Bulletin Spring 2020

BULLETIN

SPRING 2020

PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Inside this Issue: PCPA Executive Board and Committees

A Look Back: 1975

New and Re-Accredited Agencies

eTrace Collective Data Sharing

Legal Update for Law Enforcement

ATF National Tracing Center Division

2019 CRIMEWATCH Impact Report

Technology Update

Sprint Works℠ for employees of

PA Police Departments

Switch to Sprint and get these perks.

Get up to $200 when you switch.

Receive

$

60

/year

Save every month on select Unlimited plans.

for 1 line

with your $5/mo. SWP discount on line 1.

for 2 lines via Prepaid Mastercard® Req. new acct. activ. with 1 ported line on Unlimited Basic and validation at sprint.com/verify.

2 Uber credits of up to $10 each/mo. for 12 mos. Req. new acct. activ. on Unlimited Basic, Plus, or Premium and validation at sprint.com/verify.

Switch to Sprint and get up to $650/line to cover your switching fees. It’s our way of giving you a Clean Slate℠. Visit sprint.com/joinsprint.

Get our 100% Total Satisfaction Guarantee and see why Sprint is the right choice.

Up to $650 (less required phone trade-in credit provided) via Prepaid Mastercard® after online registration and new phone activation. Amount based on early termination fee charged or remaining phone balance.

Applies to new lines of service. See details below.

Be sure to mention this code.

Corporate ID: GLSPA_WCA_ZZZ

*GLSPA_WCA_ZZZ*

Call Sprint Sales: 866-639-8354 Visit a local Sprint Store: sprint.com/storelocator

https://sprint.co/2wbMbYN Limited time offers. Activ. Fee: Up to $30/line. Credit approval req. Prepaid Card Offer: Sel. SWP with qualifying corp. id. While supplies last. $100 per line. Up to $200 per acct. Acct. must remain active for 61 days & in good standing at time of processing. Allow 10-12 wks. for delivery. Excl. CL, select SWP, add-a-line, tablet activ. upgrades, replacements, and ports made between Sprint entities or providers associated with Sprint. Sprint reserves the right to change or cancel this offer at any time. Uber Credit Offer: Select SWP. New acct. req. Up to $10 off 2 rides each month requested using the Uber app.

Promo Code for discount must be entered in the Payments section of the Uber app prior to requesting a ride to receive discount. May take 60 days to receive first code following validation. Promo codes will expire at the end of each month. Exclusions apply. Sprint reserves the right to change or cancel this offer at any time. SWP Discount: Sel. SWP only. $5/mo SWP discount on line 1 on Sprint Unlimited Basic Plan. Avail. for eligible company employees or org. members (ongoing verification). Discount subj. to change according to the company’s/org.’s agmt. with Sprint & is avail. upon request. Not avail. with no credit check offers. Limit one SWP discount per acct. Acct. must remain in good standing to receive discount. Clean Slate: based on ETF (early termination fee) charged or remaining phone balance. Req. port, remain active & in good standing for 30 days before card issuance & buyback of working phone in good condition (the device is unlocked, powers on and there are no broken, missing or cracked pieces). Phone must be deactivated & all personal data deleted. Device will not be returned. Reg, & submit final bill with ETF or phone balance w/in 60 days of switching at sprint.com/joinsprint.

Allow 3 business days after approval for virtual reward or 15 days for prepaid card. Excl. 100+ Corporate-liable, prepaid & ports made between Sprint or related entities. Prepaid Card/Virtual Account is issued by MetaBank®, Member FDIC, pursuant to license by Mastercard International Incorporated. Mastercard is a registered trademark, and the circles design is a trademark of Mastercard International Incorporated. No cash access or recurring payments. Card can be used where Debit Mastercard is accepted. Virtual Account can be used online where Debit Mastercard is accepted. Unused funds will forfeit after the valid thru date. Terms and conditions apply. Satisfaction Guarantee: Call us to deactivate & return to place of purch. with complete, undamaged phone/device & receipt w/in 30 days of activ. We’ll refund your phone/device cost, svc. charges & activ. fee. Excl. int’l. usage not incl. in plan, prem. content & 3rd party billing. We’ll refund your phone/device cost. Sprint dealer may impose add’l. fees. A $45 restocking fee may apply. Visit sprint.com/returns. Other Terms: Offers/coverage not avail. everywhere or for all phones/networks. May not be combinable with other offers. No add’l discounts apply. Accounts that cancel lines within 30 days of activating on promo pricing may void savings. Restrictions apply. See store or sprint.com for details. © 2019 Sprint. All rights reserved. Sprint & logo are trademarks of Sprint. Other marks are the property of their respective owners.

N195627

contents

USPS 425940 • ISSN 0031-4404

SPRING 2020 • Vol. 122; Issue 1

29 34 38 42 44 46 48

2019 CRIMEWATCH Network Impact Report for Pennsylvania A Look Back - 1975: The Police Workshop on Standards and Goals CODY: Building a Secure Statewide Police Records Data-Sharing Network PlanIt Police: How 140+ Police Departments in PA are Eliminating Paper Schedules and Using a More Efficient Approach

8

eTrace Collective Data Sharing ATF National Tracing Center Division Technology Update

COLUMNS AND DEPARTMENTS 5 PCPA Executive Board and Committees 5

PCPA Staff

6

President’s Message

7

Executive Director’s Message

8 Welcome to Our Newest Accredited Agencies 12 Legal Update for Law Enforcement: Police Department Accreditation - Is it Worth the Money?

14 Legal Update for Law Enforcement: Employment Rights of Municipal Police Chiefs in Pennsylvania 24 Legislative Report 51

PCPA Membership Application

14

Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association BULLETIN (ISSN 0031-4404) is published quarterly (spring, summer, fall and winter) 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 goals, news items, PCPA upcoming events and legal issues. PCPA Articles or ideas for content should be submitted to PCPA Headquarters c/o Scott Bohn, 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1536, or email to sbohn@pachiefs.org.

3

Law enforcement is challenging enough. Let Argos Security make it easier with customizable weapons and gear storage supported by the product justifications, specs, and pricing your department needs to meet its budgeting requirements. To learn more, visit argosweaponstorage.com/PCPA.

855-893-2766 sales@argosweaponstorage.com argosweaponstorage.com Since 1968 | Lifetime Warranty | Made in the USA

OFFICERS Albert Walker President Chief of Police Hanover Township John English 1st Vice President Chief of Police Edgeworth Borough

PCPA STAFF David Steffen 2nd Vice President Chief of Police Northern Lancaster Regional Fred Harran 3rd Vice President Director of Public Safety Bensalem Township

Royce Engler 4th Vice President Chief of Police Wright Township

Ken Truver Treasurer Chief of Police Castle Shannon Borough

William Richendrfer Secretary Chief of Police South Centre Township

Marcia Nixon, Administrative Assistant to the Executive Director, mnixon@pachiefs.org Gregory Bean, Consulting and Member Services Manager, gbean@pachiefs.org Christopher Braun, Grants Management and Technology Coordinator, cjbraun@pachiefs.org Cheryl Campbell, Administrative Manager, ccampbell@pachiefs.org

BOARD MEMBERS

Al Coghill – 2022 Chief of Police Cannonsburg Borough

James Sabath – 2022 Chief of Police Newtown Borough

Thomas Gross – 2022 Chief of Police (Ret.) York Area Regional Police

Scott L. Bohn, Executive Director, sbohn@pachiefs.org

Larry Palmer – 2022 Chief of Police Palmer Township

Mark Toomey – 2021 Chief of Police Upper Providence Township

James Adams – 2021 Chief of Police Upper Allen Township

Michael Vogel – 2021 Chief of Police Allegheny County Housing Authority

Jason Loper - 2022 Chief of Police Fairview Township

Tim Trently - 2022 Chief of Police Archbald Borough

David Splain - 2022 Chief of Police Nether Providence Township

Dick Hammon, Accreditation Program Manager, rhammon@pachiefs.org Jerry Miller, Offender Identification Technology Program Manager, jmiller@pachiefs.org Andrea Sullivan, Administrative Assistant and Accreditation Assistant, asullivan@pachiefs.org Bill Gibson, Physical Fitness, fitcop@hotmail.com

24

48

BUDGET & PERSONNEL

LEGISLATIVE

Chair: Al Walker, Chief of Police, Hanover Township John English, Chief of Police, Edgeworth Borough David Steffen, Chief of Police, Northern Lancaster County Regional Fred Harran, Director of Public Safety, Bensalem Township Royce Engler, Chief of Police, Wright Township Bill Richendrfer, Chief of Police, South Centre Township

Chair: David E. Steffen, Chief of Police, Northern Lancaster County Regional Police Department Thomas Gross, Retired Chief of Police, York Area Regional Thomas Rudzinski, Chief of Police, Manheim Township Dean Osborne, Chief of Police, Grove City Borough Randy Cox, Chief of Police, Somerset Borough Larry Palmer, Chief of Police, Palmer Township David Mettin, Chief of Police, Plumstead Township Fred Harran, Director of Public Safety, Bensalem Township

EDUCATION & TRAINING Chair: John English, Chief of Police, Edgeworth Borough Ken Truver, Chief of Police, Castle Shannon Borough Michael Vogel, Chief of Police, Allegheny Housing Authority George Swartz, Chief of Police, Spring Garden Township Ashley Heiberger, Retired Captain, Bethlehem City Royce Engler, Chief of Police, Wright Township William J. Daly, Chief of Police, Horsham Township David Splain, Chief, Nether Providence Township Jason Loper, Chief of Police, Fairview Township

MEMBERSHIP/BYLAWS Chair: James Adams, Chief of Police, Upper Allen Township Ken Truver, Chief of Police, Castle Shannon Borough Mark Toomey, Chief of Police, Upper Providence Township Timothy Trently, Chief of Police, Archibald Borough David Splain, Chief of Police, Nether Providence Township NOMINATING

Chair: Fred Harran, Director of Public Safety, Bensalem Township

5

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

executive board & committees

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

DEAR MEMBERS,

A

PROGRAMS SUCH AS ACCREDITATION, PAVTN, MEMBER AND CONSULTING SERVICES, PHYSICAL FITNESS TESTING, MOBILE FINGERPRINTING AND BOOKING CENTERS ARE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE OF THE WORK OF DEDICATED STAFF THAT DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO PROVIDING THE BEST

s winter slowly loses its grip and gives way to the renew of spring, I am reminded of how our Association is being renewed by the addition of professional staff personnel to better serve you, our members. This year began with the addition of Scott Bohn as our new Executive Director. Scott brings experience, enthusiasm and excitement to the Directors position. Scott has enhanced communications with our Executive Board Members, beefed up our social media presence, and conferred with all of our Association’s counterparts and stakeholders to make sure our voice is heard throughout the Commonwealth. Additionally, as of this writing, we are in the final phase of hiring an Executive Assistant out of a strong pool of applicants. The Executive Assistant will be tasked with making sure that this year’s Training Conference at Seven Springs Mountain Report is our best ever, and be responsible for a host of other duties that will enhance our membership and the services that our Association provides. These personnel additions will serve to bolster our already great staff members who, day in and day out, work diligently to provide the programs and services that we all rely on. Programs such as Accreditation, PAVTN, Member and Consulting Services, Physical Fitness Testing, Mobile Fingerprinting and Booking Centers are successful because of the work of dedicated staff that devote themselves to providing the best services possible for you, our members. So, as wintertime becomes a distant memory and spring takes hold, please know that your association is committed to working to assist you in providing quality, professional law enforcement services to your communities. That commitment will remain no matter the season.

Respectfully,

SERVICES POSSIBLE FOR PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

YOU, OUR MEMBERS. CHIEF OF POLICE HANOVER TOWNSHIP, PA PCPA PRESIDENT

6

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

DEAR MEMBERS,

W

e begin a new year and decade – the PCPA’s’ 107th year of service – I am excited to lead our Association. I would like to take time to thank our Executive Board and our membership for their support and participation. It is only through this support and participation that we can focus on our mission and provide needed services to our members, their departments, and the law enforcement profession in Pennsylvania. PCPA believes in the valuable benefits that come from a strong association and shared experiences. We have many issues that challenge us in the new year and beyond and ask for your continued support and leadership as we work together in the future.

PCPA and the Executive Board are disappointed that the annual Education and Training Conference scheduled for July has been cancelled. Our decision was a difficult one but considering the current health concerns and uncertainties we had to proceed with an abundance of caution. Our priority is the health and safety of our membership. The PCPA Executive Board, committee and excellent staff had scheduled and combined prominent speakers and training professionals, a highprofile incident review, and valuable leadership insights for the police executive, that included Hall of Fame quarterback Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills. The Board is evaluating an event for the Fall of 2020. We will keep our membership updated.

In our current health crisis, The PCPA understands the unique challenges our law enforcement leaders face and the myriad of questions that you receive from the public on how your agency and municipality are responding to the pandemic. There is need for flexibility in our planning and rules of engagement, as the current environment and resources available change daily. We want our employees, residents, businesses and elected officials to have a level of confidence with our agencies and our plans to address the crisis and issues in our communities. The Association is here to support and assist you in your efforts.

WE BEGIN A NEW YEAR AND DECADE – THE PCPA’S’ 107TH YEAR OF SERVICE – I AM EXCITED TO LEAD OUR ASSOCIATION. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE TIME TO THANK OUR EXECUTIVE BOARD AND OUR MEMBERSHIP FOR THEIR SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION.

Partnerships are a force multiplier. We are committed to promoting excellence in service and expertise in law enforcement and public safety services. We advocate for you, our law enforcement leaders. We are committed to providing our membership with innovative programs, information and resources. As we expand our footprint, our vision is to the best resource for professional Law Enforcement leadership in the Commonwealth and the respected voice for Pennsylvania’s law enforcement leaders and community. The staff and I thank your honorable service and the work you do every day.

