CPOA California Peace Officer Summer 2012

PeaceOfficer California

PA I D

PERMIT NO. 316 SACRAMENTO, CA

PRST STD

U.S. POSTAGE

Summer 2012

The Effects of Body-Worn Video Recorders Law, Lies and Videotape Becoming More Productive with a Reduced Workforce

Save with SFPCU Vehicle Loans.

As low as

1.99

%

APR

When shopping for your next car, truck or motorcycle, don’t miss out on this great deal from SFPCU:

• Rates as low as 1.99% APR • 90 Days No Payments • FREE 1-Year AAA Membership Hurry, this is a limited-time offer. Call us at 800.222.1391 or apply online at www.sfpcu.org today!

800.222.1391 www.sfpcu.org

All CPOA members are eligible for membership!

APR = Annual Percentage Rate. Example rate of 1.99% APR with 60 monthly payments = $17.52 per $1,000 borrowed, assumes promotional discount and .25% discount for enrollment in automatic payments (fully indexed rate of 3.99%). Rate, terms and conditions are subject to change without notice. Out-of-state vehicles are acceptable, dealer transactions only. Your , actual APR may vary and will be determined when a credit decision is made, and may be higher than the. lowest rate available. AAA Offer valid thru 12/31/12, application and funding must occur before 12/31/12 to qualify. Offer is valid on new loans only and is available for new and used autos, early-model autos, and motorcycles. The loan must be in the amount of $15,000 or higher to qualify for the AAA membership offer. Refinances must be from another financial institution and have at least $15,000 or higher remaining on the loan. Members will be automatically signed up for AAA membership after authorizing SFPCU. Additional terms and conditions apply.

table of contents

2012-2013 Executive Committee President

Rick Braziel Chief Sacramento Police Department rbraziel@pd.cityofsacramento.org

FEATURES

1st Vice President

8 The Effect of Body-Worn Video Recorders on Organizational Trust in Police Agencies

Rich Lucero Captain Fremont Police Department rlucero@ci.fremont.ca.us

2nd Vice President

Mark Yokoyama Chief of Police Alhambra Police Department myokoyama@alhambrapd.org

3rd Vice President

Scott Jones Sheriff Sacramento Co. Sheriff’s Department sjones@sacsheriff.com

Treasurer

David McGill Assistant Chief Newport Beach Police Department dmcgill@nbpd.org

Immediate Past President Sandra Spagnoli Chief San Leandro Police Department sspagnoli@sanleandro.org

6 Legislative Update

9 Alternative Funding for Lapel Cameras 10 Law, Lies and Videotape 12 COPSWEST 2012 14 CPOA’s 92nd Annual Leadership Summit 15 Becoming More Productive with a Reduced Workforce 16 The Crisis Response Team—Peer Support Partnership

DEPARTMENTS 4 President’s Message

Publisher

5 Executive Director’s Message

California Peace Officers’ Association 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1495 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 263-0541 Fax: (916) 520-2277 E-mail: cpoa@cpoa.org www.cpoa.org

18 General Counsel 21 Legal Services Program News 22 Resource Guide

Managing Editor

Tricia Schomus (916) 263-0541 tschomus@cpoa.org

Chairs, Regional Advisory Council Brian Evanski Captain El Segundo Police Department bevanski@elsegundo.org

Parliamentarian

Erik Maness Captain Sacramento Co. Sheriff’s Department emaness@sacsheriff.com

Executive Director Carol Leveroni, CAE cleveroni@cpoa.org

Opinions expressed are those of the authors or persons quoted and are not necessarily those of the CPOA state board, appointees, staff and its membership.

The publication of any advertisement by CPO or the California Peace Officers’ Association is neither an endorsement of the advertiser nor of the products or services advertised. Neither CPO nor CPOA are responsible for any claims made in an advertisement published in California Peace Officer. © California Peace Officers’ Association. All right reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written consent of the publisher.

