect vehicle at the time of their deaths. Another 19 percent were involved in some sort of blocking activity (such as creating a roadblock or deploying tire deflation devices), and the remaining 6 percent were traveling to catch up to the pursuit or get ahead of it to establish a blocking position.

It was originally anticipated that the data would reveal a gradual decline in officer pursuit-related deaths for several reasons. www.pachiefs.org

THE DANGERS OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: NEW EMERGING ISSUES First, advances in trauma medicine and EMS services at the scene of accidents have significantly reduced citizen deaths in automobile accidents over the last four decades. Second, improvements in automobile engineering have made vehicles significantly safer. Third, officer pursuit training has increased in quantity and quality, now including video-based simulations, as well as actual vehicle operations on a closed track. Fourth, most law enforcement agencies have developed detailed written policies governing when and how vehicle pursuits will be conducted, with some agencies limiting pursuits to cases of violent felony offenses.

A few agencies have even banned pursuits entirely. Finally, the last four decades have witnessed the development and proliferation of tire-deflation devices used by police departments. These facts, taken together, would lead one to anticipate that, over time, the number of police pursuits has decreased, and when pursuits occur, they would be less likely to result in the death of an officer. The results of the analysis, however, only partially meet these expectations.

STUDY RESULTS Figure 1 is a line graph of law enforcement officers who were directly involved in a pursuit by chasing the fleeing suspect vehicle at the time of their deaths. These officers died by losing control of their vehicles, colliding with the suspects’ vehicles, colliding with another police vehicle, or colliding with an innocent third party. This figure demonstrates that, as anticipated, this role in pursuits decreased in lethality over time. The number of officers who died while involved in direct pursuit gradually declined over the last five

www.pachiefs.org

decades, from 50 officers killed between 1960 and 1964, to 17 killed between 2005 and 2010. It appears that the advances in pursuit policies, medical resources, and vehicle technology have paid off in officers’ lives saved during direct pursuits.

BLOCKING ACTIVITIES DEATHS Approximately 19 percent of the pursuitrelated officer deaths occurred to officers attempting to establish some sort of block to the fleeing suspect’s path. This included establishing a roadblock with a patrol car or other obstruction, directing lights in the eyes of the approaching suspect, or deploying tire deflation devices. Figure 2 displays the trend in officer deaths related to this pursuit activity. As this figure reveals, there has not been a gradual decline in officer deaths of this nature. These types of officer deaths declined in the 1960s, dramatically rose again in the 1970s, and declined rapidly in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, these deaths were on a steep rise again and, after a brief dip, are continuing to rise today.

This unusual pattern may be explained by changes in the case law surrounding police pursuits, and the development of anti-pursuit technologies. Three landmark cases in the 1980s dramatically changed how roadblocks could be utilized during vehicle pursuits. First, in Tennessee v.

Garner (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court took the first major step in defining the limits of police use of lethal force. One of many things that resulted from this case was the abolishment of the “fleeing felon rule” that had previously allowed the use of lethal force to prevent felons from escaping, regardless of the lack of imminent danger posed by the felon. This abolition, therefore, eliminated the practice

of shooting at fleeing suspect vehicles (from a moving patrol car or a roadblock) in most cases.1 The second case, Jamieson v.

Shaw (1985), decided by the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, extended the decision in Garner to include other roadblock tactics that had a high likelihood of severely injuring or killing the fleeing suspect. In particular, this case suggested that placing a patrol car across the road on a blind curve and shining bright lights in the driver’s eyes to prevent him or her from seeing the roadblock constituted an unreasonable seizure.2 In the third case, Brower v. Inyo County (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that roadblock tactics that create a likelihood of death or injury to the fleeing suspect constituted an unreasonable use of force. In this case, officers had placed a semi-truck completely across the highway around a curve, with patrol cars’ headlights aimed to blind the fleeing driver on approach.3 These three court decisions and the influence they undoubtedly had on law enforcement agencies’ pursuit practices may explain the tremendous decline in officer blocking deaths that began around 1985 and continued through the early 1990s. After 1985, roadblocks, if used at all, had to be constructed in a manner so that they would not cause injury to the fleeing suspect. Some of the pre-1985 officer deaths at roadblocks involved officers shooting at the fleeing driver from the roadblock, causing the driver to lose control and hit an officer or intentionally try to run down the firing officers. Others involved fleeing suspects being blinded by police lights, causing them to swerve and hit an officer. Still others involved officers off of the roadway who were hit when the suspect left the roadway in an attempt to go around a vehicle parked across the road.

All three of these common scenarios were reduced dramatically by the restrictions placed on roadblocks by the U.S. federal courts. Fewer occurrences of these situations resulted in fewer officer deaths at roadblocks.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 22u

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 21

THE DANGERS OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: NEW EMERGING ISSUES The steady resurgence of officer blocking activity deaths since the mid-1990s may be linked to the proliferation of tire deflation anti-pursuit devices. According to the U.S. Patents Office website, in the 1960s, no patents were filed for tire deflation devices.

In the 1970s, two such patents were filed, and in the 1980s, seven patents were filed.

In the 1990s, however, 19 new patents were filed, with another 24 filed in the first decade of the 2000s.4 As the number and variety of these devices have increased, so have the number of officers killed attempting to deploy these devices. Almost all of the officers killed after 1995 while attempting some sort of blocking activity were killed while attempting to deploy tire deflation devices. Some were retrieving the devices from their trunks when rear-ended on the side of the road. Others were hit by the suspect vehicle or another citizen while deploying the devices, while still others were killed by patrol cars or other passing motorists as they attempted to retrieve the used devices from the road.

The authors have observed an increase in traffic collisions involving secondary officers responding to assist those in direct pursuit. When reviewing these collisions, it appeared that paralleling the pursuit had become commonplace. In some of the incidents reviewed, 20 or more police units paralleled a pursuit.

The obvious safety issue with paralleling is the inherent danger associated with numerous emergency vehicles in close proximity traveling at high rates of speed while unaware of the others’ locations.

TRAVELING TO ASSIST IN THE PURSUIT The last type of activity in which officers were engaged when killed during pursuits involved officers who were in fatal motor vehicle crashes while rushing in an attempt to either catch up to the pursuit or get ahead of the pursuit in order to establish a roadblock or deploy tire deflation devices. Between 1960 and 2011, 86 law enforcement officers died in this manner.

Figure 3 reveals the pattern of these officer deaths since 1960.

the 1960s, 13 officers died in this manner, but in the first decade of the 2000s, the number was 23, almost double the number of the first decade of the study.

The exact reason for this steady increase is not completely clear. It may be a result of extensive media attention to vehicle pursuits today on news broadcasts and reality television shows, which glorify vehicle pursuits, possibly attracting officers to the excitement of a pursuit. It could also be an unintended consequence of the implementation of anti-pursuit technologies. More officers may be trying to get involved in the pursuit by establishing a blocking position with tire deflation devices. Finally, the expansion of radio communication capabilities and global positioning maps may have made more officers aware of the pursuit than was the case several decades ago. As more officers are aware of the pursuit, more officers try to get involved.