Scott L. Bohn

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION 7

www.facebook.com/pachiefsofpolice www.twitter.com/pachiefs www.instagram.com/pachiefsofpolice

Welcome to Our Newest Accredited Agencies

Villanova University Delaware County Chief David Tedjeske

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

(left to right) Chairman Jim Adams, Associate Director Debra Patch, Accreditation Manager Robert Kelly and Assistant Director Jeffrey Grizzle

Falls Township Bucks County Chief William J. Wilcox

(left to right) Chairman Jim Adams, Chief William Wilcox and Sergeant Bryan White

Peters Township Washington County Chief Douglas E. Grimes

(left to right) Chairman Jim Adams, Chief Douglas Grimes, Captain Jennifer Ford and Township Manager Paul Lauer

Slate Belt Regional Montgomery County Acting Chief/Lieutenant Jonathon M. Hoadley

Hatboro Borough Montgomery County Chief James E. Gardner

(left to right) Chairman Jim Adams, Administrative Assistant Patricia Stonaker, Slate Belt Regional Police Commission Chairman David Hess, Action Chief of Police Jonathon Hoadley, Slate Belt Regional Sergeant Glen Connolly, Slate Belt Regional Officer Jessica Muccione, Pen Argyl Borough Mayor David Male

(left to right) Chairman Jim Adams, Borough Manager Diane Hegele, Chief of Police James Gardner, Mayor Nancy Guenst and Accreditation Program Coordinator Dick Hammon

8

Sandy Township Clearfield County Chief Kris Kruzelak (2nd Re-Accreditation)

Lower Saucon Township Northampton County Chief Thomas Barndt (2nd Re-Accreditation)

Montgomery Township Montgomery County Chief J. Scott Bendig (5th Re-Accreditation)

Montgomery County Sheriff’s Montgomery County Sheriff Sean P. Kilkenny (3rd Re- Accreditation)

Richland Township Bucks County Chief Richard J. Ficco, Sr. (1st Re-Accreditation)

Telford Borough Montgomery County Chief Randall S. Floyd (1st Re-Accreditation)

Lititz Borough Lancaster County Chief Kerry D. Nye (4th Re- Accreditation)

Whitpain Township Montgomery County Chief Kenneth Lawson (2nd Re-Accreditation)

Camp Hill Borough Cumberland County Chief Stephen L. Margeson (4th Re-Accreditation)

Abington Township Montgomery County Chief Patrick Molloy (6th Re-Accreditation)

Manheim Township Lancaster County Chief Thomas E. Rudzinski (4th Re-Accreditation)

Lower Pottsgrove Township Montgomery County Chief Michael A. Foltz (2nd Re-Accreditation)

East Brandywine Township Chester County Chief Mark D. Kocsi (1st Re-Accreditation) Penbrook Borough Dauphin County Chief Joseph N. Hogarth (5th Re-Accreditation) Silver Spring Township Cumberland County Chief Christopher E. Raubenstine (1st Re-Accreditation)

New Commission Members At the November PLEAC meeting five new members were installed on the Commission: • Chief Jason Hendershot – Clarion University Police - W • Chief Patrick Molloy - Abington Township Police - SE • Chief Guy W. Hettinger – Penn Township Police – C • Chief of Criminal Investigations David Ellis – PA Office of Attorney General – State • Coordinator Beth Dombrowsky – HACC Law Enforcement Training Center – At Large

9

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

Re-Accredited Agencies at the PLEAC Meetings in November 2019 and March 2020:

Is Your Information Up to Date?

Please take a moment to visit the PCPA website at www.pachiefs.org and log in at the top right corner using your email and password.

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

It’s time to switch.

Increasingly, the PA Chiefs of Police Association uses electronic methods, such as our website, to keep our membership up to date and informed. Please make sure your email address is current and ith pricing options targeted specifically for small-to-mid correct so that you don’t miss out on pertinent information between e departments in PA, there’s no better time to switch to a magazines.

Your accurate information will allow us to better serve you!

CODY RMS system.

Thank you!

e fully-featured, reliable, ‘anywhere’ CODY RMS system. Same personal, 24/7 LIVE, -based technical support. Same agile CODY team dedicated to supporting you and PENNSYLVANIA LAW ENFORCEMENT ACCREDITATION your department.

THE SYMBOL OF

“CODY’s user-friendly feature set, coupled with the company’s reputation in PA as a stable, reliable company with great customer support made purchasing their RMS solution a nobrainer.” – Featuring Chief Briana Wiczkowski, West Lampeter Township credible, affordable, and practical law PD enforcement

ONGOING RISK MANAGEMENT accreditation program unique to Pennsylvania.

Training and start-up materials are provided Join the CODY family of customer agencies.

Call PCPA headquarters at (717) 236-1059

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Visit us at the PA ChiefsPennsylvania conference to learn more.

Chiefs of Police Association | A program funded by PCCD PCPA 2018 Conference June 17-18 Booths 101 & 103

PROUD SPONSORS Tel: 610.326.7476

Fax: 610.970.7242

www.codysystems.com

10

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

11

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION - IS IT WORTH THE MONEY?

Legal Update for Law Enforcement

Police Department Accreditation - Is it Worth the Money?

By: Christopher Boyle, Esq.

Foreword by Peter Erndwein, Director of Risk Control, Delaware Valley Trusts

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

The Delaware Valley Trust has been hearing “chatter” from its professional contacts that the value of law enforcement accreditation is again being questioned by some members. The root cause behind this resurgent challenge is not clear (perhaps the plaintiff’s bar which stands to benefit most from facing fewer accredited police departments). Bottom line – law enforcement accreditation is a recognized risk management best practice, providing multiple benefits to agencies and those who insure them. Accordingly, we have asked panel police attorney, Chris Boyle, to share his thoughts on the issue.

I am often asked, “Is there any real benefit to accreditation for most departments?” While my answer is always an automatic and enthusiastic, “Absolutely!”, the follow up question is a far more difficult one to answer: “Can you put a dollar figure on it?” If someone can, I would love to know what that number is and how it was derived. I am not that someone.

But, I can certainly tell you at least anecdotally why I believe the cost in time and money associated with accreditation is time and money well spent. My opinion is informed by 16 years as a police officer and 14 as a civil rights defense attorney. I have worked with and for accredited and nonaccredited agencies, and defended both in court. My experience is that accredited departments fare better, not because of a lack of dedication

Christopher Boyle is an Attorney at Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin and a retired Philadelphia Police Lieutenant. He is a frequent writer and lecturer on law enforcement topics, and panel counsel for DVPLT. He can be reached at: (O) 610-354-8476, (C) 215-919-7879 CPBoyle@mdwcg.com

Christopher P. Boyle, Esq.

Re-printed with the permission of the Delaware Valley Trusts: Boyle, Chris. "Police Department Accreditation - Is it Worth the Money?."

Delaware Valley Trusts: Trust Connections Newsletter, Jul - Sep 2019, pp. 5-6.

and professionalism among their employees, but because of the better resources provided and the sense of morale instilled in those individuals by their agencies.

Two favorite maxims come to mind when I think about accreditation. The first one is “A clean car runs better.” It was something my father always said and something I have shared with my own kids. Washing a car in and of itself

12

might not impact its fuel efficiency or other operating characteristics. A washed car might run the same as it did 20 minutes before it was washed, but it will likely perform better than an otherwise identical car that has never been given a thorough cleaning.

Why? Because the owner who washed the car is usually the type to also change its oil on a regular basis, maintain the correct tire pressure,

My second favorite story applicable to accreditation is how a wily old veteran taught me to answer when the Sergeant asked me after roll call what I had done during the previous tour of duty. “Sarge,” the wily vet taught me to say, “I prevented 11 murders and 47 robberies!” The Sergeant would reply that we didn’t have 11 murders and 47 robberies today. “Exactly.” would be my response. and respond promptly to a “Check Engine” light. They are a conscientious owner, who takes care of something that is important to them.

The same can be said of an accredited department – the ones that take care of accreditation are usually also the ones that take care of everything else. They keep their policies up to date, are aware of changing laws and trends in law enforcement, and have a chain of command with a progressive and professional attitude from top to bottom. Their evidence room and property control are state-of-the-art, with multiple levels of supervision and review. Their citizen complaint system is top notch with every complaint getting thoroughly investigated.

Their cell block is surveilled and their prisoners are evaluated for self-harm tendencies before they are placed in a cell. Most have in-car cameras or body-cameras and, if they do, the captured video is regularly reviewed by the chain-of-command. Why do they do all of this? It may be that they would do it with or without accreditation; however, the truth of the matter is that a department that wants to keep its accreditation has far better motivation – to maintain their accreditation. What gets measured and evaluated tends to get done.

Needless to say that even a well maintained car may still need to visit a mechanic from time to time. The same is true of the accredited department, which my own experience says finds itself in federal court from time to

morale from a department that lacks a clear sense of mission and purpose.

This is certainly not the case with every non-accredited department, but it is almost never the case with a department that proudly bears the accreditation seal.

time despite running a “tight ship”.

Much like the well maintained car finds itself in the shop far less often than its poorly maintained peer, so it is with an accredited police department which finds itself at the defense table less often as well.

My second favorite story applicable to accreditation is how a wily old veteran taught me to answer when the Sergeant asked me after roll call what I had done during the previous tour of duty. “Sarge,” the wily vet taught me to say, “I prevented 11 murders and 47 robberies!” The Sergeant would reply that we didn’t have 11 murders and 47 robberies today. “Exactly.” would be my response. You may not be able to put an exact dollar figure on how much being an accredited department saves by maintaining its accreditation, but I will submit that a non-accredited department is often far too easy to pick out. Policies tend to be out-ofdate, facilities and equipment may be obsolete, records are incomplete or absent and there is a general low

13

Accreditation is not a cost-free endeavor and the choice to invest in it can be challenging. The truth of the matter is, however, that you can invest in all of the equipment and overtime you like, instead of being accredited, but none of that will help you create the professional organization that accreditation will.

For what it is worth coming from the guy who is proud to represent any department, I encourage you to make the investment. You won’t regret it.

Policies tend to be out-of-date, facilities and equipment may be obsolete, records are incomplete or absent and there is a general low morale from a department that lacks a clear sense of mission and purpose.

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: POLICE DEPARTMENT ACCREDITATION - IS IT WORTH THE MONEY?

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

Legal Update for Law Enforcement

Employment Rights of Municipal Police Chiefs in Pennsylvania By: Elizabeth L. Kramer, Esq., and Stephen B. Edwards, Esq.

As an aspiring or current Police Chief in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, you may be wondering: what are my employment rights as Chief? Who do I answer to? Who can fire me, and for what reasons?

Do I have more or less protections than the Officers under my command? As with many important issues in the law, the answer to these questions is, “it depends.” The employment rights of Police Chiefs can vary significantly based on the type of municipality involved and the specific regulations adopted by that entity. Like all public employees, Police Chiefs would do well to attain a basic understanding of the legal rules that govern how they can be hired, removed from office, and directed while in office. This article aims to outline some of the most important of these rules for the benefit of present and future Chiefs in Pennsylvania.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

I. I t May Well Depend on the Type of Municipality You Serve.

The myriad of local governments scattered across Pennsylvania go by many names: Townships, Boroughs, Cities, Towns, Incorporated Towns…

The list is long. These differences in labels, however, are not just for show.

Under state law, there are significant substantive differences—in terms of how each local government is structured and which officials are in charge of particular public functions— between these entities. Whether you work for a Borough, Township, or City can have a significant impact on your employment rights as a Police Chief.

In this article, we will address the provisions of the standard, statewide Municipal Codes for municipalities other than First and Second Class Cities. The only First and Second

Elizabeth L. Kramer, Esq.

Stephen B. Edwards, Esq.

Class Cities in Pennsylvania are Philadelphia and Pittsburgh—these larger cities each have their own local government Code, the provisions of which are outside the scope of this article.

You should also keep in mind that local governments can customize

14

Elizabeth L. Kramer, Esq., is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law. Stephen B. Edwards, Esq., is a graduate of the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Both Ms. Kramer and Mr. Edwards are employed as associate attorneys at Lavery Law, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where they practice primarily in civil rights defense and employment law. A significant amount of their clients are municipal entities and their employees.

Any general comments, questions, and/or inquires related to this article can be made to the authors at ekramer@laverylaw.com and/or sedwards@laverylaw.com.

their internal structures and operating policies by adopting either a “Home Rule Charter” or an “Optional Plan.”

Generally speaking, an Optional Plan tweaks a few aspects of a municipal government while leaving the structure defined by the standard Code mostly intact. A Home Rule Charter is a more comprehensive

The standard Municipal Codes affect appointment of Police Chiefs in two primary areas: which government official gets to select the Chief, and whether the Chief must be selected from within the existing Police Department or can be chosen from outside.

Incorporated Towns,4 the law does not state specifically who appoints, leaving this issue up to individual Towns.

In an Incorporated Town without an Optional Plan clarifying this issue, the ambiguity in state law could set the stage for a conflict between a Mayor and a legislative body who disagree on who to appoint.

re-organization of the state plan.

However, Optional Plans and Home Rule Charters cannot limit your rights as Chief insofar as those rights are prescribed by state law.1

III. Civil Service Appointments: Protecting Your Rights.

II. A ppointing the Police Chief: Differences among Municipalities.

The standard Municipal Codes affect appointment of Police Chiefs in two primary areas: which government official gets to select the Chief, and whether the Chief must be selected from within the existing Police Department or can be chosen from outside.

In a Third Class City, the Mayor appoints the Chief.2 By contrast, in a Borough, a First Class Township, or a Second Class Township, the municipality’s legislative body— Borough Council, Township Board of Supervisors, etc.—is responsible for choosing the Chief.3 With regard to

The law governing Third Class Cities5 and Boroughs6 dictates that the Chief must be chosen from within the existing ranks of Officers. In Third Class Cities, however, if no qualified Officer from within the ranks applies for the position, the Mayor may make an outside appointment. Conversely, First and Second Class Townships, as well as Incorporated Towns, are not required to choose their Chief from inside the Department.

Most Chiefs already have some familiarity with the Commonwealth’s civil service laws from their time as Police Officers. The primary difference between how these laws apply to Chiefs vs. Officers is that while the law generally requires Officers to be hired according to civil service procedures,7 under the various Municipal Codes, Chiefs are merely eligible for civil service status. As is well known, civil service status carries many benefits, including protections from arbitrary firing and the right to notice and a hearing in the event of an attempted removal from office. Naturally, then, it is in a Police Chief’s best interest to seek this status when he or she is appointed.