The California Peace Officers’ Association is committed to developing progressive leadership for the California law enforcement community. This is accomplished by organizational networking, professional development, technology advancement and public policy advocacy.

The purpose of California Peace Officer is to inform and educate CPOA members; to promote professional development; to generate interest in association activities and to foster a cohesive and involved membership.

Editor

Lisa Kopochinski (916) 481-0265 lisakop@sbcglobal.net

Advertising Manager

Cici Trino Association Outsource Services (916) 990-9999 Fax: (916) 990-9991 cicit@aosinc.biz

Layout and Design Lori Mattas

Printing and Mailing Copeland Printing

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 3

president’s message

Turning Challenges into Opportunities

I

By Rick Braziel, Chief of Police Sacramento Police Department

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”

—Winston Churchill

4

t is an honor to be appointed as the 92nd president of the California Peace Officers’ Association. This past May, CPOA hosted the 92nd Annual Leadership Summit in Monterey, which delivered top notch training, networking opportunities and vendor displays. Additionally, CPOA held its annual statewide law enforcement recognition event, which brings departments throughout the state together to honor officers who had significant accomplishments and/or those who received medals of valor. As I said while addressing the audience of several hundred, this is what it is all about, assembling together to appreciate and recognize the efforts and actions amongst us.

It makes it all worthwhile.

Over the next year, I am committed to working collaboratively with our association partners— the California Police Chiefs Association and the California State Sheriffs’ Association—to continue the leadership development of our current and future law enforcement leaders. CPOA is positioned well to help California’s current law enforcement leaders prepare their staff and agencies for the future with our topical and top notch training. Our associations’ need to collaboratively approach the changing dynamics of public safety and help one another to prepare for this future landscape.

The next few months will see the unfolding of the state budget and the upcoming elections. Both of these events will see fallout that will have some effect on public safety. Of critical concern is the Governor’s tax initiative, which the passage of is critical to public safety funding. CPOA’s Board of Directors voted to support this initiative and it is imperative for all of us to spread the message that passage of this initiative is the only thing standing between us and even more devastating agency cuts.

This year CPOA will continue to engage on legislative advocacy on issues that affect our ability to do our jobs protecting the public. Additionally, the Board voted to endorse the Below 100 Campaign to bring the annual line of duty deaths to below 100, a number not seen since 1944. CPOA will be presenting these training seminars around the state and we encourage your agency to sign onto the campaign. You can find more information at www.below100.com.

Joining me in my efforts this year on the Executive Committee are 1st Vice President, Captain Rich Lucero, Fremont Police Department; 2nd Vice President, Chief Mark Yokoyama, Alhambra Police Department; 3rd Vice President, Sheriff Scott Jones, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department; Treasurer, Assistant Chief David McGill, Newport Beach Police Department; Parliamentarian, Captain Erik Maness, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department; Region Advisory Chair, Captain Brian Evanski, El Segundo Police Department; and Past President, Chief Sandra Spagnoli, San Leandro Police Department. As a team, we will continue to address the needs of the Association together.

This is really a time of unprecedented challenges for public safety. We are all in this together and CPOA is positioned to have a voice at a local and statewide level on the most pressing issues in front of us. I am looking forward to the next year and CPOA’s involvement in legislation, the state budget, providing contemporary training and working in partnership with the other public safety professional organizations. I believe that it is through our work collectively – California law enforcement and the communities we represent – are well served. r

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

executive director’s message

Change or Die

Y

By Carol Leveroni, CAE

“Sometimes good things fall apart so better things can fall together.”

—Marilyn Monroe

ou hear it all the time…no one likes change. And yet it is around us every day.

As I’ve discussed in this column many times over the past several years, CPOA is changing because it has to. I know someone has said it before: Change or Die. The Board of Directors has spent the past year debating issues regarding CPOA’s future—who we are and where we need to go. And while it is not an easy conversation, it is an opportunity to continue to serve this profession and our members in an ongoing, relevant way.