As Figure 3 demonstrates, the number of officers killed in fatal auto crashes while traveling to assist in pursuits has been steadily increasing for several decades. In

The authors have observed an increase in traffic collisions involving secondary officers responding to assist those in direct pursuit. When reviewing these collisions, it appeared that paralleling the pursuit had become commonplace. In some of the incidents reviewed, 20 or more police units paralleled a pursuit. The obvious safety issue with paralleling is the inherent danger associated with numerous emergency vehicles in close proximity traveling at high rates of speed while unaware of the others’ locations.

22 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

The results of the present study raise the concern that the presence of the tire deflation devices in patrol cars may be resulting in an increase in the frequency and speeds associated with paralleling units. In fact, so great was the concern of one of the authors that, after reviewing the findings of this study, he directed all tire deflation devices be removed from his agency’s patrol cars. This decision was based upon the inability to support officers standing in roadways in close proximity to fleeing motorists traveling at high rates of speed, and the number of officers traveling at high rates of speed to get into position to deploy the devices was too great a risk to all concerned. The risks involved with the implementation of tire deflation devices demonstrate the need for the law enforcement profession to conduct evaluative research prior to implementing new technologies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE The results of this analysis of officer pursuit-related deaths may suggest the need for changes in police policies and practices. First, consideration should be given to expanding written departmental pursuit policies to include restrictions on the behaviors of officers assisting in pursuits. Just as many pursuit policies limit the number of officers or units that can participate in the pursuit, police executives should also consider restricting the number

www.pachiefs.org

THE DANGERS OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: NEW EMERGING ISSUES of officers who can engage in assisting with the pursuit. Limitations should be placed on how fast these assisting officers are allowed to travel, and, just like officers directly involved in the pursuit, they should be called off if traffic conditions make their travel unnecessarily dangerous.

Second, law enforcement agencies, in cooperation with tire deflation device manufacturers, should identify the safest and most effective tactics for establishing roadblocks and deploying these devices. By comparing tire-deflation device deployment incidents that resulted in deaths and injuries with deployments that were done safely, key differences may be identified that can lead to the development of best practices in the deployment of these devices. These evidence-based best practices can then be written into pursuit policies and incorporated into both academy and in-service training. It would also be beneficial to expedite the current research and experimentation into electronic vehicle kill switch technology that can remotely turn off the fleeing vehicle’s engine, thus safely terminating the vehicle portion of the pursuit. Such technology is currently under development by several companies, but public pressure should be placed on these private companies to move more quickly to develop a model for practical field use.

Finally, to ensure officer buy-in with changes in tactics and written policies,

street-level officers should be educated about the rising officer death rate from the deployment of tire deflation devices and traveling to assist in pursuits. Officers may exercise more caution when they realize that these activities are posing a greater risk to officer safety. Agencies can conduct after-action reviews to educate officers of the dangers they are posing to themselves and innocent motorists and pedestrians.

Dash camera video footage from the assisting units, traffic camera footage, and in-car global positioning data can all be used in these after-action reviews to demonstrate to officers the dangers being posed by these activities.

CONCLUSION The authors are not opposed to police pursuits as long as they conform to departmental policies and the limits of the law. We fully recognize and support the need for law enforcement officers to pursue and apprehend criminals who refuse to voluntarily submit to the law. The purpose of this study was to examine if they are being conducted in the safest manner. The natural tendency for police officers to overrespond during vehicle pursuits has long been an area of great concern for police administrators. Managing the fundamental desire of good cops everywhere to come to the aid of their peers remains an inherent challenge. Over the past several decades, considerable improvement in decision making has been demonstrated by officers

In spite of changes in technology, training, tactics, and policies designed to reduce the dangers vehicle pursuits pose for police officers, the annual number of officers killed assisting in pursuits has steadily been on the rise. Each decade, the number of officers killed while deploying tire-deflation devices or traveling to assist the pursuing officers increases. Street-level officers need to be informed of this growing danger, and better tactics and training need to be developed for the use of anti-

and supervisors in direct pursuits. The information provided by this study reveals that the overriding concern today rests with the uncoordinated response of those coming to the aid of the officers in direct pursuit.

In spite of changes in technology, training, tactics, and policies designed to reduce the dangers vehicle pursuits pose for police officers, the annual number of officers killed assisting in pursuits has steadily been on the rise. Each decade, the number of officers killed while deploying tire-deflation devices or traveling to assist the pursuing officers increases. Street-level officers need to be informed of this growing danger, and better tactics and training need to be developed for the use of anti-pursuit technologies. Pursuit policies need to be expanded to include governing the behavior of officers assisting in pursuits.

New anti-pursuit technologies need to be developed that would be safer for officers to deploy. Law enforcement is a dangerous profession, and every effort that can be made to improve safety should be made.

NOTES: 1 Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

2 Jamieson v. Shaw, 776 F.2d 1048 (5th Cir. 1985).

3 Brower v. Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593 (1989).

4 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Process—Search, http://www.uspto.gov/ patents/process/search (accessed June 2, 2014).

Reprinted with permission from The Police Chief, vol. LXXXI, no. 7, July 2014. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 22 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA. Richard Johnson and Harry Dolan, “The Dangers of Vehicle Pursuits: New Emerging Issues,” The Police Chief 81 (July 2014): 24–27. Further reproduction without express permission from the IACP is strictly prohibited.

pursuit technologies. www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 23

RADAR FOR LOCALS

RADAR FOR LOCALS (Reprinted with permission from the Pennsylvania State Police newsletter, “The Communicator”, Volume LI, August 2014, Number 8, pages 1-2.)

In agreement, Senator Randy Vulakovich, R-Allegheny County, also a former police officer, said, “Forty-nine states can do this and trust their policemen to do it. Pennsylvania cannot. It’s insulting and somewhat silly…policemen should have the tools that they need.”

Towns receive a very small portion of the proceeds from tickets – only $17.50 for speeding where the limit is under 65 mph.

Furthermore, local communities can write tickets to increase revenue using their current tools, and they do not.

Currently, local departments use less efficient systems to enforce speed, such as VASCAR (Visual Average Speed Computer And Recorder), which was pointed out to the Committee as inefficient, because it requires at least two officers to operate.

This practice is time-consuming for manpower-starved departments.

In June, State Police Commissioner Frank Noonan and several others testified before the Senate Transportation Committee, calling for Pennsylvania to become the final state to enact legislation that would allow municipal police officers to use radar for speed enforcement.

“Two-thirds of Pennsylvania’s 615 speed-related deaths that occurred in 2012, the latest year statistics are available, occurred on local roadways,” said Thomas King, President of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. The national average of speed-related deaths in 2012 was 305.

Pennsylvania’s annual speed-related deaths are more than double the national average. In 2011, 87 percent of Pennsylvania’s 1,286 speed-related fatalities happened on local roads.

The Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, John Rafferty, R-Montgomery County, stated the issue had been brought up in the General Assembly for years, but has failed to pass because of concerns by some constituents that local governments will misuse their radar guns to increase traffic stops, thereby increasing revenue.

Noonan disagreed. “Understand one thing,” he said, “Giving the municipal police radar will save lives. There’s just no question about it.” Addressing the fears of abuse for revenue, Noonan stated, “If we found some municipality was abusing this privilege, I don’t think it would be very difficult for us to go back and remedy that very quickly.”

Many municipalities have voiced support for the legislation authorizing local radar, including Allegheny County and Pittsburgh.

Rafferty has, however, drafted a bill – Senate Bill 1428 – before the General Assembly that would finally allow local police departments to use radar. The bill allows full-time police officers at 24-hour police departments to use radar after completing training. Furthermore, all local police would be required to report any revenue generated through radar citations to the PSP. “This is not going to be an easy subject of a bill to get through this General Assembly.” Rafferty said. “When I announced that we were going to have a hearing for local police radar, some members of our caucus threw up their hands, and they’re not alone.”

There are several other bills before the General Assembly allowing local radar use as well.

The PSP has been using radar technology since 1961. Like the State Police, municipal and regional police departments are challenged to provide safety measures to their communities in the most efficient manner. For all of us, the use of commonly accepted technology and equipment is critical to this mission.

Colonel Noonan greatly appreciates and admires our partners in the police community in this Commonwealth, and believes it is time to authorize these very basic tools to advance the overall goal of making Pennsylvania’s roads the safest in the nation.

In agreement, Senator Randy Vulakovich, R-Allegheny County, also a former police officer, said, “Forty-nine states can do this and trust their policemen to do it. Pennsylvania cannot.

It’s insulting and somewhat silly…policemen should have the tools that they need.”

24 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

IACP AND NCMEC LAUNCH CYBERBULLYING TIP CARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT

IACP AND NCMEC LAUNCH CYBERBULLYING TIP CARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Cyberbullying among youth is one of the most prominent new issues facing law enforcement, and it’s not limited to computers – it can also occur over social media, cell phones, tablets, and gaming systems. Various studies from the Cyberbullying Research Center show that 25% of teens have experienced cyberbullying at some point in their lives. In many states, there is no clear criminal statute on cyberbullying, yet law enforcement is increasingly called to respond to these incidents. Law enforcement agencies have the opportunity to help children, parents, school administrators and other professionals understand legal obligations, authority, and respective roles regarding prevention and response to cyberbullying incidents.

“Law enforcement officers have a unique challenge when responding to cyberbullying complaints,” said the IACP’s President, Chief Yousry “Yost” Zakhary (City of Woodway, Texas).

“Bullying no longer only happens in schools and neighborhoods. Technology allows bullies to have access to their

www.pachiefs.org

PREPARING AND RESPONDING TO CYBERBULLYING: TIPS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT Cyberbullying is bullying through technology, such as computers and cell phones. Law enforcement officers are increasingly confronted with cyberbullying complaints due to the prevalence of technology used by children and youth, and new legislation and laws addressing these types of incidents.

Some cyberbullying incidents may warrant criminal action while others may not. Either way, law enforcement officers should be prepared to receive cyberbullying complaints and help communities address the issue.

ADMINISTRATION, POLICY AND TRAINING

WORKING WITHIN YOUR AGENCY

RESPONSE AND INVESTIGATION

» Consider notifying the parents and school(s) of the alleged offender and victims.

Administrators can use these tips to help prepare for a cyberbullying incident.

» Know the laws pertaining to cyberbullying in your state, which may fall under harassment, stalking or other statutes as well as federal civil rights laws on discriminatory harassment.

» Advise the victim involved in the investigation to report to the website/app (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) where cyberbullying is occurring, and document evidence of additional incidents. » Determine if you need a search warrant or consent from the victim’s and alleged offender’s parents to search electronic devices.

» Consult with your local prosecutor’s office to determine how to respond to cyberbullying incidents.

» Consider contacting your local ICAC for assistance with evidence collection and review. Only trained personnel should attempt to retrieve data from electronic devices so evidence is secured without contamination.

» Consider how officers will respond to the victim and alleged offender, manage the digital evidence, conduct the investigation and refer victims and alleged offenders to counseling.

» Send a preservation letter or subpoena to the Electronic Service Provider to obtain all relevant information and to preserve evidence.

» Instruct officers on how to respond to cyberbullying incidents via agency directives, policies and training. » Establish a relationship with the Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force in your area for assistance related to electronic devices, Electronic Service Providers and websites/apps. » Ensure that your agency’s cyberbullying policy, protocols and training are current by developing a process for the ongoing review of cyberbullying cases.

WORKING WITHIN YOUR COMMUNITY

Officers can use these tips to help guide their response to a cyberbullying incident.

» Create a record of the incident in case there are future occurrences with the same child(ren). File a police report if a crime was committed or a complaint report if a crime was not committed.

» Advise local school districts to adopt cyberbullying policies and implement prevention programming (often mandated by state law).

» Collect evidence related to the incident and save any relevant communications.

» Interview friends of both the victim and alleged offender. » Recommend the school follow its existing policies to determine the appropriate response, which may include discipline and/or alternative interventions. » Recommend to appropriate partners (e.g., school, prosecutor’s office and courts) that the offender attend educational workshops, conduct community service or complete diversion programs. » Consult counseling professionals to see if assessment and treatment are recommended for any children involved. Follow up with the parents of children involved to see if the situation was completely resolved or if additional action or resources are needed.

» Recommend that schools implement prevention and education programming for students and staff. » Recommend that local school districts adopt and publicize reporting mechanisms such as an anonymous reporting hotline. » Discuss law enforcement and school procedures with local school districts and determine in advance how cyberbullying complaints should be addressed when they occur at school (e.g., if and when police should be called and how evidence is collected).

For more cyberbullying resources from NetSmartz Workshop, International Association of Chiefs of Police and others, visit

www.theiacp.org/CyberbullyingResources

» Educate youth and the community about Internet safety issues and available resources. Consider using the NetSmartz Workshop presentations. » Consider partnering with local media to increase cyberbullying awareness.

Copyright © 2014 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and International Association of Chiefs of Police. All rights reserved.

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Numbers 2010-MU-FX-K591 and 2013-MC-FX-K001 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Copyright © 2014 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and International Association of Chiefs of Police. All rights reserved.

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children® and NetSmartz® Workshop are registered trademarks of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

victim anytime and anywhere and bully in new ways using numerous online methods. This new tool gives law enforcement a checklist of options in a modern-day investigative area that has, until now, lacked guidance and training.”

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) have jointly released a new tool for law enforcement titled Preparing and Responding to Cyberbullying: Tips for Law Enforcement. The resource was developed under a project supported by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

This tool includes more than 20 recommendations to address cyberbullying from subject matter experts working in law enforcement, youth trauma, mental health, computer crimes, victim services, and education.