Pennsylvania case law is clear that, for any public employee to attain civil 53 P.S. § 53251.

1 1 Pa.C.S. § 12002.

6 8 Pa. C.S. § 1121(a)(3).

7 8 Pa. C.S. § 1171(c) (Boroughs); 11 Pa.C.S. § 12001(a) (Third Class Cities); 53 P.S. § 56401 (First Class Townships).

4

53 Pa. C.S. § 2962(c)(2), (3); 53 Pa. C.S. § 2974.

2 11 Pa.C.S. § 12002.

3 8 Pa. C.S. § 1121(a)(3) (Boroughs); 53 P.S. § 56402 (First Class Townships); 53 P.S. § 66902 (Second Class Townships).

1

5

15

service status, he or she must achieve strict compliance with the civil service rules for appointment.8 This means that a potential appointee to a civil service position must comply with every aspect of the procedure for determining whether one is suited for the position. The law distinguishes strict compliance from “substantial compliance,” which essentially means making a good-faith effort to get the procedure mostly right, if short of perfect.9 Under relevant judicial precedent, “substantial compliance is not enough.”10 The case of Delaware Cty. Lodge No. 27 v. Twp. of Haverford11 provides a useful illustration of the difference between “strict” and “substantial” compliance.

In that case, the Haverford Township Board of Commissioners requested that the Township’s Civil Service Commission compile a list of eligible candidates for an open Police Sergeant position.12 In compiling the list, the Commission followed all the applicable state and local regulations by providing notice to all Officers who could apply and conducting competitive, written examinations of the candidates. After the examinations were complete, the Commission submitted a list of sixteen candidates to the Board of Commissioners on July 13, 1987. The Commission noted that, pursuant to its regulations, the list would expire after two years, at which time new examinations would be required to fill the open position.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE S nizaski v. Zaleski, 410 Pa. 548, 550 (1963) (“in order to insure and maintain the high standards established by the civil service laws, we have repeatedly held that strict compliance with their provisions is required and that substantial compliance is not sufficient”); Conjour v. Whitehall Twp., 850 F. Supp. 309, 315 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (same).

9 M anning v. Civil Service Comm’n, 387 Pa. 176, 179 (1956).

10 Id. 11 654 A.2d 127 (Pa. Commw. 1995).

12 Id. at 128.

8

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

In March of 1990, the Board promoted the two highest-scoring Officers from the 1987 list to the rank of Sergeant. The Local Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) objected based on the list being expired and filed suit to invalidate the promotions. The Commonwealth Court ultimately sided with the FOP, opining that “it is fundamental that an appointment will be considered valid only if there has been strict compliance with the terms of the civil service laws.”13 Thus, even though the vast majority of civil service procedures had been properly observed—all the eligible Officers were notified, competitive examinations took place, and the Officers who were ultimately promoted scored high marks on the exams—the failure to adhere to the time limit created by local civil service regulations rendered the promotions completely void.

As the Haverford case shows, local regulations are just as important as those prescribed by state law when it comes to effecting a proper civil service appointment.

These regulations can vary widely from municipality to municipality.

The Codes applicable to Townships, Boroughs, and Cities empower each municipality to establish a civil service commission that can create its own requirements for civil service hiring.14 Thus, an aspiring Chief seeking civil service status should research these local requirements to make sure they are followed with respect to his appointment.

If all the relevant civil service procedures are followed, the individual selected will enjoy substantial employment rights 13 14

I d. at 129 (emphasis added).

8 Pa. C.S. § 1176(a) (Boroughs); 11 Pa.C.S. § 14404(a) (Third Class Cities); 53 P.S. § 55630 (First Class Townships). The Second Class Township Code does not appear to provide for the same regulatory authority, however.

as Chief. All the Municipal Codes provide for some type of “for-cause” discipline and firing protection. As you are no doubt are aware from your police experience, this means that you cannot be removed from your position, disciplined, or suspended except for certain reasons specified by law. The Codes differ, however, on how they define what constitutes “good cause” for discipline or other adverse action.

In a Third Class City, an employee may be disciplined for “misconduct,” violation of state or local law, or violation of internal regulations.15 This provides relatively weak “for-cause” protection, as the statute leaves the definition of “misconduct” to local decisionmakers.

This protection, however, still leaves employees with greater protection than a traditional “at-will” employee, who can be fired for any reason whatsoever, as long as illegal discrimination does not occur.16 In a Borough or a First Class Township, an employee may be disciplined or discharged for physical or mental disability, neglect or violation of official duty, commission of a misdemeanor or felony under state law, “inefficiency, neglect, intemperance, immorality, disobedience of orders or conduct unbecoming of an Officer,” intoxication while on duty, or engaging in political activity.17 As you can see, this list is more narrowly defined and consequently provides more protection. Interestingly, in a Second Class Township, the “forcause” protections are the same as for Boroughs and First Class Townships, with the exception that engaging in political activity is not grounds for discipline.18 All the Municipal Codes also provide civil service appointees with the 1 1 Pa.C.S. § 14408(a)(1).

G eary v. United States Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 175-6 (1974).

17 8 Pa.C.S. § 1190(a)(1)-(7) (Borough); 53 P.S. § 55644(a) (First Class Township).

18 53 P.S. § 66912, incorporating 53 P.S. § 812.

15

16

16

right to notice of disciplinary charges against them and a hearing at which they may be represented by counsel.

This is an extremely significant protection, as it gives adversely affected employees the opportunity to contest charges against them by presenting contrary evidence and questioning witnesses, among other things.

A Police Chief’s civil service status is also significant when a Police Department needs to be downsized for economic reasons.

All the standard Municipal Codes create a procedure for economic downsizing that essentially follows the “last hired, first fired” principle, with the crucial qualification that they provide for furlough of Officers instead of layoffs.19 A furlough is a temporary layoff that usually includes the opportunity to be reinstated at a later date. More specifically, in a Borough or First Class Township, a reduction in the size of the Police Department must adhere to the following procedure: Officers are furloughed in the order they were hired until the desired reduction is achieved; if, at a later date, it becomes necessary to enlarge the Department, the furloughed Officers must be reinstated “in the order of their seniority in the service.”20 In Second Class Townships and Incorporated Towns, a similar procedure is followed, with the exception that the reduction must be achieved by retiring Officers who are eligible for retirement before any furloughs are ordered.21 By contrast, the Third Class City Code provides less explicit protection: it does not mandate that employees be furloughed, rather than simply laid off, and states only that “seniority rights 1 1 Pa.C.S. § 14408(a)(1)(i)-(iii) (Third Class City); 8 Pa. C.S. § 1190(d) (Borough); 53 P.S. § 55644(b) (First Class Township); 53 P.S. § 66912, incorporating 53 P.S. § 813 (Second Class Township).

20 53 P.S. § 55644(b).

21 53 P.S. § 66912 (Second Class Township); 53 P.S. § 813 (Incorporated Town).

19

shall prevail” when reductions are made.22 Critically, in Boroughs, First Class Townships, and Second Class Townships, the Chief of Police is explicitly exempt from the furlough procedure.23 This means the Chief of Police has a special status when the Department needs to downsize: assuming he or she has civil service status, she cannot be removed for economic downsizing reasons alone.

IV. Police Tenure Act: Guaranteed Protections for Small Police Departments.

It should also be noted that the Police Tenure Act provides essentially all of the civil service protections discussed above—“for cause” removal, furlough protection, notice and a hearing on misconduct charges—to members of Police Departments of Boroughs or Second Class Townships with less than three members.24 Crucially, however, these protections apply automatically to members of these small Departments, without the need for civil service examination or other procedure.25 Therefore, if you are a Police Chief for a small municipality with less than three Police Officers (including yourself), you are automatically entitled to a host of protections that are, in effect, just as good as civil service status at any other municipality.

V. Authority over the Police Chief: Who’s in Charge?

Although a Police Chief is the head of a Police Department, the Chief still reports to other officials and/ or entities in local government. The categories of individuals and groups with potential authority over the Chief 1 1 Pa.C.S. § 14408(a)(1)(i).

23 S ee note 22, supra.

24 53 P.S. § 811, et seq.

25 S ee 53 P.S. § 811 (stating that law applies without civil service prerequisites).

22

can be broken down largely into two categories—(1) the executive branch, and (2) the legislative branch. In general, as the Police Chief and the Police Department is seen as an arm of the executive branch of government, the executive branch exerts the majority, if not all, of the authority over a Police Chief. However, who has authority over the Chief and to what extent largely depends on the nature of the municipality, and potentially who is in power at that time. Further, the smaller a municipality is, the fewer individuals and/or groups there may be with authority over the Chief, as there can sometimes be a confluence between the executive and legislative branches in smaller local municipalities.

To examine the type of authority that a Pennsylvania Police Chief may be subject to, we can continue to look to the standard Codes. Obviously, there can be deviations from the standard Codes if a particular municipality adopts an Optional Plan or Home Rule Charter; however, the standard Code provides a general framework for what authority over municipal Police Chiefs looks like.

Under the Third Class City Code, authority over the Police Chief is distributed between City Council and the Mayor.26 As the head of the City’s Executive Branch, the Mayor exerts the most authority over the Chief. Specifically, the Chief is legally required to obey and carry out orders of the Mayor. The Chief also has monthly reporting requirements owed to the Mayor that will extend to City Council. On the other hand, City Council has little direct authority over the Chief, although Council is able to legislate by ordinance the number and grades of compensation for the City’s Police Department. The compensation and grading of a Chief 26

S ee 11 Pa. C.S.A. §12001; see also 11 Pa. C.S.A. §12007.

17

could be encompassed in this, but as explained previously the Mayor has authority to appoint the Chief, not City Council.

Likewise, in Boroughs the majority of authority over the Chief is exerted by the Executive Branch of government.

For example, the Borough Code provides a Mayor with full control over the Police Chief and the Police Department itself.27 The Code specifies that “the mayor shall direct the time during which, the place where and the manner in which the chief of police and the police force perform the duties of their rank.”28 Also, “the mayor may delegate to the chief of police or other officer supervision over and instruction to subordinate officers in the manner of performing their duties.”29 Accordingly, the Borough Code provides a Mayor with a significant amount of control and discretion over a Police Chief and the Police Department as a whole.

In light of the express delegation right, different Borough Mayors can choose to organize and operate the Police Department during their tenure as they see fit. For example, one Mayor could exert a significant amount of control over the Police Department; whereas another Mayor could delegate most of these duties to the Police Chief or distribute it amongst higher ranking Officers.

Unlike, the Code’s language about the Mayor’s authority, the Borough Code is less clear as to what authority the Borough Council has over the Chief, if any. Although the Borough Code provides the Borough Council with the right to “establish rank, appoint police officers, and remove officers,”30 the Code does not specify how this right may apply in terms of the Police Chief.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ee 8 Pa.C.S.A. § 1123.1(a).

S See 8 Pa.C.S.A. § 1123.1(b)(emphasis added).

29 See 8 Pa.C.S.A. § 1123.1(c).

30 See 8 Pa.C.S.A. § 1121.

27

28

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

The case Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie31 demonstrates the broad authority that a Mayor has over not only a Police Chief, but the Police Department as a whole under the Borough Code. This case involved a newly elected Mayor of the Borough of Macungie who was trying to exert his authority over the Police Department. First, the Mayor asked the Police Chief to provide him with the work schedules of the Police Department and a key to the Police Station.32 The Chief denied these requests, and in response the Mayor suspended him for insubordination.33 The dispute continued with the DA’s office siding with the Chief, while the Solicitor informed the Police Department that the Mayor had the power to make these requests.34 The Borough Council got involved as well: it overturned the suspension of the Chief and issued him back pay for his term of suspension.35 However, the Borough Council directed the Chief to provide the Mayor with full access to the work schedules.36 The Police Officers Association sued to block the Mayor’s access to the schedules and for the Mayor to set the Officer’s work schedules; a dueling suit was filed by the Mayor.37 The Commonwealth Court found that the Mayor had the right to do the things he wished to do because the Borough Code vested him with the authority to control the day-today operations of the Department and that he had full control over the Chief and the Department.38 In this regard, the Court went onto to say that the Mayor “is presumptively entitled to access all the Police offman v. Borough of Macungie, 63 A.3d 461 H (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

32 Id. at 466.

33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Id. at 469.

31

Department's hard copy files, such as work schedules and personnel records, including any criminal history information that may be in those files.”39 Thus, in the future, those who would deny Mayor Hoffman access to Police Department records will have the burden of explaining their position. Also in terms of the suspension of the Chief, the Court determined that the Borough Council did not have the authority to undo the suspension by issuing the Chief back pay and expunging his record about the suspension.40 As you can see, Hoffman demonstrates the broad authority a Borough Mayor exercises over the Police Department as well as the Chief.

Finally, in First Class Townships, the Code indicates that the Board of Commissioners has authority over the Police Chief.41 However, the Code makes clear that authority over the Police Chief can be delegated to another person or committee by ordinance or by resolution of the Board of Commissioners. This open-ended language allows for a significant amount of local variation in how authority is exercised over a Township Police Chief.

VI. Police Chief’s Terms of Employment As with all topics explored in this article, there is not a single explanation as to what will determine a municipal Police Chief’s terms of employment.

Primarily, the terms of a Police Chief’s employment will be specific to the municipality the Chief serves.

However, there are several factors relevant to a Police Chief’s terms of employment that tend to recur and are worth examining in some detail.

The first factor we will explore is Collective Bargaining Agreements (hereinafter “CBA(s)”). If a CBA exists and applies to a particular employee, the CBA will typically dictate all or most of the terms of that employee’s employment. The Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act42 provides police and fire officers with the right to bargain collectively. As it relates to Chiefs, a CBA can apply to municipal Police Chiefs as long as they remain within the CBA. Under the law, a municipal Police Chief will remain within a CBA if there is a finding that the Chief is not a “managerial employee.” However, the law that provides Police Officers with the right bargain collectively does not define what a managerial employee means. As such, the Courts have taken up the task of defining this term and have elaborated on the distinction between “managerial” and “nonmangerial” employees. Specifically, in Chartiers v. Commonwealth, Pa., Labor Relations Bd.43 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined that tests developed by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in other labor contexts not involving municipal Police Departments should also be used in the context of Police Sergeants and Police Chiefs. The Court applied a test that defines certain job functions as “managerial” vs. “supervisory.”