As an example of ongoing change, a rather significant moment occurred with the conclusion of the Annual Leadership Summit in May. And yet, it occurred as a whisper; a bump in the long road that is part of CPOA’s history. The May Leadership Summit (previous incarnation, the “Annual Conference”) concluded its May run.

I have to admit that, with only five years tenure here at CPOA, I am not the repository for the full history of the CPOA annual conference. I do know that the conference evolved over the past 90-plus years. This is just another evolutionary turn in the history of the Association.

Given the ongoing economic realities, the Board of Directors determined it just made sense for the Association to make things easier for our members to participate. CPOA already has a wildly successful Leadership Day that occurs during its COPSWEST Expo in the fall so they decided to mesh the two events together. Now attendees don’t need to select an either/or scenario…they can get the high level leadership training delivered AND be able to “one stop shop” all the current technology, products, and services that are displayed during the Expo.

But, if I can make a few observations from this year’s Summit. I’m continually pleased to hear the feedback we get from our attendees. It isn’t always perfect, but it is always constructive and helps us continually fine tune our training to fit your needs. The cool thing for me though, is the moments that occur amongst the attendees that make it all worthwhile for them. Of course, we love hearing that they really got something out of the training, but when a Sergeant tells me that his whole trip was made worthwhile from the two hours he spent in an in-depth conversation with a Chief he just met, I have to smile. Over and over again, I hear that CPOA is about the relationships forged, conversations explored, and opportunities provided.

In fact, as part of this Summit, we held an “interview room,” where we asked anyone to stop by and answer some videotaped questions about their experiences with CPOA. This is an ongoing project that we are undertaking as part of both a membership marketing/public relations campaign and a history celebration. We asked questions about what CPOA had meant to them professionally and personally and their thoughts about the importance of the Association. By the time we were done, I had goose bumps. To hear these individuals (some now Chiefs and Sheriffs) say that they wouldn’t be where they were without their career involvement with CPOA was powerful. To hear them say that they have forged lifelong friendships with people they would otherwise have never known was priceless.

So, although CPOA has seen, and will continue to see, changes in how it operates and what it provides, the key message that we continue to promote is that CPOA is about the lifecycle of leadership – about building law enforcement leaders for today…and for the future.

CPOA has been here for you for 93 years…will you help ensure that it will be around for those that come after you? r

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 5

legislative update

The May Budget Revise

By John McGinness and Jason Burruel

W

John McGinness is CPOA’s Public Safety Consultant. He retired as Sheriff in December 2010 after 31 years with the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in criminal justice, with a minor in public administration, and a Master’s of Science degree in emergency services administration from CSU Long Beach, and is a graduate of the prestigious West Point Leadership Institute. Additionally, he is an adjunct professor of criminal justice, communications, leadership and professional studies with the California State University and was appointed to the POST Commission

by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007.

Jason M. Burruel is the Legislative Director for the California Peace Officers’ Association.

He holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Government from CSU Sacramento. He comes to CPOA with a strong political background having worked in the State Assembly and the Executive Branch. Jason can be reached at jburruel@cpoa.org.

6

e have finally made it through the hottest part of the year, the passage of the state’s budget. Due to the 2011 realignment process, CPOA and fellow law enforcement associations must work very diligently to secure the proper—and guaranteed—funding needed from the budget for law enforcement. With the state facing up to a $19 billion deficit, all law enforcement associations must fight for guaranteed funding for realignment, and continuous funding for law enforcement across the board.

The Governor has released his May Budget Revise and is pleased to say that he spared law enforcement from the brunt of new cuts.

Although there was fear the Governor would need to cut funds to law enforcement, he actually created a $20 million grant for frontline officers. It is important to note, that the Governor’s May Revise is based solely on the passage of his tax initiative in November. This is a bit unsettling, but we feel by endorsing the Governor’s tax initiative and working diligently to assist the Governor to get the tax initiative passed, we will be successful in helping to deliver much needed funding to law enforcement.