It provides guidance on cyberbullying prevention, preparation, response, and investigation to law enforcement administrators and first responders.

This tip card was developed with input from a number of IACP Committees, including Juvenile Justice and Child Protection, Victim Services, Crime Prevention and Computer Crime and Digital Evidence. It also includes contributions from state and local law enforcement investigators within OJJDP’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces around the country as well as specialist practitioners with the National Child Traumatic Stress Network.

A copy of the tip card (in English or Spanish), is available for download on the IACP website at http://www.theiacp.org/cyberbullyingresources.

To order hard copies of the resource, contact us at iacpyouth@theiacp.org or 1-800-THE-IACP x 830.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 25

ENCOUNTERING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY...

ENCOUNTERING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

By Michael J. Oh, Esq., Assistant City Attorney, City of Henderson, Nevada; Police Legal Advisor, Henderson Police Department; IACP Legal Officers Section

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS’ ENCOUNTERS WITH EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED PEOPLE ARE BECOMING MORE PREVALENT EACH DAY. HOWEVER, CASE LAW ACROSS THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN INCONSISTENT IN DETERMINING WHETHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN BE HELD LIABLE WHEN DEALING WITH A PERSON WITH A MENTAL DISABILITY, SPECIFICALLY AS TO WHETHER THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS VIOLATED THE PERSON’S RIGHTS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA). THIS ARTICLE ANALYZES THE MOST RECENT CASE THAT HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT, SHEEHAN V. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT—A BRIEF BACKGROUND Title II of the ADA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such

entity.1 For the purposes of the ADA, law enforcement agencies are considered a public entity and, thus, among those that must abide by the law prohibiting exclusion due to the disability.2 Per the Department of Justice, the ADA covers essentially all of the activities law enforcement regularly engages in, such as receiving citizen complaints; interrogating witnesses; arresting,

26 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

booking, and holding suspects; operating 9-1-1 telephone emergency centers; providing medical services; and enforcing laws.3 LIABILITY UNDER THE ADA Courts have allowed at least two types of Title II claims applicable to arrests: (1) wrongful arrest, where police wrongly arrest someone with a disability because www.pachiefs.org

ENCOUNTERING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY... they misperceive the effects of that disability as criminal activity; and (2) reasonable accommodation, where, although police properly investigate and arrest a person with a disability for a crime unrelated to that disability, they fail to reasonably accommodate the person’s disability in the course of investigation or arrest, causing the person to suffer greater injury or indignity in that process than most arrestees.4 For the purpose of this article, the focus will be on the latter cause of action as it relates to law enforcement’s exposure to liability. In order to bring a claim under Title II, a plaintiff must generally prove that (1) he or she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he or she was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) the exclusion, denial of benefit, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.5 There has been some disagreement among the circuits as to whether the ADA applies to arrests; a subject raised most recently in the U.S. Ninth Circuit case Sheehan v.

City of San Francisco.6 SHEEHAN V. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO In the case under discussion, a social worker believed Teresa Sheehan, the plaintiff who has a mental illness and was not taking medication prescribed for her condition, to be a danger to others due to her threats to the social worker. The police were subsequently called to transport Sheehan to a 72hour involuntary commitment under California law. When the officers arrived, they were informed there were no other residents in the group home building and there was only one other way out of Sheehan’s room, aside from the door to her room—a second-story window. The

social worker did not give the officers any information that indicated that Sheehan was likely to injure herself.

The officers entered Sheehan’s room without a warrant to confirm the social worker’s assessment and to take Sheehan into custody. When the officers entered the room, Sheehan grabbed a knife and threatened to kill them, stating that she did not want to be detained in a mental health facility. The officers went back into the hallway and closed the door to Sheehan’s room. The officers called for back-up, but before the back-up arrived, the original responding officers drew their weapons and forced entry into Sheehan’s room. Sheehan threatened the officers with the knife and the officers fired five or six shots. Sheehan survived and sued the officers, claiming the officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights by entering her room without a warrant and using excessive force.

Additionally, Sheehan brought a claim under Title II of the ADA, along with other tort and statutory claims under state law.

The trial court granted summary judgment on all of Sheehan’s claims, including the claim under the ADA. However, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, stating the reasonableness of an accommodation is ordinarily a question of fact and holding that Title II applies to arrests.

This was an issue of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, and the application of the ADA to law enforcement activity is not consistent throughout other circuit courts. The U.S. Fifth Circuit has held that Title II does not apply to an officer’s “on-the-street-responses.”7 The U.S. Eleventh and Fourth Circuits took a different approach and looked

at reasonableness of the requested ADA modification where there are exigent circumstances presented by criminal activity. The Tenth Circuit held that excluding arrests from the scope of Title II “is not the law.”8 Similar to the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits, the Ninth Circuit adopted the reasonableness of the ADA modification approach.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, is moving toward a review of the Sheehan case, which has the potential to provide a precedent for courts in cases of alleged ADA violations by law enforcement and unify the previously disparate views.9 REASONABLENESS OF THE ADA MODIFICATION APPROACH In a 2007 alleged ADA violation case, Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, a deaf man was arrested for allegations of driving under the influence.10 The plaintiff alleged the law enforcement officers violated Title II of the ADA by failing to provide him with an interpreter to assist him in communicating with police officers. The U.S. Eleventh Circuit established a reasonable modification approach test—it asked “given the criminal activity and safety concerns, was the modification of police procedures reasonable before the police physically arrested a criminal suspect, secured the scene, and ensured that there was no threat to public or officer’s safety?” This approach created a highly fact-specific inquiry that requires the determination by a jury as the finders of fact.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POSITION The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) implements regulations interpreting Title II of the ADA, as dictated by § 35.190(b)(6) of the act, which designates the DOJ as the agency responsible for coordinating compliance activities CONTINUED ON PAGE 28u

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 27

ENCOUNTERING MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE AND POTENTIAL LIABILITY... of public entities that administer “[a] ll programs, services, and regulatory activities to law enforcement, public safety, and the administration of justice, including courts and correctional institutions.”11 The preamble to the regulations indicates that this language is intended to apply to “all services, programs, and activities made available by public entities.”12 The regulations define “program” to mean “all of the operations of any entity described… any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance.” Additionally, the term “benefit” includes the provision of services such as “treatment, handling, decision, sentencing, confinement, or other prescription conduct.”13 Based upon the regulations and a review on past matters concerning law enforcement agencies, the DOJ has consistently interpreted Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to include all operations and activities of a police department, including the provision of reasonable accommodations during an arrest.14 Therefore, despite the inconsistency among the U.S. circuit courts as to whether the ADA requirement of reasonable accommodation applies to arrest, a law enforcement agency may be subject to an enforcement action by the DOJ if reasonable accommodations are not provided during an arrest when dealing with a subject who is mentally ill.