The following functions are classified as managerial:

• Policy Formulation – authority to initiate departmental policies, including the power to issue general directives and regulations;

• Program Development – authority to develop and change operational programs of the department;

42

I d. at 475.

40 I d. at 476.

41 See 53 P.S. § 56405.

39

43

18

3 P.S. §§217.1, et seq.

4 Chartiers v. Commonwealth, Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 98 Pa. Commw. 44, 510 A.2d 884 (1986).

Under the law, a municipal Police Chief will remain within a CBA if there is a finding that the Chief is not a “managerial employee.” However, the law that provides Police Officers with the right bargain collectively does not define what a managerial employee means.

• Public Relations – independence in representing the department to the public;

• Budget Making – authority to prepare proposed budgets for the department, as distinguished from merely making suggestions with respect to particular budget items;

• Purchasing Decisions – authority to make substantial purchasing decisions, rather than merely making suggestions;

• Hiring Recommendations – authority to make recommendations concerning persons to be hired and dismissed by the governing officials; and

• Disciplinary Role – authority to initiate formal disciplinary actions.44

The following functions are classified as supervisory:

• Routine Direction – control of daily operations of subordinates;

• Basic Policing Role – performance of police duties like those performed by all police officers;

• Exclusion from Negotiations – non-participation in the management side of bargaining, or involvement only in suggestions; and

Additionally, the function of “scheduling,” meaning “the authority to prescribe daily and shift schedules” is both a managerial and supervisory function.46 Therefore, to the extent an individual has the authority to perform the managerial functions outlined above, he or she will be deemed outside the CBA, whereas if an individual merely has the power to perform the supervisory functions outlined above, they will be deemed within the CBA. If an individual has the power to perform scheduling functions, that alone will not determine whether an individual is within or outside the CBA.

I d. at 886-7.

a. Removal from CBA

Despite the rule outlined above, municipalities typically formally remove municipal Chiefs from the CBA, so there is no question that the terms of the Chief’s employment are not dictated by the CBA. Under the law, a Police Chief is removed from a CBA by way of “forcible removal” or by other means such as a contractual arrangement. But what does forcible removal mean? A forcible removal occurs when there is (1) a ruling by the PLRB that the Chief has been removed (meaning the Chief is not within the CBA), and (2) this ruling is made in an adverse proceeding (meaning the Chief is at odds with the municipal entity in the proceedings).

45

44

• Inclusion in Bargaining Unit – past treatment of the position as being within the bargaining unit.45

46

I d. at 887.

I d. at 888.

As you can imagine, most Chiefs are not forcibly removed, as it is generally accepted that the Chief of Police occupies a managerial position apart from his employees. Therefore, why does the forcible removal of Chiefs have any significance? The answer in this regard is clear: Municipal Police Chiefs subject to forcible removal from a CBA are entitled to a specific statutory protection under the Police Chief Pay Act in relation to their compensation. Specifically, these Chiefs will not receive “less than the same dollar increase including fringe benefits excluding overtime and festive holiday pay as received by the highest ranking police officer participating in the bargaining unit.”47 Therefore,determiningwhenaremoval is “forcible” becomes important, especially when a municipality may be seeking to provide a Chief with less compensation than what a CBA might otherwise provide him.

The Pennsylvania Courts have only addressed the issue of forcible removal on a few occasions.

Practically speaking, this is a fairly narrow legal issue that only affects a rather select and limited group of individuals at any one time. Therefore, the question is not litigated very often. Thus, the few cases discussed here are just about the only guidance available on whether removal of Police Chief is “forcible” in order for a Police Chief to be entitled to the protections prescribed within the Police Chief Pay Act. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

47

19

43 P.S. § 218.

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA In 1989, the Commonwealth Court addressed this issue in relation to a Police Chief from the City of Butler in a case called Butler v. Clauser.48 Clauser had been employed as the Police Chief of the City of Butler from 1979 until 1985.49 Prior to 1984, Clauser’s position and employment terms had been included in the CBA.50 On January 1 1984, the City Council made a decision to remove Clauser from the CBA.51 Clauser did not object to this decision.52 Rather, in exchange for the removal, Clauser would immediately receive a 17% salary increase for the year of 1984.53 However, the increase would not be in place for the following year of 1985.54 At the same time, a new CBA was entered into between the City and the particular FOP.55 The CBA provided for salary increases for the highest ranking officer for the year of 1984 and 1985.56 Clauser sued to get a ruling from the Court that said he was entitled to the pay increase under the CBA for 1985.57 Originally, the trial court sided with Clauser, stating that he was entitled to this pay increase for 1985 under the protections provided to forcibly removed Chiefs.58 However, on appeal, the Commonwealth Court rendered a different decision.

The Court determined that Clauser would not be entitled to the 1985 pay increase under the CBA because his removal was not forcible.59 The Commonwealth Court heavily relied on the fact that there was no ruling by the PLRB that removed Clauser from the CBA, rather there was B utler v. Clauser, 124 Pa. Commw. 492, 555 A.2d 1391 (1989).

49 I d. at 1391.

50 I d.

51 I d.

52 I d.

53 I d.

54 I d.

55 I d.

56 I d.

57 I d.

58 I d.

59 I d. at 1392.

48

simply a decision by the City Council that Clauser initially went along with.60 Therefore, if Clauser wanted to get the benefits under the CBA in this instance, he should have initially challenged the City Council’s removal with the PLRB from the offset, so as to receive a PLRB ruling on the removal.

The case Bennis v. City of Allentown,61 presents another scenario where the Court determined that certain higher level officers were not forcibly removed from the CBA, which in effect denied these individuals salary protections under the law. The facts of Bennis, however, provide us with greater insight into what constitutes a forcible removal. In Bennis, the City of Allentown wanted to remove lieutenants and captains from the CBA.62 Accordingly, the City “filed a Petition for Unit Clarification with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB)” to seek the removal of the lieutenants and the captains from the bargaining unit.63 However, the City’s Petition was never heard before the PLRB because there was a settlement between the City and the parties, which negotiated various terms such as the removal of the officers in question from the CBA.64 There was also a removal of the residency requirement for all officers and the officers in question received wage increases.65 The settlement was approved by the PLRB.66 Thereafter, around four years after the settlement was approved, the removed captains and lieutenants sued to seek certain benefits and compensation that they felt they were entitled to as forcibly removed officers.67 As in Clauser, the trial Id. at 1392.

B ennis v. City of Allentown, 698 A.2d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

62 I d. at 178.

63 I d.

64 I d.

65 I d.

66 I d. at 179.

67 I d.

60 61

20

Accordingly, Bennis illuminates that even if there is an action filed before the PLRB regarding the removal issue, if the parties ultimately settle without getting a ruling on the merits, the removed Officers could be forfeiting certain rights in the future. court accepted the removed officer’s arguments and ordered that they were entitled to salary benefits.68 On appeal, the Commonwealth Court again reversed the trial court and found the officers were not entitled to the benefits they sought.69 The Commonwealth Court reasoned that these officers were not forcibly removed because there was no PLRB ruling as there was a settlement between the parties.70 The Court found it irrelevant that the PLRB approved the settlement because endorsing a settlement is not the same thing as making a ruling.71 Accordingly, Bennis illuminates that even if there is an action filed before the PLRB regarding the removal issue, if the parties ultimately settle without getting a ruling on the merits, the removed Officers could be forfeiting certain rights in the future. Therefore, if Chiefs are considering a settlement on the removal issue, they should be Id. I d. at 179-180.

70 I d.

71 Id. at 179.

68

69

aware of particular rights they are giving up.

Finally, the last case on the issue, Stern v. Borough of Somerset,72 addresses whether removal is forcible when the removal took place during a predecessor Chief’s tenure. This case concerns Chief Stern with whom some longtime readers of this journal may be familiar. Stern was initially hired as a Police Officer by the Borough of Somerset in 1979, at which point the terms of his employment were subject to the CBA.73 In 1983, the Somerset Borough Police Department filed a Petition with the PLRB to investigate and certify the CBA.74 After the Petition was filed, the Borough and the Police Department entered into a stipulation that “1) the Police Chief was never part of the bargaining unit in the past and was always excluded from arbitration; 2) the Chief of Police at the time did not wish to be included in the unit; and 3) the parties desired that the position of Police Chief be excluded from the bargaining unit.”75 These stipulated terms were memorialized in a memorandum agreement.76 In terms of the original Petition, there was however; an ultimate order by the PLRB certifying the bargaining unit and stating that the Chief was removed from the CBA.77 Thereafter in late 1987, Stern became the Chief of Police of the Borough of Somerset, where he negotiated the terms of his employment independently from the CBA.78 When Stern ultimately, left his position, he filed suit to recover benefits for unused sick time and uniform S tern v. Borough of Somerset, 796 A.2d 376, 376 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

73 I d. at 376.

74 I d.

75 Id. at 377.

76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 72

allowances that officers within the CBA were entitled to.79 In this case, like in Clauser and Bennis, it was determined that Stern was also not forcibly removed and therefore, he would not be entitled to these benefits. First, the Court focused on the fact that the removal of the Chief from the CBA was ultimately done by ways of agreement rather than a ruling by the PLRB in adversarial proceeding.80 The Court also reached this conclusion because when Stern first became Chief he voluntarily negotiated employment terms outside of the CBA on the issues of sick leave and uniform allowances.

b. Contractual Terms of Employment

As alluded to in the prior section, employment contracts can also dictate the terms of a Police Chief’s employment. Generally, Police Chiefs may be subject to an employment contract when they are outside of a CBA or in circumstances where there is no CBA to begin with. A Police Chief can enter into contracts with the municipality specifying all aspects of their employment such a rights, tenure, and benefits. However, there are particular limitations in the enforcement of these employment contracts as it relates to binding municipal governments.

Specifically, there are laws that limit the ability of certain contracts being enforced against successor administrations within a local government. In relation to employment contracts of Police Chiefs, these types of contracts may be unenforceable against a new governing body—i.e. new City Council, new Mayor. Particularly, in the case Falls Township v. McMananmon, “the ‘lame duck’ supervisors of Falls Township” appointed a new Police 79 80

Id. Id.at 378-379.

21

Chief and entered into an employment contract with him that would be in place for around three years, which extended into the term of a new administration of supervisors.81 The new supervisors sued to challenge the enforceability of the contract as it would in effect bind the new administration.82 The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania found that the employment contract was enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was against public policy because it was “an attempt to influence the current governmental functions of the present board of supervisors” by the outgoing administration.83 Moreover, this concept does not only apply to contracts, like in Falls Township, which were made at the 11th hour by an outgoing administration.

Further, in Borough of Pitcairn v.

Westwood,84 the Commonwealth Court rejected the enforceability of an employment contract of a Police Chief that was entered into between the Chief and the prior administration despite the Police Chief’s civil service appointment.

Accordingly, an employment contract between a Chief and the municipal government will most likely only be valid and enforceable during the administration of the government that entered into it with the Chief.

Further, another limitation that one should keep in mind is that an employment contract cannot entitle a Chief to rights and/or powers that contradict the respective Municipal Code and/or underlying legislative authority. If this is done, the provisions in the employment contract which contradict underlying laws and authority will be unenforceable. For CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Falls Twp. v. McManamon, 537 A.2d 946, 946 (Pa. Commw. 1988).

82 Id. 83 Id. at 948.

84 Pitcairn v. Westwood, 848 A.2d 158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).

81

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA

LEGAL UPDATE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT: EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MUNICIPAL POLICE CHIEFS IN PENNSYLVANIA example, a Borough Council cannot enter into an employment contract with a Police Chief that prescribes that he is to be the head of the Police Department and that as the head of the Police Department, he only answers to the Borough Council. That type of employment contract would clearly be trying to work around the Borough Code. As explained in prior sections, this power is expressly held by the Borough Mayor, and the Mayor does not answer to the Borough Council in that regard. Therefore, if a Police Chief is ever presented with an employment contract that provides him with certain specified powers, duties, or authority, one should be mindful of this and verify that they are even permitted to perform and/ or carry out such powers. The Chief should also verify that the entity or official entering into the contract has the power to delegate such duties or powers onto the Police Chief.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

c. Other Considerations

Although this section did not include a discussion on this topic, as referenced in prior sections, a municipal Police Chief may be entitled to civil service protections. To the extent that a Police Chief is a civil service employee, the Chief’s terms of employment will be affected by that status and the Chief may be afforded additional protections. Beyond what has been laid out above, situations can arise when a municipal Police Chief has no employment contract, is not entitled to civil service protections, is not entitled to statutory protections in

relation to forcible removal, and is not subject to a CBA. In this type of case, the Police Chief is essentially an at-will employee.

VII. Conclusion: This article has attempted to outline some of the most significant employment rights enjoyed by Police Chiefs under Pennsylvania state law.

To summarize the key takeaways from our research:

• Be aware of the type of municipality you work for, as Boroughs, Townships, and Third Class Cities differ in ways that significantly affect Police Chiefs;

and in an Incorporated Town, state law does not grant appointment power one way or another, leaving the issue up to individual Towns.

• An aspiring Police Chief should always seek civil service status and comply strictly with all civil service rules and regulations.

• In a Borough or Township with a police force with less than three members, the Police Tenure Act provides Police Chiefs with protections equivalent to civil service status at other municipalities.

• If you are removed from a CBA, be aware if that removable was forcible or not to ascertain if you are entitled to any protections under the Police Chief Pay Act.

• Even when you have an employment contract, there are certain provisions that may be unenforceable.

• If you have any questions about your employment rights, seek legal advice. You may have to pay something for it, but often an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure.

• In a Third Class City, the Mayor appoints the Police Chief; in a Borough or Township, the local legislative body appoints;

In a Third Class City, the Mayor appoints the Police Chief; in a Borough or Township, the local legislative body appoints; and in an Incorporated Town, state law does not grant appointment power one way or another, leaving the issue up to individual Towns.