The proposed budget will constitutionally guarantee the 2011 realignment funds for local public safety. The Governor’s May Revise would create the Board of State and Community Corrections, which replaces the previously abolished Correctional Standards Authority. The Board will assume the previous functions of the authority as well as other public safety programs previously administered by the California Emergency Management Agency. This Board will guide statewide public safety policies and ensure that all available resources are maximized and directed to programs that are proven to reduce crime and recidivism among all offenders. The Board will include funds totaling $119.9 million for state operations and local assistance programs. As previously mentioned, the May Revise also includes a $20 million grant program for city police departments.

Equally important is the local jail construction financing program. There is trailer bill language

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

proposed that would provide $500 million of additional lease revenue bond financing authority for the acquisition, design and construction of local facilities to help counties manage their offender population. Currently the funding for realignment is produced by two things: a special fund sales tax of 1.0625 percent and a dedicated portion of the Vehicle License Fees (VLF). In the Governor’s May Revise, he is proposing language to create a permanent funding structure for the 2011 Realignment. The base funding for each of the programs included in 2011 Realignment will ultimately become a “rolling base,” meaning the previous year’s allocation plus growth will equal the new base for the following year.

Realignment is still so new and many of us are still working our way through the process, including the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In April, it released an update for realignment called, “The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System.” This blueprint was generated in order to explain the CDCR’s new plan for realignment and how it will take place. In order to create more jobs in California and to save the state money, the CDCR evaluated their outof-state incarceration program and decided to end this program and bring some 9,500 out-of-state inmates back to California. Their reasoning being that California would save money by changing the classification process to allow the CDCR to move inmates around at a faster pace. They’ve also said that AB 900 funds will now be allowed to cover costs at the local level. Finally, the CDCR has said they will request to change the 137.5 percent final benchmark of prison design capacity. This benchmark is set for December 2012, but under current projections, the state won’t meet that figure. CDCR believes that with the current reduced prison population, the department’s ability to quality health care has risen and they will therefore request that benchmark number be raised to at or under 145 percent of prison design capacity. r

The Effect of Body-Worn Video Recorders on Organizational Trust in Police Agencies

By John Carli

L

aw enforcement agencies across the country currently suffer from a lack of credibility and public trust. Vacaville police officers have begun using body-worn audio and personal video recording (PVR) devices to capture and document their interaction with citizens for their own protection in order to defend their credibility. The integration of video recording technology into daily police work has the potential of reducing liability, improving professionalism, and providing accountability.

The premise of researching the use of PVR devices was to evaluate how trust within the Vacaville Police Department is affected as officers use these devices to protect themselves against complaints by recording citizen contacts. In October 2009, police managers became aware of the benefits and purchased video recorders for all officers. The recorders were issued to officers subsequent to focus group discussions with officers, media storage issues being resolved, and officer training provided. There was concern that trust between officers and managers within the Vacaville Police Department would be compromised as management determined how to direct the use of body-worn audio and video recording devices to capture and document police officers’ interactions with citizens. Officers wanted to be certain the video recorders would be used to defend their actions and not merely to discipline or criticize them. Police managers mandating the use of this

8

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

technology through a policy and training directly affects trust that officers feel.

Officers encounter people on a regular basis who challenge their integrity and actions. As a matter of procedure and law, the police department is mandated to investigate all citizen complaints. Without independent witnesses, it is difficult to prove or disprove the officer’s version of the police/citizen contact in question. Many officers in Vacaville are using bodyworn video recorders as a protective measure against false complaints as well as to be used as evidence in criminal courts.