CONCLUSION While the U.S. courts have been inconsistent with their rulings as to whether the ADA applies to arrests, the DOJ’s enforcement approach is consistent with the Sheehan case. Even though a law enforcement agency may not be liable in some U.S. federal circuit courts under an ADA claim,

Based upon the regulations and a review on past matters concerning law enforcement agencies, the DOJ has consistently interpreted Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to include all operations and activities of a police department, including the provision of reasonable accommodations during an arrest.14 Therefore, despite the inconsistency among the U.S. circuit courts as to whether the ADA requirement of reasonable accommodation applies to arrest, a law enforcement agency may be subject to an enforcement action by the DOJ if reasonable accommodations are not provided during an arrest when dealing with a subject who is mentally ill. the agency may still be subject to DOJ enforcement action and penalties. Thus, a law enforcement agency should review its policy to ensure compliance with Title II of the ADA as it relates to arrests.

Further, the potential costs for defending an ADA claim could be substantial even if the agency ultimately prevails in the lawsuit, especially if more circuits adopt the Eleventh Circuit’s reasonableness of the ADA modification approach.

NOTES: 1 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132.

2 Id. 3 “Commonly Asked Questions About The Americans With Disabilities Act And Law Enforcement,” www.ada.gov (accessed May 4, 2014).

4 Gohier v. Enright,186 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 1999); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998).

5 Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2011).

6 Sheehan v. City of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014).

7 Hainze v. Richards, 207 F.3D 795, 801 (5th Cir. 2000).

28 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir. 1999).

9 A writ of certiorari was filed on behalf of San Francisco on May 27, 2014, and the U.S. Supreme Court was waiting on Sheehan’s reply at the time of publication.

10 Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007).

11 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.191–35.999 (6).

12 28 C.F.R. 35.102(a).

13 28 C.F.R. 42.540(h) and (j).

14 See the United States Department of Justice webpage “Cases and Matters,” www.justice.gov/crt/records (accessed May 4, 2014).

8

Reprinted with permission from The Police Chief, vol. LXXXI, no. 7, July 2014. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 44 Canal Center, Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA. Michael J. Oh, “Encountering Mentally Ill People and Potential Liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Chief ’s Counsel, The Police Chief 81 (July 2014): 18–19. Further reproduction without express permission from the IACP is strictly prohibited.

www.pachiefs.org

By Adam N. Nowicki, LPI, LPQ, PFMA Loss Prevention Committee

RETAIL THEFT AMENDED DOES YOUR JURISDICTION HAVE A SHOPPING CENTER? RETAIL THEFT ARRESTS? On the surface, retail crime can be regarded as petty — yet often enough offenders are linked to activities on the radar of professional law enforcement (regional and interstate organized crime, gang activity, and narcotics to name a few). The FBI has consistently linked revenue of Organized Retail Theft (ORT) groups to terrorist organizations since September 11, 2001.

On December 23, 2013, Pennsylvania again strengthened its retail theft law by passing Senate Bill 731 (Act 131) into law. The retail theft section of the law, being a cooperative effort led by Sen. John Rafferty (R-Berks/Chester/ Montgomery) and Rep. Todd Stephens (R-Montgomery) provides a stricter penalty for burglary, robbery, and theft by specifically amending the grading for the offense of retail theft. Act 131 comes on the heels of the 2010 passage of HB 1720 (Act 33), which added §3929.3.

Organized Retail Theft to the crimes code, a felony offense for individuals guilty of managing an ORT “Enterprise”.

The FBI estimates merchants lose in excess of $30 billion each year due to this activity, the revenues of which have been linked to organizations including Hamas and Hezbollah.

This activity poses a significant health risk to consumers who unknowingly purchase stolen infant formula, medication, and healthcare items which could have altered expiration dates or may have been improperly stored. Furthermore, the lost tax revenue reduces funding for municipal agencies. The good news is that agencies in the Commonwealth are now prosecuting offenders under §3929.3. www.pachiefs.org

additional resources to combat retail crime. “Whether or not you signed up for the first time offender program, it is still a prior offense and this law will help clarify for the patrolman and district magistrate where sometimes the law is interpreted differently”, said Detective Gary Hammer of the Colonial Regional Police Department, who has a number of retail locations in his agencies’ jurisdiction.

“Hopefully this eliminates the catch-22”.

The passage of Act 131 also reduces the felony threshold for retail theft from $2,000 to $1,000.Doing so brings Pennsylvania more in line with other states in the U.S. with lower felony level thresholds. The spirit of the law is to discourage organized crime from viewing Pennsylvania as a target-rich environment as they have in years past. The average shoplifter requires a substantial haul to reach this level and the summary and misdemeanor thresholds remain $150 for first-time offenders. Another section of this act provides language that now constitutes the use of an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD) program as a prior offense, stating “… the court shall include a conviction, acceptance of Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition or other form of preliminary disposition, occurring before the sentencing on the present violation, for an offense under this section...”.

Pennsylvania Asset Protection Division Manager Wade A. Hess of Wegmans Food Markets Inc. had this to say, “We need not only the law-enforcement and retail community, but our Judges and elected officials to understand some of these so-called retail thefts are actually fueling much more dangerous enterprises. We can talk at length about the negative impact on the retailers, increased prices passed onto the public and millions in lost tax revenue to our state, but when you talk about crimes that impact the safety of people there is a much greater sense of urgency. It is clear that Organized Retail Crime (ORC) has links to gang violence, drug activity, and even terrorism. This puts our children and our communities at risk. Hopefully these laws will provide law enforcement officers with the correct tools needed to prosecute offenders to the fullest.”

With up-to-date retail theft statutes on the books, Pennsylvania retailers and police agencies have the ability to continue combatting and mitigating the persistent issue of retail crime, which adversely affects citizens and government across the Commonwealth.

These two recently updated laws have given Pennsylvania law enforcement PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 29

REDUCING AUTO THEFT IN PENNSYLVANIA – A 20-YEAR PARTNERSHIP

REDUCING AUTO THEFT IN PENNSYLVANIA – A 20-YEAR PARTNERSHIP

BY STEVEN R. WHEELER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA AUTO THEFT PREVENTION AUTHORITY

unpaid drug debts.

In 1994, there were 52,306 vehicle thefts reported in Pennsylvania. As a result, the state legislature created the Pennsylvania Auto Theft Prevention Authority. The mission of the Authority is to establish, coordinate, and fund activities in Pennsylvania to prevent, combat, and reduce automobile theft. Since its inception, vehicle theft in Pennsylvania has decreased 71% compared with 59% nationally.

The Authority uses no tax dollars. Its funds are raised through annual assessments paid by nearly 400 auto insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania. For each dollar spent by the Authority to fight auto theft, there has been a $7 return on that investment in recovered stolen vehicles and parts. In 2013, we recovered $29 million in stolen vehicles and parts.

W

hether you know it or not, you are part of our team. For twenty years, the Pennsylvania Auto Theft Prevention Authority (ATPA) has helped coordinate efforts between private entities, government agencies, and the public to reduce auto theft and its impact in Pennsylvania. It’s been a successful endeavor, but we want to dig even deeper. Let us help your agency and community fight auto theft.