22

23

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

Proud 5-Shield Sponsor of PCPA

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

The following is a list of bills that have been introduced that are of particular interest to the Association. This list does NOT consist of ALL bills related to police and criminal justice matters, as there are numerous bills coming in on a weekly basis. If you have knowledge of a bill or questions, please contact Jerry Miller, jmiller@pachiefs.org or Scott Bohn, sbohn@pachiefs.org.

2424

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

In the most general of terms we supported or voiced no opposition to the following:

4 Senate Bill 742 (K. Ward) – Exempts vehicles less than 8 years old from the emission inspection requirement. o Amendment A04124 (Hennessey) – Gut and replace amendment requiring PennDOT, in consultation with DEP, to conduct emissions modeling to determine the duration of an exemption period that ensures compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and federal EPA regulations.

4 House Bill 1541 (Farry) – Creates the Air Medal Plate.

4 House Bill 1715 (Mihalek) – Creates the Navy and Marine Corps Medal Plate.

4H ouse Bill 2120 (Hennessey) – Repeals the requirement that the Department of Human Services enter into a contract with a private broker to provide Medical Assistance Transportation Program (MATP) services through a Statewide or regional full-risk brokerage model

4 House Bill 1236 (Polinchock) o Strengthens Pennsylvania’s requirements for smoke alarms in leased properties. (New legislation this session.) o An amendment is expected to be offered by the Majority Caucus. o House Democratic Caucus bill analysis is attached

4 House Resolution 648 (Youngblood) o A Resolution recognizing the bravery and professionalism of the Philadelphia Police Department during the events of August 14, 2019. (New legislation this session)

4H ouse Resolution 620 (Jozwiak) A Resolution directing the Joint State Government Commission to conduct a study regarding identifying and evaluating all categories of individuals in this Commonwealth authorized to exercise arrest or other police powers.

We denied support to the following legislative proposal (see attached HB1855) in support with the department of corrections, and chiiled further discussion on a “good idea” in the folllowing paragraphs. Our position is we have enough meaningful work obligations without becoming the “smoking police” in addition to the 4th ammendment considerations which would likely flow from proposals such as this.

The request from caucus reads - Rep. Dush was approached by an officer in his district who has an idea about underaged smoking. Would you kindly review and get back to me?

From Rep. Dush: One of my local law enforcement officials came up with an idea I believe is worth pursuing. His concern is that while he can charge underage smokers who possess on a school campus he cannot charge underage smoker on the street. He would like to be able to confiscate the cigarettes as contraband and issue a warning notice that could be tracked for the first three offenses and on the third offense issue a summary citation. Kids make juvenile decisions and most, once caught and have seen there is a negative consequence (loss of the cigarettes, they’re expensive for most young people, and a notice that they are on a route to something even more negative) will curb or stop the behavior. He’s not interested in going around arresting young people, simply beginning to get it into their minds that there are consequences and that the consequences get more problematic for the kids if they choose to continue.Many departments have field interview cards or a similar way to record police contact with individuals who are acting in a suspicious manner. The form used for the proposed notice could be a hybrid of a field interview card and a summary citation which could double as a written record of the offense and a record of confiscation and disposal of the cigarettes. The request from caucus reads - Rep. Dush was approached by an officer in his district who has an idea about underaged smoking. Would you kindly review and get back to me? My exact response to Director Blackburn to forward was “Not something that I think many others will be interested in - not exactly a community trust builder. In addition for agencies already accredited there is the issue of what to do with the contraband - not exactly something most street cops are happy about doing” Director Blackburn cleaned this up and indicated in his response we declined involvement.

I would request that you review the list below and offer any strong opinions you may have on these proposals. I highlighted these bills which pose an area of what I would consider a deeper reading to have a better understanding of what may lie CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE ahead for our input.

25

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

First and foremost let me express my thanks to the work of Jerry Miller and staff at the PCOPA for keeping our committee in the forefront of legislative thought and ongoing intitiatives. Hope you all had a great holiday season and have recovered from the first few work weeks of the new year. Since the beginning of the year we have been active on several short notice anlysis for legislation.

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Legislative Report – Bills to Watch Bills Tracked and Signed into Law 2019-2020 Session HB 97

Rapp, Kathy

Amends Titles 18 & 53 re vaping products

(PN 2890) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), in minors, further providing for the offense of sale of tobacco products and for the offense of use of tobacco products in schools. The bill prohibits the sale of nicotine products and electronic nicotine delivery systems to minors. Effective in 60 days.

(Prior Printer Number: 99) Last Action:

1-26-20 G Earliest effective date

HB 279

Boback, Karen

Amends Title 42 re hot car immunity

(PN 1330) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), in particular rights and immunities, providing good faith immunity for damages resulting from the rescue of a person, dog or cat from a motor vehicle. (Prior Printer Number: 247) Remarks: providing good faith immunity for damages resulting from the rescue of a person, dog or cat from a motor vehicle.

Last Action:

7-14-19 G Earliest effective date

HB 384

Kail, Joshua (F

Amends Title 75 re classes of licenses

(PN 354) Amends Title 75 (Vehicles), in licensing of drivers, further providing for penalties relating to classes of licenses. Effective in 60 days.

Remarks: if no more than six months have elapsed from the last date for renewal, the fine shall be $25. No person charged shall be convicted if the person produces at the office of the issuing authority within 15 days Last Action:

8-27-19 G Earliest effective date

HB 511

Schemel, Paul

Amends Second Class Township Code

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

(PN 497) Amends the Second Class Township Code further providing for intergovernmental cooperation by stipulating that the board of supervisors may make agreements with other municipal corporations in performing governmental powers, duties and functions and in carrying into effect provisions of Title 53 Chapter 23 Subchapter A (relating to intergovernmental cooperation). Effective in 60 days.

Last Action:

1- 6-20 G Earliest effective date

HB 1402

Nesbit, Tedd

Amends Title 18 re sexual extortion

PLS Summary: (PN 2817) Amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses), in sexual offenses, establishing the offense of sexual extortion. Requires the Commission on Sentencing to provide for a sentencing enhancement within its guidelines for offenses committed when the complainant is under the age of 18, has an intellectual disability, or the actor holds a position of trust or supervisory or disciplinary power over the complainant. Effective in 60 days. (Prior Printer Number: 1722, 1835, 2006) Remarks:

See SB337 also

Last Action:

1-26-20 G Earliest effective date

26

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Kauffman, Rob

Amends Title 42 re police jurisdiction

PLS Summary: (PN 2214) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary) relating to statewide municipal police jurisdiction, nonmunicipal police extraterritorial jurisdiction and for agents of the Office of Attorney General. Adds language providing a municipal police officer, a nonmunicipal police officer, or an agent of the Office of Attorney General shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of the commonwealth in cases where the officer or agent has been requested to immediately aid or assist a federal, state or local law enforcement officer or park police officer; has probable cause to believe that a federal, state or local law enforcement officer or park police officer is in need of aid or assistance; or has been requested to participate in a federal, state or local task force. Provides that a request for participation in a taskforce must come from a police force which employs a police officer. Effective immediately. (Prior Printer Number: 2092, 2184) Remarks: Adds language providing a municipal police officer, a nonmunicipal police officer, or an agent of the Office of Attorney General shall have the power and authority to enforce the laws of the commonwealth in cases where the officer or agent has been requested to immediately aid or assist a federal, state or local law enforcement officer or park police officer; has probable cause to believe that a federal, state or local law enforcement officer or park police officer is in need of aid or assistance; or has been requested to participate in a federal, state or local task force Last Action:

7- 2-19 G Earliest effective date

SB 127

Regan, Mike

Amends Title 35 re 911 law reauthorization

PLS Summary: (PN 961) Amends Title 35 (Health and Safety) providing for the reauthorization of Chapter 53 providing funding for 911 emergency communication services. Adds the State Fire Commissioner and the chairperson of the State Geospatial Coordination Board to the 911 board and adds a representative from the Ambulance Association and the Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Government to the 911 board as nonvoting members. Also requires the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to review the reports required by Chapter 53 and provide a recommendation on the reauthorization of the chapter by December 31, 2020. Extends the expiration date of the chapter to June 30, 2021.

Effective immediately. (Prior Printer Number: 90, 419) Last Action:

6-28-19 G Earliest effective date

SB 399

Langerholc, Way

Amends Sexual Assault Testing re Victims

PLS Summary: (PN 947) Amends the Sexual Assault Testing and Evidence Collection Act outlining additional rights of sexual assault victims, including the rights to not be prevented from or charged for receiving a medical forensic exam or to consult with various professionals. A victim who has chosen to make an anonymous report may still elect to receive notifications. Clarifies language regarding the telephone line for victims. Further provides for anonymous submissions. Requires the Pennsylvania State Police to submit an annual report to the Department of Health relating to sexual assault evidence. Lays out requirements for notifications. Effective in 60 days. (Prior Printer Number: 381, 505, 586) Last Action:

8-27-19 G Earliest effective date

SB 469

Laughlin, Danie

Amends Title 42 re tender years exception

PLS Summary: (PN 476) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), in depositions and witnesses, adding a subchapter providing for procedures to protect victims and witnesses with intellectual disabilities or autism. The intent of the bill is to provide procedures which will protect material witnesses or victims of crime with intellectual disabilities or autism during their involvement with the criminal justice system. The bill outlines when an out-of-court statement made by an individual with an intellectual disability or autism who is a victim or witness describing enumerated offenses would be admissible in evidence. Enumerated offenses include homicide, assault, kidnapping, human trafficking, sexual offenses, burglary, robbery, incest, and corruption of minors. Effective in 60 days.

Last Action:

8-27-19 G Earliest effective date CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

27

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

HB 1614

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

SB 473

Scavello, Mario

Amends Titles 18 & 53 re tobacco

PLS Summary: (PN 1407) Amends Titles 18 (Crimes and Offenses) and 53 (Municipalities Generally) further providing for the offense of use of tobacco in schools; for preemptions relating to municipalities; and making a related repeal. Amends the definition of "minor" to be an individual under 21 years of age and increases the legal age to purchase a tobacco product from 18 years of age to 21. Provides an exception for a minor who is at least 18 years of age and is a member of the active or reserve components of any branch or unit of the US Armed Services or a veteran who received an honorable discharge.

Adds definitions of "electronic cigarette", "electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)" and "nicotine product." Amends the definition of "tobacco product" to include electronic cigarettes, ENDS and nicotine products as well as any product containing, made from, or derived from tobacco or nicotine, including natural or synthetic. Amends the current provision prohibiting the use of tobacco products in schools by a pupil to include other vehicles, owned by, leased by or under the control of a school district. Allows school boards to designate certain areas of property owned by, leased by or under the control of the school district where tobacco product use by persons other than pupils is permitted.

Requires school boards to establish a policy to enforce the prohibition of tobacco use. Repeals section 3.5 of the Fire and Panic Act relating to school tobacco control. The act shall take effect July 1, 2020, or immediately, whichever is later. (Prior Printer Number: 478, 1052, 1190) Remarks: bill establishes that whoever, being of the age of 21 years and upwards, corrupts or tends to corrupt the morals of any minor less than 21 years of age, or who aids, abets, entices or encourages any such minor in the commission of an offense relating to sale of tobacco, alternative nicotine products and vapor products or use of tobacco, alternative nicotine products and vapor products in schools commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.

Last Action:

7- 1-20 G Earliest effective date

SB 479

Baker, Lisa

Amends Title 42 re young abuse victims

PLS Summary: (PN 498) Amends Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), in depositions and witnesses, allowing admissibility of certain statements by child victims or witnesses for certain enumerated crimes, such as assault or kidnapping. Effective in 60 days.

Last Action:

8-27-19 G Earliest effective date

SB 621

Regan, Mike

Amends Public School Code re resource officers

PLS Summary: (PN 1081) Amends the Public School Code amending provisions relating to school police officers, school resource officers and school security guards, and imposing powers and duties on the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. Effective in 60 days. (Prior Printer Number: 714, 727, 866, 931, 1009)

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Remarks: School Safety and Security-Amendments to Act 44 of 2018 to clarify that school districts, under current practice, could decide whether school security guards should be armed or unarmed while on school property Last Action:

8-31-19 G Earliest effective date

28

2019 CRIMEWATCH NETWORK IMPACT REPORT FOR PENNSYLVANIA

2019 CRIMEWATCH Network Impact Report for Pennsylvania

In 2018, the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association and CRIMEWATCH Technologies, Inc., entered a partnership agreement that would allow PCPA to secure preferred pricing to participating CRIMEWATCH law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania.

In 2019, total savings to participating departments as a result of this agreement:

$218,362.00 29

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

The Numbers Are In! Crimewatch Is the Single Largest Source for Public Safety News & Information in All of Pennsylvania

30

W

O

TM

M

N

O

O

U

D

N

R

Y

RK

N

O

YO

LA

PT

TO

ER

N

E

N

ER

IN

RE

EA

M

CK

D

A

R

S

S

Y

S

IN

RN

N

ZE

RE

A

O

H

O

TG

M

KL

ST

BA

LU

M

N

RT

O

ES

N

M

N

CA

LE

N

A

A

PH

W

U

N

BI

TE

CK

RK

A

M

RL

A

A

EL

D

BE

FR

D

M

LA

CU

LU

ES

BU

BE

M

EN

A

H

D

EG

A

CH

LL

CO

A

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

47,450

380,241

122,873

8,076

218,403

76,398

14,172

36,556

142,864

184,350

934,374

766,412

495,748

211,500

123,162

36,869

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

1,339,439

2,459,729

2,107,181

W

O

TM

M

N

O

O

U

D

N

R

Y

RK

N

O

YO

LA

PT

TO

ER

N

E

N

ER

IN

RE

EA M

CK

D

A

R

S

S

Y

S

IN

RN

N

ZE

RE

A O

H

O

TG

M

KL ST

BA

LU

M

N

RT

O

ES

N

M

N

CA

LE

N

A

A

PH

W

U

N

BI

TE

CK

RK

A

M

RL

A

A

EL

D

BE

FR

D

M

LA

CU

LU

ES

BU

BE

M

EN

A

H

D

EG

A

CH

LL

CO

A

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

U

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

TY

107

81

41

18

414

326

121

61

263

461

352

195

1094

1397

1479

1708

2078

3064

4125

2019 CRIMEWATCH NETWORK IMPACT REPORT FOR PENNSYLVANIA

Here is a look at the CRIMEWATCH Pennsylvania Impact numbers in a little more detail:

Here is a look at the CRIMEWATCH Pennsylvania Impact numbers in a little more detail:

2019 CONTENT PER COUNTY

2019 VISITS PER COUNTY

2019 CRIMEWATCH NETWORK IMPACT REPORT FOR PENNSYLVANIA SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

236 98 M

N U

RK

RE

YO

LA

CO

CO D N

N O PT

TY

TY

44 N U

N U CO

U R U

TO N O

ES

RT

TM

H

O

A

O M

W

N

M

TY

13 TY N

N

CO

CO Y ER

M

O

N

TG

M

O

CK

U

U CO

EA

RN ZE

LU

TY

TY

8 N

TY N N

CO E

CO N O N

BA LE

CA N LA

U

N U

U

ST

KL N A FR

TY

TY N

TY N

IN

ER

CO

CO

U

N

RE A W

CU

D

EL

A

U A D

U CO

CO IN

PH

N A RL

TY

TY N U

U D

A BI M

BE M

LU

TY N

TY CO

U CO

CO R TE CO

ES CH

N

N U

U CO S

CK BU

TY

TY N

TY N U

CO S RK

BE

H EG

A

LL

A

D

A

EN

M

S

Y

CO

CO

U

U

N

N

TY

TY

15

41

77

102

141

131

148

230

264

371

521

1122

1152

1372

2019 TIPS PER COUNTY

TOP 25 CRIMEWATCH SITES BY CONTENT Manheim Township Police Department

924

Chambersburg Police Department

772

Waynesboro Police Department

707

Columbia Borough Police Department

561

Carlisle Police Department

513

Swatara Township Police Department

486

Lower Allen Township Police Department

462

Bristol Township Police Department

444

Newberry Township Police Department

437

Lititz Borough Police Department

433

Fairview Township Police Department

401

Quakertown Borough Police Department

359

Northern Lancaster County Regional Police Department

324

Warrington Township Police Department

289

Manor Township Police Department

287

Steelton Borough Police Department

283

Middletown Borough Police Department

283

West Manchester Township Police Department

280

West Chester Police Department

272

Lancaster County District Attorney's Office

264

Lancaster Bureau of Police

245

Newtown Township Police Department

234

Ephrata Police Department

221

Lower Saucon Township Police Department

217

Susquehanna Township Police Department

215 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

31

2019 CRIMEWATCH NETWORK IMPACT REPORT FOR PENNSYLVANIA

TOP 25 CRIMEWATCH SITES BY VISITS Chambersburg Police Department

579,448

Manheim Township Police Department

359,739

Carlisle Police Department

354,215

Lancaster Bureau of Police

315,094

Lancaster County District Attorney's Office

304,547

Columbia Borough Police Department

274,063

Ephrata Police Department

270,456

Bucks County District Attorney's Office

267,123

Bensalem Police Department

215,906

Swatara Township Police Department

204,537

Waynesboro Police Department

186,964

East Cocalico Township Police Department

174,987

Susquehanna Township Police Department

156,236

Derry Township Police Department

148,189

Ridley Township Police Department

142,864

Lower Allen Township Police Department

142,618

Bristol Township Police Department

142,571

Shippensburg Police Department

141,165

Lower Paxton Township Police Department

139,466

East Pennsboro Township Police Department

133,011

Harrisburg Bureau of Police

128,732

Quakertown Borough Police Department

127,137

Manor Township Police Department

123,749

Pennsylvania Crime Stoppers

121,739

Newtown Township Police Department

115,045

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

Congratulations to All of the 2019 Top 25 Crimewatch Member Departments!

32

2019 CRIMEWATCH NETWORK IMPACT REPORT FOR PENNSYLVANIA SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

Things to look forward to in 2020 through the PA Chiefs of Police Association and CRIMEWATCH partnership: • CRIMEWATCH will continue to connect police departments in Maryland, New Jersey and Florida with expansion into Virginia, Colorado, New York and Delaware.

• CRIMEWATCH LABS is now in Beta with 5 departments and fully connected to CODY COBRA. This will become available to more departments in 2020.

• New enhancements to the core system. Redesign of the portal features and mobile app.

- New TIPS form with assignment/status - New automatic Content Sunsetting based on preferences - Advanced content scheduling feature - Online Reporting beta release - Improve UI/UX for users - New Mapping integrations - And more!

33

34

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

35

36

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

37

BUILDING A SECURE STATEWIDE POLICE RECORDS DATA-SHARING NETWORK

Building a Secure Statewide Police Records Data-Sharing Network How Pennsylvania is leading the charge to make this dream a reality

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

There's a quiet revolution going on in local law enforcement in Pennsylvania. Today, close to 200 police departments across the Commonwealth - from Allegheny County in the west to Bucks County in the east - are instantaneously sharing police records data with each other that had previously been locked in their individual records management systems. Every month, more agencies are joining this SuperCOBRA data-sharing network built and managed by CODY Systems of Pottstown, PA. The actionable information the sharing network provides is helping officers stay more informed and aware on the street and investigators be more intelligence-driven and uncover links between entities across the SuperCOBRA network.

Case in point: Detective Don Coffey, from the Lower Allen Police Department, a SuperCOBRA user, describes a recent case of retail theft by a male and female, captured on video. The female was apprehended but refused to identify her partner. A search of SuperCOBRA flagged an incident in another jurisdiction a year earlier in which she and her named boyfriend were involved. Comparing his DMV photo with the video of the theft then led to his positive identification and ultimate arrest.

PA, the first having been developed back in 1999 (way ahead of its time). Each COBRA network links police departments within a specific county or multi-county region. While allowing each agency to maintain its RMS data and access privileges, COBRA brings all of this information together and creates a network that allows authorized users from all participating agencies to search for information from any other participating agency - at the station or in the field.

How it Works and Who Can Share SuperCOBRA grew out of the success many police departments in PA have had participating in one of the 9 separate COBRA networks in

Each individual COBRA network is effectively a mirror of the data in the participating agency systems.

New and updated sharable record information, including photos and

38

other attachments, is brought into COBRA from each system on a near real-time basis so that the mirrored records are always current and complete. Plus each agency's data is maintained in a separate COBRA datastore and agency data is never commingled.

With COBRA, these agencies can share data from their RMS and other systems, including jail, booking and CAD. Unlike most other RMS data sharing systems, with COBRA participating agencies don't need to have the same RMS. While over 190 PA departments are CODY RMS users, that isn't a requirement and participating agencies don't need to switch to CODY to join COBRA.

BUILDING A SECURE STATEWIDE POLICE RECORDS DATA-SHARING NETWORK

Chief James Adams of the Upper Allen Police Department agrees.

Even though it uses an RMS from another vendor, his department also participates actively in the Harrisburg area multi-county Capital Area Police Exchange (CAPE) COBRA. "CODY isn't twisting your arm to switch to their RMS," he observes. "You're only subscribing to COBRA, which makes it cost-effective for us." And an agency can continue to participate in a separate data sharing system with other users of the same RMS, while being a part of a COBRA network and getting access to information from even more departments across the state.

Users of SuperCOBRA can now also employ a ‘global search’ for a term, such as a nickname, anywhere in any connected system. This powerful capability is critical in searching case narratives, which SuperCOBRA also makes available for searching, where allowed by the contributing agency. databases, compiles the results, and presents them in a unified easy-tounderstand fashion to the end user.

All this, in just a few seconds, in real time, and all brokered through a secure, CJIS-compliant data center and with all data encrypted in transit.

The ‘Network of Networks’ Perhaps the most intriguing part of this growing sharing network is that it began as a request from users of the COBRA system. Members of the COBRA network in Berks County, PA who understood the incredible value of the technology asked CODY to explore the possibility of opening the sharing even further to include cross-county sharing, not only crossagency sharing.

When compared to other state level ‘information collection and sharing’ systems, Dave Holl compares it to "the difference between a library card catalogue and a web search."

COBRA is not a "pointer system" with limited record information like a card catalogue. This approach "doesn't provide you with all the case data" the way SuperCOBRA does.

Now, his officers and detectives don’t have to wait on a call back or try to get in touch with another department to get the whole story.

COBRA provides a complete data picture at the time of query which can be a potential life-saver when an immediate response is needed.

SuperCOBRA was the answer. It operates as "network of networks," currently linking the separate county or regional COBRA networks across the Commonwealth. Each participating COBRA represents a node in the network and each node is connected through SuperCOBRA. No matter how simple or complex, a search or request is transmitted from SuperCOBRA to all the participating COBRA nodes. Based on the specifics of the query, SuperCOBRA executes the search across all the connected

Connecting the Dots "To be able to now look at all incidents and identify, for example, where else a subject has been and who he's associated with, is phenomenal," says Holl. Through simple web-like search tools, with SuperCOBRA an officer or detective has direct access to all the data in the case record maintained by any other participating agency in the Commonwealth (all based on what the local agency has agreed to share). That includes the narrative and any attachments, that the

agency has chosen to expose to the sharing system.

Chief Ken Truver of the Castle Shannon Borough Police Department succinctly adds: "Without SuperCOBRA, we're looking for the same guy and we don't know it. This gets us a step closer to being as efficient as we should be."

The benefits of information sharing through SuperCOBRA can extend to other parts of the criminal justice system as well. In preparing a criminal complaint for burglary, Detective Frank Gallagher of the Upper Moreland Police Department did a simple Name search in SuperCOBRA and found that the subject had recently been arrested for burglary three counties over. He was able to provide that DA with valuable additional information for successful prosecution.

The Power of the SuperCOBRA Search SuperCOBRA offers users a wide range of powerful search tools.

For example, the user can initiate a focused search on a specific value in any field (or combination of fields), such as last name and first name, in which data is available in each COBRA datastore. With C.tac, CODY's webbased search app, results from the search are presented to the user in one clear, consistent view. The result, according to Chief Michael Murphy of the Upper Moreland Police Department, a new SuperCOBRA CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

39

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

CODY has the translation tools to bring in data from virtually any RMS. "It's records system agnostic," says Dave Holl, Director of Public Safety for Lower Allen Township. "It doesn't matter what system you use or buy in the future."

BUILDING A SECURE STATEWIDE POLICE RECORDS DATA-SHARING NETWORK

participant, is "an amazing amount of investigative intelligence."

While powerful, this type of search might still miss an important piece of information. Users of SuperCOBRA can now also employ a ‘global search’ for a term, such as a nickname, anywhere in any connected system.

This powerful capability is critical in searching case narratives, which SuperCOBRA also makes available for searching, where allowed by the contributing agency.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Noting that different RMS systems - and individual users - handle differently how and where specific data types are input, Chief Garth Warner of Derry Township Police Department finds this feature especially useful. " You don't need to have that information appear in a specific field to have it show up even if it's hidden in a narrative and didn't get identified as a piece of evidence." And, rather than having to separately access and then read through the report to actually find the matching reference, a SuperCOBRA user - with a single click - can go directly to that narrative with the relevant text highlighted.

Another powerful search feature is "words within” narrative text searching which can help flag potential matches where data is represented differently in different systems. For example, the same individual may have information contained in another RMS database, but the middle and last names are transposed. A "words within" search allows the user to search for terms in close proximity to one another in the datastore.

Some law enforcement data sharing systems limit a search to one data type at a time, often requiring the user to do multiple searches to drill down to actionable information.

With SuperCOBRA a user can search across multiple pathways in a single

search - saving time and eliminating frustration. Instead of first searching for a person and then searching for incidents of a certain type in which that person was involved, for example, a SuperCOBRA user could run a single search with both person and specific incident type and get back only the most relevant matches.

The Flexibility of SuperCOBRA SuperCOBRA puts each user in total control with the flexibility to customize search criteria. With over 60 million local records, including nearly 24 million person records, linked through SuperCOBRA, a specific search could present a large number of potential hits across a large number of RMS databases. For some users and wider investigations this tremendous pool of data presents a wealth of information and patterns for data mining. But other users, looking for just local known associates of a subject for example, might want to initially confine the search to just abutting or neighboring jurisdictions.

That flexibility is important to Dave Holl. With SuperCOBRA, each individual officer can set a "geofence for searching on a specific case," based on the assignment, he says. "Each officer is going to use it a little differently; the great thing is that the system is capable of supporting that."

Plus, each user can set up frequentlyused searches as "Favorites" that can be invoked with a single click. For a patrol officer, a pre-defined favorite search might be on a license plate, where even entering a partial number will generate potential matches from any of the RMS databases included in the search criteria. The officer can then drill down to find such useful information as prior incidents involving the vehicle and the owner.

Agency Control of Shared Data As important as power and flexibility are in data sharing, the ability to

40

control access to CJIS information is absolutely critical to success. With SuperCOBRA, "every department still maintains control over its own data," maintains Dave Holl. CODY provides the agency with the tools to control what information is shared and who has access to shared data -internally as well as by other agencies.

An agency could choose to limit specific types of information it will share, restricting access, for example, to juvenile records. It can even limit access to certain information by user role, so that, for example, only investigators in other departments can view sensitive investigatory information, or only sworn officers can access case narratives. But Chief Warner voices the general view of participating agencies that "limiting access defeats the purpose. The more users who have access and the more information they have access to, the more likely we can put the pieces together to stop a crime spree sooner." Dave Holl concurs: "The whole idea is open records. The power is in collaborative sharing. You solve more crime and manage incidents better the more collaboratively you work."

Each agency sets up users rights for its own staff accessing its own COBRA network. Those user rights are then recognized and applied by SuperCOBRA. "We're responsible for

BUILDING A SECURE STATEWIDE POLICE RECORDS DATA-SHARING NETWORK SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

managing our own people," notes Dave Holl. "That's a major benefit; if it was a centrally managed system, you're counting on them to do that work (correctly)." Users can be authenticated through Active Directory, where that service is used to manage resources.