Police chiefs across the state can look to us as a resource. Whether it’s connecting your officers with an auto theft task force investigator in your area to assist with a case, providing training on auto theft trends and investigative techniques, or providing materials and support for community-based crime prevention efforts, we are the Authority.

Auto theft is often misunderstood. It’s dismissed as “joy riding” and, at worst, an inconvenience, as many insurance companies will pay for the victim’s loss.

Law enforcement agencies faced with tight budgets and increasing demands for

services have to make hard decisions about resource allocation. As a result, auto theft cases may become a low priority.

The reality is that auto theft is often a complex crime perpetrated by professional thieves or organized criminal groups whose tactics involve violence, fraud, identity theft, and international trafficking. As the auto industry develops new methods to prevent theft, ever-evolving criminals initiate sophisticated means to defeat those efforts. The economic costs to individual victims and to society are significant. Simpler, unsophisticated methods of stealing cars such as carjacking are often violent in nature and have severe consequences. A recent carjacking in Philadelphia resulted in tragedy when suspects fleeing a crime scene drove the stolen SUV into a crowded street corner.

Three siblings, ages 7, 10, and 15, who were selling fruit on that corner to raise money for a church organization, were killed after being struck by the stolen car.

In many cases, a vehicle is stolen to help commit a robbery, abduction, or drug deal, or the vehicle is taken as collateral for

30 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

The Authority is governed by a seven member board including representatives of the insurance industry, the current and former State Police commissioners, and the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department. This unique blend of insurance industry experience, law enforcement expertise, and prosecutorial savvy makes for a comprehensive team.

The board reviews grant applications submitted by law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. The grants fund personnel who investigate and prosecute auto theft cases, task forces, programs designed to address juvenile auto theft offenders, and programs to increase public awareness of auto theft prevention.

In 2014, eleven grants were approved that targeted the most significantly impacted areas of the state and provide an auto theft law enforcement component in almost every county statewide. These grantees include the following: Pennsylvania State Police, including funding for troopers and local law enforcement officers assigned to the PSP Eastern, Central, and Western Auto Theft Task Forces, the Philadelphia www.pachiefs.org

REDUCING AUTO THEFT IN PENNSYLVANIA – A 20-YEAR PARTNERSHIP

Police Department including funding for officers assigned to the Major Crimes Auto Theft Squad and other initiatives, the Pittsburgh Police Department, the Lancaster Police Department, the Lehigh County Auto Theft Task force supervised by the Lehigh County District Attorney’s Office, the Northeast Auto Theft Task Force supervised by the Lackawanna County District Attorney’s Office, as well as auto theft initiatives operated by the Allegheny County, Delaware County, and Philadelphia County District Attorney’s offices.

ATPA also provides training to law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of auto theft cases. Training has included cargo theft investigations, locking & ignition technology, tactical debriefing, physical surveillance, and courses on identifying stolen ATVs, motorcycles, heavy equipment, and tractor trailers. Recently, ATPA partnered with the Upper Allen Township Police Department in Cumberland County to provide training on the use of VIN etching equipment to police officers in the area. www.pachiefs.org

The Authority is proud of its successful 20year record of partnership and results. We are here as a resource, partner, and leader in auto theft. Let us know how we may assist you.

Police agencies in Pennsylvania who wish to take advantage of ATPA resources can contact us at (717) 591-7097, or swheeler@watchyourcar.org.

Steven Wheeler became the Pennsylvania Auto Theft Prevention Authority’s executive director in April of 2014. For more than three decades, Wheeler has held a number of positions in local, regional, and statewide law enforcement. He began as an officer with the Freeland Borough Police Department in Luzerne County and went on to join the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General as a narcotics agent.

He then held a variety of investigative, management, and executive positions with the Attorney General’s Office before retiring in 2013 as Chief of Criminal Investigations. In that capacity, he led nearly 300 agents in the criminal law division investigating a variety of crimes

including narcotics trafficking, public corruption, health care fraud, insurance fraud, environmental crimes, and other offenses. Wheeler then served as Chief of Police in Middletown Borough, Dauphin County before joining ATPA. Wheeler is a graduate of Moravian College and holds a Master of Public Administration degree (with distinction) from Gannon University. He has served as adjunct faculty at Alvernia University and has extensive experience as a law enforcement trainer and instructor. He is a member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, the Dauphin County Chiefs Association, and the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association.

Wheeler is retired Chief of Criminal Investigations for the Office of Attorney General and also served as a police chief in Dauphin County. He has more than 33 years experience in law enforcement.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 31

32 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

By John Coyle, Law Enforcement Liaison and Shannon Purdy, Regional Program Manager, NHTSA, Region 2

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES TO CRIME AND TRAFFIC SAFETY: AN EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT MODEL FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES Over the past few years, increased publicity and marketing has sparked a national conversation amongst members of the law enforcement profession about the Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) initiative.

DDACTS is being promoted as a tool to improve data applications, reduce needed resources and simultaneously drive down crime and crashes. Yet many in the field are asking, “What is DDACTS, and how does it work?” This article describes the DDACTS approach to combating crime and traffic safety, how it can benefit law enforcement agencies, how it works, what resources are needed, who should participate, and how to get an agency involved.

WHAT IS DDACTS? Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) is a law enforcement operational model that integrates location-based crime and traffic crash data to establish effective and efficient methods for deploying law enforcement and other partner resources. By using geo-mapping to identify areas through temporal and spatial analysis, an agency identifies locations with high incidences of both crime and crashes, then deploys targeted traffic enforcement strategies to those ‘hot spots’. By saturating these locations with highly visible traffic enforcement, the DDACTS agency can play a simultaneous dual role: fighting crime as well as reducing traffic crashes and traffic violations. Drawing on the

deterrent value of highly visible traffic enforcement and the knowledge that crimes often involve the use of motor vehicles, the goal of DDACTS is to reduce the incidence of crime, crashes, traffic violations, and social harm in communities across the country.1 DDACTS is led by a national partnership co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and National Institutes of Justice (NIJ). NHTSA, its federal partners and many additional national organizations provide technical assistance and other resources to States and localities interested in adopting the DDACTS model.

The model’s focus on collaboration among law enforcement, community members and local organizations reinforces the crucial role that partnerships play in reducing social harm and improving quality of life.

Building on this collaboration, the DDACTS model positions traffic enforcement as a logical rationale for a highly visible law enforcement presence in a community.2 HOW WILL DDACTS HELP MY AGENCY? The DDACTS model ensures accountability and provides a dynamic, evidenced-based problem-solving

approach to crime and crashes. This approach, grounded in communityoriented law enforcement, suggests that time- and place-based policing, “…as opposed to [traditional] person-based policing, is a more efficient focus of law enforcement; provides a more stable target for law enforcement activities; has a stronger evidence base; and raises fewer ethical and legal problems.”3 The application of high-visibility traffic enforcement is a proven and effective countermeasure that addresses both crime and crashes whether they occur simultaneously or independently in time and/or location. Furthermore, its reliance on geo-mapping to identify the nexus of crashes and crime provides a scientifically-based method for law enforcement to accurately target its efforts.4 HOW DOES DDACTS WORK? DDACTS relies on seven guiding principles for successful implementation. The new DDACTS agency starts by building community partnerships to establish support for highly visible traffic enforcement, while engaging agency-wide buy-in and participation. To aid the development of strategic countermeasures and an operational plan, the model is based on local data collection and analysis to identify crime, crash, and trafficrelated “hot spots.” As law enforcement agencies execute these plans, routine information-sharing sessions with CONTINUED ON PAGE 34u

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 33

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES TO CRIME AND TRAFFIC SAFETY...

Figure 1: A schematic of the seven guiding principles in DDACTS Operational Guidelines stakeholders reinforce the collective ownership of the DDACTS initiative.

Finally, monitoring, evaluation, and the analysis of outcome measures provide data-driven feedback for adjustments to internal and external activities. The DDACTS Operational Guidelines5 outlines procedures and highlights operational considerations based on best practices in the field for each of the seven guiding principles.6 WHERE IS THE DDACTS MODEL CURRENTLY BEING APPLIED? Since the seven pilot sites were launched in 2009, several hundreds of agencies seeking to adopt the model have undergone formal training. Many of those agencies are actively applying the model today. The following are a few law enforcement agencies that have

implemented the model in NHTSA Region 2: • After just one year of DDACTS implementation from March 2013 to March 2014, the Evesham, New Jersey Police Department had a 35 % reduction in motor vehicle crashes, 82 % reduction of burglaries, and 34 % reduction in shoplifting incidents in the targeted zone. Captain Christopher Chew, now Chief of Police, said that Phase I of the DDACTS operational plan had well eclipsed the goals for reducing crime in the area for several key categories.7 • In Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, the agency has seen a reduction in both motor vehicle crashes and burglaries in one

34 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

specific targeted DDACTS zone, referred to as the Shore Mall.

In 2013, the agency saw a 9% reduction in motor vehicle crashes in the zone. Additionally, in January of 2014 they reported a 53% decrease in burglaries in this same zone, which they attribute to the higher police presence during the DDACTS patrols.8 Captain Ray Davis of the Egg Harbor Township Police Department told NBC40, “With the budget crises that we’ve had in the years past, we were forced to look at different models of policing in order to take the manpower and resources that we have and best allocate them in a more efficient and effective manner - and DDACTS has proven to be a good model.”9

www.pachiefs.org

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES TO CRIME AND TRAFFIC SAFETY...

• The Philadelphia Police Department (1.5 million population, 6,734 officers) initially focused their DDACTS efforts on a small multiblock area in one precinct where the crime data demonstrated rampant drug and gun violence, as well as a large number of collisions.

DDACTS helped the Department effect a 38% decrease in violent crime and a 15% reduction in crashes in the target area during the first two months of 2012.10 •T he Peters Township Police Department, located in Western Pennsylvania, implemented DDACTS in 2013. Comparing 2012 data to 2013 the agency experienced a 23 % decrease in crime and an 11 % decrease in injury crashes in the targeted DDACTS enforcement area. “The DDACTS Model provides a simple analytical process that utilizes your crime, crash and traffic data that results in a plan of action to reduce crime and crashes. The results prove it works. The program also offers technical assistance in retrieving data from your records management systems and mapping the data”, says Chief Fruecht of the Peters Township Police Department. (H. Fruecht, personal communications, August 25, 2014).

•A t the July, 2014, New York State Association of Chiefs of Police Conference in Lake Placid, New York, Chief Brian Kilcullen and Matthew Douglas, Intelligence Analyst Supervisor of the Schenectady Police Department presented on the topic of “EvidenceBased Policing”. The Chief spoke about how his agency faced budget cutbacks, and how essential it was for his agency to deploy their law enforcement resources more

effectively. He and Analyst Douglas gave an overview of their agency’s time-line of the implementation of the DDACTS model and the success they have had. In 2013, the agency had a significant reduction in Crashes (16.4%) and Crime (10%) in their DDACTS zones.

A number of other agencies across the country are seeing similar significant successes as they begin implementation, and develop approaches sculpted to address the unique crash, crime and social harm problems in their respective communities.

DO I NEED ADDITIONAL RESOURCES? With continued slow recovery from the recent economic downturn, many agencies are facing dramatic budget cuts. Law enforcement executives are being forced to make difficult decisions on how to allocate their diminished resources. Unfortunately, traffic safety is often one of the first areas selected for resource reduction. Instead, limited resource environments mean it is ever more critical to examine how traffic safety and enforcement can benefit communities through DDACTS. So what are the costs involved in implementing DDACTS? For some agencies, there may be startup investments needed in computer software and training. Others may benefit from specific traffic safety enforcement refresher training. Many of the DDACTS national partners offer free resources to assist.

For instance, the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) offers training classes in the Introduction to Crime Mapping and Analysis, Intermediate Crime Mapping and Analysis and Advanced

Crime Mapping and Analysis at no cost. In addition to training, agencies are encouraged to explore grant funding opportunities from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Justice Assistance Program, the State Highway Safety Office and the private sector.

The DDACTS model provides a consistently economical way of doing business, because its reliance on geomapping to identify the nexus of crashes and crime provides a scientificallybased method for law enforcement to accurately focus its resources.

“At a time when we have been tasked with ‘doing more with less’ DDACTS has provided us with a model to deploy our limited resources in a proactive manner that can provide quantitative results,” says Chief Michael Morris of the Egg Harbor Township Police Department.

HOW CAN MY AGENCY GET STARTED? For agencies interested in pursuing the implementation of DDACTS, it is recommended that they first make themselves familiar with the Operational Guidelines, which can be found at www.nhtsa.gov/ddacts . Once initial interest turns into intent to adopt the model, agencies are encouraged to contact their State highway safety office, NHTSA regional office, or NHTSA regional law enforcement liaison. These key partners will provide the agency with a DDACTS Agency Inventory Worksheet, a tool to help the agency obtain a “snapshot” of what it currently has in place to support the DDACTS process, and begin to identify obstacles to implementation.

Completed through a joint effort with agency staff, the Worksheet determines specific issues or needs CONTINUED ON PAGE 36u

www.pachiefs.org

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 35

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES TO CRIME AND TRAFFIC SAFETY...

Debra Piehl, IADLEST Workshop Manager, works with a team building its DDACTS action plan during a Workshop in Burlington, NJ

NHTSA and its supporting partners offer the DDACTS Implementation Workshop, a 16-hour intensive workshop designed law enforcement agencies interested in adopting the DDACTS model. DDACTS Implementation Workshops provide focused technical assistance by guiding participants on the theories and applications behind each of the seven DDACTS guiding principles, helping identify key roles in applying the principles within their agency and neighborhoods, and developing an agencyspecific DDACTS Implementation Action Plan to achieve specific outcomes that reduce social harm.11 for technical assistance that can then be further explored by participating in the DDACTS Implementation Workshop. In addition, the Worksheet can serve as a self assessment of the agency’s data collection and analysis capabilities as well as operational plans.