The agency can limit which of its own employees have access to SuperCOBRA; but generally, agencies provide access to all sworn staff - even to officers in the field on their in-car laptops. "In the middle of the night if they're querying the plate or the name of driver at a traffic stop," says Holl, "I want them to have every piece of information possible."

Cloud Option Available to Any Police Department CODY also wanted to extend the same benefits of data sharing to agencies that weren't part of a county or regional COBRA network, and there is now a separate and CJIScompliant, cloud-based COBRA network available. This option is available to any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth that wants to participate in SuperCOBRA. Regardless of what RMS is currently in use, the agency can share the same statewide data that COBRA users enjoy through CODY’s secure, FBI/CJIS conformant data center located right in PA. Castle Shannon Borough Police Department took advantage of the

41

SuperCOBRA cloud option. Chief Ken Truver remarks on how easy the process was because it didn't require any technical resources from his department. "We didn't have to build the infrastructure or any interfaces.

It was all handled by CODY." CODY migrated the agency's records to a separate datastore on the secure server, and Castle Shannon was live "within a couple of months."

Join the COBRA movement Asked for his advice to other departments considering joining the SuperCOBRA network, Dave Holl says: "Get on board. The more data we can share the more effective we can all be." With SuperCOBRA, "we can control costs at the same time as we improve effectiveness."

HOW 140+ POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN PA ARE ELIMINATING PAPER SCHEDULES AND USING A MORE EFFICIENT APPROACH

How 140+ Police Departments in PA are Eliminating Paper Schedules and Using a More Efficient Approach If you find that Excel sheets and paper forms take up too much of your workday, you are not alone. Instead of spending unnecessary time on officer scheduling, join over 700 departments across the US in utilizing an online scheduling system to streamline productivity and enhance communication – PlanIt. Ragnasoft, Inc. created PlanIt Police in 2005 with a local police department in Lancaster, PA. The PlanIt Police scheduling system is designed specifically for the unique needs of law enforcement. After introducing it to other departments within Lancaster County, PA, it was clear that there was a need for a simple, effective, and affordable scheduling system in the industry.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

PlanIt Scheduling software has continued to evolve into an even more efficient and robust system over the years based on feedback from several PlanIt users. For example, the team has added features since its conception such as Overtime Forms, Loaned Equipment, and Training Courses. Today, hundreds of law enforcement agencies throughout the US are utilizing PlanIt every day.

What Exactly Does It Do? PlanIt Police handles all your personnel scheduling and communication needs. It allows you to template out all employees’ schedules and remove the archaic manual scheduling processes. With PlanIt Police, you can handle minimum staffing, shift trades, overtime, time off, and much more, all with the convenience of the internet.

PlanIt includes valuable communication tools such as internal messaging, automated notifications, announcements, and kiosks. Rather than waste hours manually making calls and sending emails to the entire

PlanIt Police handles all your personnel scheduling and communication needs. It allows you to template out all employees’ schedules and remove the archaic manual scheduling processes. department, you can use these tools to perform tasks with a few simple clicks.

What Makes PlanIt Different?

PlanIt Schedule has become known for three main characteristics: quality support, affordable pricing, and simple software.

Quality Support There are numerous scheduling solutions out there; yet, very few offer valuable and friendly customer service.

The software will not save you time if ultimately you are on the phone with customer support for hours, trying to resolve an issue. The staff at PlanIt Police will take the time to understand your point of view and get you the help you need quickly.

“I have dealt with a lot of technology companies over my 26 years and you guys have been probably the most responsive of them all. Not only are you willing to make changes, you take the time to understand what we’re talking about and can see the problem we’re trying to solve. That’s a rare trait in public sector software.” – Captain Casida, Clovis Police Department

42

“We have been very pleased with the system since we began using it. You guys do a great job, and we appreciate it.” - Sgt Edward Lenz, Adams Twp. Police Department “I have been in law enforcement for a little over 21 years. By far, nothing has been as exceptional as this.

I am beyond thrilled with the caliber of the program, employees, and customer service. I am happy to endorse or recommend this product and the company to anyone.” - Chief Kim Yamashita, Sandy Police Department Affordable Pricing Some scheduling software can include extra fees beyond the cost of the program itself, making it difficult to fit in the budget. PlanIt Police requires only one annual fee. No hidden or additional costs. On top of that, PlanIt provides free initial set up, training, and ongoing support. The pricing is based on the size of your department and is available right on our website.

“I think it’s well worth the price. In fact, I think it’s quite the bargain for the quality product and level of support that they provide. They may be a small company, but their product is very polished. They are a talented group and have a keen attention to detail.” – Detective Brian Barnes, Upper Allen Police Department

43

Simple Software PlanIt Police features an easy-to-use interface with clear menus that allow you to navigate through the system with ease. After a personalized setup by a PlanIt technician, new subscribers receive a fully operational system loaded with their personnel and schedules for a seamless transition. Unlike some other products, supervisors and administrators can be trained in a single free two-hour session.

“The East Lampeter Township Police Department has been using Ragnasoft’s PlanIt scheduling software for several months. We find the system easy to manage and very user friendly. Prior to using the PlanIt software, we had scheduling managed by multiple divisions and at various levels. Now our agency's schedule is able to be managed by one officer.” – Captain Zerbe, East Lampeter Twp. Police Department “PlanIt software has saved our department huge amounts of time. Schedules self-perpetuate and overtime requests are time-stamped for fairness.

The communications blast is extremely useful for last-minute coverage needs. It's as if they thought of everything.” - Lt. McKim, Ephrata Police Department For more information about PlanIt Police scheduling software, please visit www.planitpolice.com or call (866) 471-2001 today!

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

HOW 140+ POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN PA ARE ELIMINATING PAPER SCHEDULES AND USING A MORE EFFICIENT APPROACH

eTRACE COLLECTIVE DATA SHARING

Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 • Tel: (717) 236-1059 • Fax: (717) 236-0226 • Web Site: http://www.pachiefs.org Albert Walker President Chief of Police Hanover Township

David Steffen 2nd Vice President Chief of Police Northern Lancaster County Regional

John English 1st Vice President Chief of Police Edgeworth Borough

William Richendrfer Secretary - 2020 Chief of Police South Centre Township

Fred Harran 3rd Vice President Director of Public Safety Bensalem Township

Royce Engler 4th Vice President Chief of Police Wright Township

Ken Truver Treasurer - 2020 Chief of Police Castle Shannon Borough

Scott L. Bohn

Executive Director

Gun violence, illegal gun possession and firearms trafficking affect all communities in Pennsylvania. Gun violence is responsible for killing, on average, 1,500 Pennsylvanians per year. Straw purchases and crime guns are fueling this epidemic. As every gun starts out as legal, it is incumbent upon law enforcement to trace how a crime gun was illegally transferred to a prohibited person. By tracing firearms used in crimes, we can identify the heart of the problem.

Law enforcement’s mission does not end with investigating and prosecuting the prohibited possessor. State law requires local law enforcement to trace every crime gun through the ATF, report recoveries to the Pennsylvania State Police and conduct an investigation into how the gun was obtained by the illegal possessor: 18 Pa.C.S. § 6127 (a) Illegal possession. Upon confiscating or recovering a firearm from the possession of anyone who is not permitted by Federal or State law to possess a firearm, a local law enforcement agency shall use the best available information, including a firearms trace where necessary, to determine how and from where the person gained possession of the firearm. (b) Tracing. Local law enforcement shall use the National Tracing Center of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in complying with subsection (a). (c) Notification. Local law enforcement agencies shall advise the Pennsylvania State Police of all firearms that are recovered in accordance with this section.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

In 2007, the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearm Act was amended to include the above “Firearms Tracing” provision. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6127 states local law enforcement, upon recovering a firearm from someone not permitted to possess by State or Federal law shall trace the subject firearm. By complying with this law and comprehensively tracing firearms through ATF and notifying PSP, it allows federal, state and local law enforcement to identify gun traffickers, build intelligence, strategically stop trafficking pipelines, and ensure straw purchasers are not legally permitted to buy guns again.

The easiest and most efficient way to comprehensively trace crime guns is by using the ATF’s National Tracing Center’s eTrace system (https://etrace.atf.gov/etrace/). ATF’s Electronic Tracing System (eTrace) is an internet-based system that allows participating law enforcement agencies to submit required firearm traces to the ATF. Authorized users can receive firearm trace results via this same internet web site, search a database of all firearm traces submitted by their individual agency, and perform analytical functions.

Opting in to collective data sharing allows more effective use of the database and allows for participating agencies to link purchasers and recoveries that cross county lines. To request an eTrace account please contact the ATF’s National Tracing Center Customer Service Group at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, 1-800-788-7133 or fax 1-800-578-7223 or email at traceadmin@atf.govetraceadmin@atf.gov.

Al Coghill – 2022 Chief of Police Cannonsburg Borough

James Sabath – 2022 Chief of Police Newtown Borough

Thomas Gross – 2022 Chief of Police (Ret.) York Area Regional Police

Larry Palmer – 2022 Chief of Police Palmer Township

Mark Toomey – 2021 Chief of Police Upper Providence Township

James Adams – 2021 Chief of Police Upper Allen Township

Michael Vogel – 2021 Chief of Police Allegheny County Housing Authority

Jason Loper - 2022 Chief of Police Fairview Township

Tim Trently - 2022 Chief of Police Archbald Borough

David Splain - 2022 Chief of Police Nether Providence Township

44

eTRACE COLLECTIVE DATA SHARING

ATF National Tracing Center October 2014

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives National Tracing Center Division

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

U.S. Department Justice eTrace: CollectiveofData Sharing (CDS)

Collective Data Sharing eTrace:Firearms Collective Data and Sharing Explosives (CDS) National Tracing Center The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, (ATF) is pleased toATFannounce

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is pleased to announce the availability October 2014 the availability of a new feature within the eTrace application known as Collective Data of a new feature within the eTrace application known as Collective Data Sharing (CDS).

Sharing (CDS).

What Collective Data Sharing (CDS)?

What is is Collective Data Sharing (CDS)?

Collective Sharing (CDS)(CDS) is a function within ATF’s eTrace application which allows for StateCollectiveData Data Sharing is a function within ATF’s eTrace level sharing of firearms trace related data. CDS enables all eTrace participating agencies to view and application which allows for Stateshare trace data with other law enforcement within their state. This feature significantly Figure 1partners - eTrace screenshot level sharing of firearms trace Figure 1 - eTrace screenshot Note* Only the Primary POC is provided withAgencies the option toto opt-in/opt-out of the collective data enhances the ability of State, county, and local level Law Enforcement fight violent related data. CDS enables all eTrace sharingNote* pool. By default, the agency preferences for alloption participating eTrace agencies are set data to Only the Primary POC is provided with the to opt-in/opt-out the collective participating to viewthe and “opt-out” base of collective sharing. firearms crimesagencies by broadening knowledge and data access to potentially important leads in ofcriminal sharing pool. By default, the agency preferences for all participating eTrace agencies are set to share trace data with other law investigations. “opt-out” of collective data sharing. enforcement partners within their

allow your agency’s eTrace users Additional Considerations: state. This feature significantly direct electronic access to crime • ATF strongly recommends that the Considerations: When an agency chooses to participate in CDS all of their is madedesignated available inPrimary the State-level enhances the ability of State, county, Additional gun information fortrace thosedata firearms POC for your data via eTrace is reciprocal in and that recommends an agencyby does not have access to for search the obtain theof andpool. localData levelsharing Law Enforcement recovered traced other agency obtain the concurrence • ATF strongly that the designated Primary POC your agency concurrence of your Chief/Sheriff prior to electing to share your agency’s trace data. to Agencies to fight violent firearms participating agencies in your state. your Chief/Sheriff prior to electing State-level data pool unless they have opted in to share their trace data. Therefore, the available data crimes by broadening the knowledge Expanded analytical review ofitssuch share your agency’s trace data.

• Once your agency opts to share data, your Primary POC can always opt-out and not share the pool consists of trace data for those agencies that have in within a given State. base and only access to potentially data can leadsopted in identifying data ifprovide your agency’s policy to share data changes.

• Once your agency opts to share its important leads in criminal persons engaged in agency the diversion • Be aware, when your Opts-In to CDS, ALLyour of your agency’sPOC trace data shared in the data, Primary canisalways investigations. firearms into illegal commerce, How can my Agency Benefit fromofParticipating ineTrace CDS? State “Data Pool.” users from otheropt-out Law Enforcement Agencies thatthe are also sharing and not share data if data in your State’s Data Pool will have the ability to view, download, and/or print any of the link suspects to firearms in criminal When an agency chooses to your agency’s policy to share datatrace data agency’s that is being shared in the Statewill levelhave Data Pool. investigations, identify potential The benefit to participating in CDS is that your eTrace users a much larger pool of participate in CDS all of their trace changes. firearms traffickers, and expose data is made in the Stateshared trace dataavailable to examine and from which to develop investigative leads. Participating in CDS will Questions: intrastate, interstate and international • Be aware, when your agency Optslevel data pool.

Data sharing via allow your agency’s eTrace users directATF’s electronic access to crime gun(NTC) information those firearms In to CDS, ALL of your agency’s trace of sources and routes.

National Tracing Center Division operates andfor administers the eTrace program.

For any eTrace is reciprocal in that an agency patterns data is shared in the State “Data questions or additional information related to CDS, please contact the eTrace Admin team at recovered and traced by other participating agencies in your state.

Expanded analytical review of such does not have access to search the How Can My Agency Participate in Pool.” eTrace users from other Law 1(800)788-7133 x 1540 or email etraceadmin@atf.gov.

State-level dataleads poolin unless they persons data can provide identifying into illegal commerce, CDS? engaged in the diversion of firearms Enforcement Agencies that are also have opted in to share their trace link suspects to firearms in criminal investigations, firearms traffickers, expose To participateidentify in CDS,potential the individual sharing data and in your State’s Data data. Therefore, the available data designated as the “Primary POC” Pool will have the ability to view, intrastate, interstate international of sources and routes. pool consists only and of trace data for patterns within your agency must manually download, and/or print any of the those agencies that have opted in “Opt-in” to CDS via administrative trace data that is being shared in the within a given How Can My State.

Agency Participate controls in CDS? within the eTrace State level Data Pool. application.

“Primary POC” is can myinAgency Benefit from designated as The ToHow participate CDS, the individual the “Primaryby POC” within your agency must Questions: the person designated name Participating in CDS? ATF’s National Center Division the eTrace Memorandum manually “Opt-in” to CDS viainadministrative within the eTraceofapplication.

The Tracing “Primary The benefit to participating CDS within controls (NTC) operates and administers (MOU) to act as theof Understanding (MOU) to act the is that your agency’s eTrace by users POC” is the person designated nameUnderstanding within the eTrace Memorandum primary point of contact eTrace program. For any questions have a much larger of agency’s aswill the agency’s primary pointpool of contact between ATF and the agency (See Fig. or 1). additional information related shared trace data to examine and between ATF and the agency (See to CDS, please contact the eTrace from which to develop investigative Fig. 1).

Admin team at 1 (800)788-7133 x 2 leads. Participating in CDS will 1540 or email etraceadmin@atf.gov.

1 45

46

• Ability to perform on-line analytical research relative to your jurisdiction.

• Ability to view/print/ download completed trace results (all print functions are formatted for standard 8 ½” x 11” paper); and,

• Ability to monitor the status of traces;

• Improved data quality of trace related information by providing real-time data validation;

• Increase the overall number of crime guns traced by providing a user friendly interface for entering trace data;

What Benefits Will eTrace Provide?

Benefits of eTrace include: • Significant reduction in the turnaround time required to process a trace request;

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

ATF Publication 3312.9 Revised December 2009

For more information about ATF visit: www.atf.gov

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 99 New York Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20226

ATF National Tracing Center Law Enforcement Support Branch eTrace Customer Service Group 244 Needy Road Martinsburg, WV 25405 Tel: 1-800-788-7133 Fax: 1-800-578-7223 Email: etraceadmin@atf.gov

Contact the NTC eTrace Customer Service Group:

Internet-based Firearms Tracing and Analysis

NATIONAL TRACING CENTER DIVISION

U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Office of Enforcement Programs and Services

ATF NATIONAL TRACING CENTER DIVISION

47

Why Trace Firearms?

• To link a suspect to a firearm in a criminal investigation; • To identify potential traffickers, whether licensed or unlicensed sellers; and • When sufficiently comprehensive tracing is undertaken by a given community, to detect in-state, interstate, and international patterns in the sources and kinds of crime guns.

What is Firearms Tracing?

Firearms tracing is the systematic tracking of the movement of a firearm recovered by law enforcement officials from its first sale by the manufacturer or importer through the distribution chain (wholesaler/retailer) to the first retail purchaser.

The eTrace application lets participating agencies electronically submit firearm trace requests. They can also monitor the progress of their traces and efficiently retrieve completed trace results in a real-time environment.

To access and utilize the eTrace application, the only infrastructure an agency needs is a secure computer and access to the Internet.

Even agencies with limited personnel can comprehensively trace their firearms and analyze on-line data.

The focus of the eTrace application is to: enhance current trace protocols; efficiently function in a web-based environment; and, provide for the secure exchange of firearm trace related information between the user community and the ATF National Tracing Center. eTrace also affords law enforcement agencies direct access to a historical database of its firearm trace related data, enabling a participating agency to analyze its trace related data through a broad search utility. A search for their traces can be initiated on virtually any data field or combination of data fields. This can include individual names, recovery location address, type of crime, date of recovery, etc.

What is eTrace?

ATF extends its ongoing commitment to the law enforcement community by providing it with a paperless firearm trace submission system that is readily accessible through the Internet.

This system, known as eTrace, provides the necessary utilities for submitting, retrieving, storing, and querying all firearms trace related information relative to your agency.

• Submit Urgent Trace Requests for processing; • Update a trace (a user may only update a trace for which they were the original submitter); • Re-open a trace to provide previously missing or invalid data; • Online help and frequently asked questions bulletin board; • Access to the Firearms Identification Guide (FIG); and, • Ability to generate statistical reports (i.e., number of traces, top firearms traced, timeto-crime rates, age of possessors, etc.).

• View, print, and download detailed trace request and trace result information; • Perform a “Quick Search” or a detailed multi-layer search for traces;

• View the status of a trace (In Progress, Completed, Delayed);

• Enter, validate, and submit comprehensive firearm trace request data; • View a summary listing of recently submitted traces;

What Functions are Available Through eTrace?

eTrace also provides users with the ability to generate statistical reports regarding the number of traces submitted by their agency over time, the top firearms traced, time-tocrime rates, age of possessors, and more.

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

What is the National Tracing Center Division (NTC)?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) National Tracing Center Division (NTC) is the only organization authorized to trace U.S. and foreign manufactured firearms for international, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. Its purpose is to provide investigative leads in the fight against violent crime and terrorism and to enhance public safety.

ATF NATIONAL TRACING CENTER DIVISION

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE

Technology Update By: Christopher J. Braun MSIT, PCPA Technology Coordinator

Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (MCDV) and Relationship to Victim (RTV) Codes

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Effective January 28, 2020, important changes were made to the data collected during the booking and fingerprint process.

These changes are necessary due to the dangerous nature of domestic violence situations and cases for both the safety of the responding police officers and the victims. Because there are different State and Federal

Firearms prohibitions associated with Domestic Violence crimes, and the previous processes capture insufficient information to adequately define Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence, modifications were made to improve the accuracy of criminal records. These modifications now meet the NICS definitions of Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence (MCDV). The Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) has expanded the automated fingerprint protocol, adding blocks to the manual fingerprint card to capture the Relationship to Victim (RTV) for all crimes of Domestic Violence in addition to the MCDV. The ability to capture and integrate this information across several PSP Systems will assist with restricting prohibited persons from obtaining firearms. While this

Effective January 28, 2020, important changes were made to the data collected during the booking and fingerprint process. These changes are necessary due to the dangerous nature of domestic violence situations and cases for both the safety of the responding police officers and the victims.

48

requires a little extra work, the result is added protection for the responding officers, the victims of domestic violence, and our Pennsylvania communities.

In cases where the arresting officer is not present at the time of booking, the person responsible for booking the suspect must know the relationship between the suspect and the victim in the crimes associated with domestic violence. Therefore, some police departments and central booking sites will have to add additional documentation about the relationship to the victim. Again, this information is critical to everyone’s safety, including the police officers.

A short video and written guides for either ink cards or livescan processing can be obtained from the PCPA Web site https://pcpa.memberclicks.net/ central-booking-training-resources.

For questions contact the PSP AFIS room: 717-783-5515 EMAIL: RA-PSPAFISSUPERVISOR@PA.GOV FAX: 717-772-3681.

PAVTN

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE

January was a busy month with 4000 plus officer taking the courses.

Don’t be a procrastinator get your training early. The PAVTN provides several great electives for you to fulfill your certification requirements. For more information or to register for training on the PAVTN please email me at cjbraun@comcast.net.

Forensic Evidence Grant

VMD is the physical process of coating evidence with very a thin metal film under high vacuum. Gold, Zinc, Silver, Tin, Aluminum, and some alloys are used to coat the substrate.

The result is a reversed developed latent print.

Since the process coats the substrate and not the latent print, it does not interfere with the collection of samples being submitted for DNA analysis. the latest discovery, collection, preservation, and development tools for processing latent evidence. PCPA has released a request for proposals for training and we expect to start providing training by April 2020.

The forensic project was highlighted at our PCPA/JNET user meeting at State College on December 5, 2019.

We had displays with the latest and greatest in crime scene and forensic technology. This is a follow up project to the work PCCD did to provide the new technology of Vacuum Metal Deposition (VMD).

PCPA has a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency to bring a greater emphasis on forensics. The grant will help police departments be better equipped and trained to process crime scenes and collect evidence.

This project supports improving the quality and frequency of collected latent evidence from crime scenes across the Commonwealth. Through a sustained effort of training, equipment, and agency executive support, a collaborative enterprise can be substantiated to educate and equip larger police departments, District Attorney Offices, Sheriff Offices, and/or regional partnerships (for the smaller agencies) to employ

Vacuum Metal Deposition came to Pennsylvania thanks to several grants from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. VMD was demonstrated last year at both PCCD and the PCPA June 2018 technology users conference in State College. VMD is the physical process of coating evidence with very a thin metal film under high vacuum. Gold, Zinc, Silver, Tin, Aluminum, and some alloys are used to coat the substrate.

49

The result is a reversed developed latent print. Since the process coats the substrate and not the latent print, it does not interfere with the collection of samples being submitted for DNA analysis. Vacuum Metal Deposition is an optimal technique for a wide range of exhibits, including flexible plastic packaging, plastic bottles, glass, fabrics, firearms, glossy paper, thermal paper, polymer & currency development, especially items that have been exposed to harsh and adverse environmental conditions. It is about 5 times more effective than Cyanoacrylate fuming, producing a greater amount of ridge detail.

In all the United State there are only fourteen VMD systems. Now, through the recent PCCD Justice Assistance Grants, two systems are in Pennsylvania. Berks and Cumberland Counties are deploying CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

SPRING 2020 BULLETIN

On January 1, 2020 the PAVTN added the 2020 MPOETC courses. Legal Update 20-001, Explosive Devices 20-002,, Operational Planning 20003 and Personal Leadership 20004. The Legal Update course (20001) is a mandatory training worth 3 credit hours. The remaining 9 credit hours of training can be of the police officers’ choosing.

TECHNOLOGY UPDATE

The PCPA Mobile Fingerprint Identification Project is now in its second year of operation. Soon there will be over 300 mobile fingerprint identification devices deployed across the Commonwealth. Hundreds of uses proved the effectiveness of these devices identifying suspects in the field that don’t have other identification. In some cases, wanted persons were discovered in others new crimes were both identified and prevented. this technology. On May 14, 2019, the Cumberland County District Attorney, Skip Ebert, Cumberland County Director of Criminal Justice Services, Eric Radnovich and the staff of the Cumberland County Forensic Services demonstrated the VMD system to the public and the media.

Carol McCandless, the lead forensic investigator for Cumberland County’s forensic service showed how a pillowcase from a pillow held over a victim’s face could be processed to reveal the victim’s face on one side and the suspect’s handprints on the other side.

PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

Over the last three years, PCPA has been administering grant funds and assisting the Cumberland County in their process of getting the District Attorney’s Forensic Laboratory fully accredited. The Cumberland County Forensic Lab is bow fully accredited.

PCPA helps with their DNA collection and identification project. The use of VMD now helps that project, because it not only finds impressions, but it directs the forensic investigator to

the most likely place to find touch DNA. Since the process does not destroy or disrupt the evidence, DNA can still be collected.

This technology is not just useful for new cases but is being used on cold cases where there is evidence that could not be previously tested.

According to Carol McCandless, the lab has already received several old cases from 1983 and 1995.

This is also the way we help ensure conviction integrity, reduce identification errors and help decrease the trauma suffered by victims. Forensic identification takes away the trauma and burden of witness identification, while adding focus to the investigation and prosecution.

Mobile Fingerprint Identification Devices The PCPA Mobile Fingerprint Identification Project is now in its second year of operation. Soon there will be over 300 mobile fingerprint identification devices deployed

50

across the Commonwealth. Hundreds of uses proved the effectiveness of these devices identifying suspects in the field that don’t have other identification. In some cases, wanted persons were discovered in others new crimes were both identified and prevented. While the grant funding is gone, there are still a few refurbished devices available for just the annual operating cost of $990. That provides the device, full system/device maintenance and one year of secure cellular service.

Any department interested can see the requirements on our web page https://pcpa.memberclicks.net/ mobile-fingerprint-id or contact me by email cjbraun@pachiefs.org.

P E N N S Y LV A N I A CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION

APPLICATION TYPE:

APPLY ONLINE!

oA ctive Membership $150 per year plus $100 Initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application) oA ffiliate Membership $150 per year plus $100 Initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application)

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

APPLICANT INFORMATION

RECOMMENDING MEMBER

Full Name of Employer_______________________________

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

Office Address _____________________________________

Recommending Member Name and Title:

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Name____________________________________________ Rank ___________________________ Date of Appt_______

________________________________________________ County _____________________ Phone ________________

Department Name and Phone Number: ________________________________________________

Fax ___________________ Email _____________________

APPLICANT DEPARTMENT INFORMATION

Are you a sworn police officer? Y or N

Provide the number of sworn police officers in your department

Full time police officer in above department? Y or N

Full time ___________ Part time __________

MPOETC # ________________________________________ If not applicable, please explain why MPOETC number is not

If industry, number of security officers under applicant’s command ___________

present ___________________________________________

If other, state nature of business in relation to law enforcement

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

Residence Address _________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

________________________________________________ County ____________________ Region ________________ Date of Birth _______________ Phone _________________ 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 _______________________

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.

The many changes taking place in the RMS market can cause uncertainty about the future of your current RMS. With so much at stake, you need a provider you can trust, with technology and a support team you can rely on.

CODY Systems is a PA company with 40+ years of consistent family leadership.

We are large enough to serve you, yet small enough to know your name.

•

Reliability: We support 165+ agencies in PA alone, many with us for 20+ years

•

Support: Talk with a LIVE person 24/7/365. No menu systems. No voicemail.

•

Technology: Innovative solutions delivered with old school customer service

•

Information-sharing: statewide data-sharing initiative, PA SuperCOBRA

We welcome the opportunity to discuss how your agency can cost effectively, seamlessly and thoroughly transition your data and RMS to join the CODY family of agencies across Pennsylvania, and take part in our growing statewide datasharing initiative – PA SuperCOBRA.

Frances N. Heffner – President / Owner

David N. Heffner – Executive VP / Owner

“We sought out an RMS partner who could help us build interfaces with other agency technology.

CODY Systems built an interface for our citations and crash software to help us prevent duplication of efforts. The staff at CODY are continually working with us to increase our productivity and efficiency. We recently became the first agency in Allegheny County to join the COBRA data-sharing network to share vital investigative information."

– Chief Ken Truver, Castle Shannon PD

PROUD SPONSORS

610.326.7476 | info@codysystems.com

www.codysystems.com