At a minimum, Worksheet completion should involve the operations commander, street supervisor, and the

crime/crash analyst (or the staff who perform data analysis).

Although not mandatory, it is then critically important that agencies interested in implementing DDACTS attend a DDACTS Implementation Workshop.

36 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

WHAT IS THE DDACTS IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOP? NHTSA and its supporting partners offer the DDACTS Implementation Workshop, a 16-hour intensive workshop designed law enforcement agencies interested in adopting the DDACTS model. DDACTS Implementation Workshops provide focused technical assistance by www.pachiefs.org

DATA-DRIVEN APPROACHES TO CRIME AND TRAFFIC SAFETY... guiding participants on the theories and applications behind each of the seven DDACTS guiding principles, helping identify key roles in applying the principles within their agency and neighborhoods, and developing an agency- specific DDACTS Implementation Action Plan to achieve specific outcomes that reduce social harm.11 Under a contract with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST), DDACTS Implementation Workshops are facilitated by a team of established subject matter experts, NHTSA regional offices and State highway safety offices to assure their success.

The 16-hour workshop is comprised of a series of peer-facilitated interactive sessions between a team of subject matter experts (SMEs) and their counterparts from the participant agencies. Three SMEs represent commanders, supervisors and analysts from existing DDACTS sites engage the commanders, supervisors and analysts from participant agencies. The workshops are strategically scheduled and located so that several (6-8) agencies are accommodated by a single workshop. Involving this number of agencies maximizes the impact of each workshop while providing the focused attention each agency requires, and also enables sharing of best practices among participant agencies. Using the DDACTS Operational Guidelines and related tools, attendees are led through the operational process to 1) define each of the seven guiding principles, 2) identify specific roles in applying the seven guiding principles at their agency, and 3) with their agency representatives in attendance, develop an agency-

www.pachiefs.org

Since 2010, IADLEST has conducted 80 Workshops to more than 600 law enforcement agencies across the country, with additional workshops scheduled in the future. Implementation Workshops have benefited a broad range of agencies with focused technical assistance, from large urban centers to universitybased to smaller rural departments. specific DDACTS Implementation Action Plan.

Since 2010, IADLEST has conducted 80 Workshops to more than 600 law enforcement agencies across the country, with additional workshops scheduled in the future.

Implementation Workshops have benefited a broad range of agencies with focused technical assistance, from large urban centers to university-based to smaller rural departments.

Agencies interested in learning about Workshops scheduled in their area should inquire through their relevant NHTSA regional office or State highway safety office.

HOW CAN MY AGENCY GET INVOLVED IN DDACTS? If you are interested in learning more about DDACTS and participating in a Workshop near you, please contact your State’s highway safety office (individual office contact information at http:// www.ghsa.org/html/links/shsos.html) or the NHTSA regional office covering your State (individual office contact information at http://www.nhtsa.gov/ nhtsa/whatis/regions/).

For general information about DDACTS, the growing community of active sites, and the national partnership, you can also find

DDACTS on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, or write to ddacts@dot.gov.

NOTES: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). DDACTS Operational Guidelines, page i.

2 Ibid.

3 David Weisburd, “Place-based Policing, Ideas in American Policing, Police Foundation, No. 9, January 2008.

4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2009). DDACTS Operational Guidelines, page ii.

5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; DDACTS Operational Guidelines (DOT HS 811 185 version 1.1); August 2009 6 Ibid.

7 Robert Linnehan. Evesham police doubling down on DDACTS. WWire, April 29, 2013. <http://thenjwire. com/> 8 Matt Alba. Increased patrols in EHT “hotspots” help curb crime and crashes.

March 5, 4014. <http://www.nbc40. net/story/24768652/>.

9 Ibid.

10 Christopher W. Bruce (2012).

Towards Better Data Driven Operations: The DDACTS Success Story. IADLEST Newsletter, volume number 23, page 11. <https://www. iadlest.org/>.

11 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010) DDACTS Implementation Workshop Abstract. page.1.

1

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014 | 37

CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION AWARDED TO CODY SYSTEMS On Monday, July 14, 2014, Mrs. Fran Heffner, CODY Systems Chief Executive, was presented a plaque and certificate of appreciation for the company’s consistent commitment and support to public safety technology and the work of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Pictured above (L-R) are Chief Tom King, 2013-14 PCPA President, Mrs. Heffner, and PCPA Executive Director Dane Merryman.

CODY is the first and only Four Shield Partner with PCPA, providing financial, training, and programmatic support to the Association.

Founded in 1979 by David and Frances Heffner, CODY Systems is now one of the most highly respected software providers in the market.

Known for its top-notch solutions and personalized customer support, CODY continues to uphold the ethics of the “CODY way” - honor, integrity, innovation, creativity, determination, and a ‘people-first’ philosophy.

38 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | FALL 2014

www.pachiefs.org

PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

APPLICATION TYPE:

APPLY ONLINE!

oA ctive Membership $125 per year plus $50 Initiation Fee ($175 to accompany application) oA ffiliate Membership $125 per year plus $50 initiation Fee ($175 to accompany application)

3905 North Front Street | Harrisburg, PA 17110 | Tel: 717-236-1059 | Fax: 717-236-0226 | www.pachiefs.org 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.

g Time 66% 66% DecreaseDecrease in Reporting Time in Repo y means means increased efficiency increased effici

“Since “Since we implemented we ourimplemented CODY System, we have effectively cut our our CODY System, we have effectively c officers’ officers’ reporting timereporting by almost two-thirds. Wetime have also found by almost two-thirds. We have also found better, better, more efficient more ways to complete efficient and document our ways job to complete and document our job performance performance through the CALEA accreditation through program. Great the thingCALEA is, accreditation program. Great t with with CODY Records, CODY we’ve actually Records, increased our officers’ we’ve efficiency inactually increased our officers’ efficien handling handling calls, both at thecalls, station and more both importantly, atinthe the field station and more importantly, in the fi through through CODY Express. CODY In fact, we noted Express. a 66% reduction in the In time fact, we noted a 66% reduction in th it takes it takes an officer to put an a simple officer complaint in to and that’s put huge. a simple complaint in and that’s huge

With With this 66% efficiency thisboost, 66% we wellefficiency exceeded my high expectaboost, we well exceeded my high exp tions. tions.

This means less This time doing means paperwork, and less more time time for our doing paperwork, and more time f officers officers to be interacting to with be and serving interacting our citizens in the field.” with and serving our citizens in the fi Frank Williamson, Lower Allen Twp, PA Public Safety Director

Frank Williamson, Lower Allen Twp, PA Public Safety Dire

Data Driven.

info@codysystems.com info@codysystems.com www.codysystems.com

Real People.

Real People.

Real Technology.

Real Technology.

Real Solutions.

Real Solutions.

Data Driven.

www.codysystems.com