Officers were concerned that police managers would use the video recordings against the officers instead of defending the actions of the officers. Police officers were generally willing to use the recorders, but were worried about the intent of police managers telling them how they are to be used. Any recording captured during an official police encounter is the property of the department and not the individual officer. Therefore, police administrators have an obligation to formulate a policy to standardize its use. This posturing has an adverse effect on trust between police officers and management. The use of digital recordings is not new to the Vacaville Police Department because uniformed officers currently carry digital audio recorders that are issued to them. The current digital audio recorders are covered under a policy that describes how and when they should be used. However, this policy does not

Alternative Funding for Lapel Cameras

By Robert Levy mandate their use, instead it entrusts officers to use them according to the situation and provides discretion to the officer.

The concern was that officers suspected management had an agenda in issuing a personally worn video recorder to each officer. This is specific to the issue of a department policy, which dictates when the video recorder should be used as opposed to trusting officers to use the recorder as needed. Officers have questioned a policy that directs them to record citizen contacts, calling it suspicious. This suspicion then affects trust and credibility between line level officers and management. Research prior to the issuance of the PVR devices provided insight and direction for police managers in the development of a video policy, which dictates how officers use the body-worn devices to capture and record police contacts with citizens. For this reason, openness was paramount in order to achieve a process that had credibility upon completion.

Trust is important to our agency to such a degree that it is part of our core values. The clarification of organizational values is an essential leadership commitment. Therefore, shared values are a result of listening, appreciating, building consensus, and practicing conflict resolution. For officers in the organization to understand the values and come to agree with them, they had to participate in the process: unity is forged, not forced. Because of this, it was important to consider our stakeholders and their needs as we determined this operational change. Sworn police officers have long enjoyed a credible reputation that meant their word was to be honored. Today, it is common to question the actions and integrity of officers. Because police managers must facilitate a process to investigate the integrity of the organization, police officers often feel their credibility is being questioned both by the managers they work for and the public they serve.

Police managers are challenged by the responsibility of fostering trust while simultaneously questioning it. This creates tension between the two stakeholders.

The Vacaville Police Department formed the Office of Professional Standards, a unit specifically tasked with investigating citizen complaints. California Government Code section 6250 requires that each citizen complaint be investigated. There is no provision for false complaints; therefore, unfortunately frivolous complaints require equal attention without recourse for individuals using the system as a retaliatory means against the police.

Police officers who are directed to use recording devices need to trust that the organization will not misuse recordings as a basis for discipline and accountability measures. However, the police department has an obligation to defend the integrity of the police profession, even when it uncovers evidence of wrongdoing by employees. Video evidence is very compelling and easily defensible during internal investigations.

Police agencies spend time and money investigating citizen complaints. Within the Vacaville Police Department, as with most agencies, there is the Office of Professional Standards (Internal Affairs), a unit dedicated to investigate complaints specific to personnel and departmental services provided to the community. This unit focuses on four major leadership themes that affect the internal and external trust within the organiza-

G

iven the current economic conditions, it has become ever increasingly difficult to fund projects, even when they make sense or reduce an agency’s liability. Hence, it is even more critical to explore outside funding for implementing projects. Here are a few suggestions for funding a lapel camera project for your agency.

Nontraditional Local Funding One area that is under-tapped by law enforcement agencies is the city/ county’s loss prevention subsidy. These funds come from insurance premium funds already paid by an agency to what is usually a self-insurance pool.

The funds returned are usually a percentage of funds paid by an agency and can be used for approved activities such as employee education, safer work environments or equipment to promote safety. The lapel cameras may fit this model and will give you risk manager “points” with the insurance carrier so everyone wins.

State Funding The Office of Traffic Safety has a long history of funding both personnel and equipment for traffic enforcement. Officers working special details can be equipped with lapel cameras for documenting driver’s statement about speed, the traffic light (the “did you see the light?” question) or up-close visuals of a field sobriety test. For smaller agencies, an argument can be made that all officers enforce traffic laws and that the cameras would be appropriate. This would be especially true if an agency were to have an overtime pool for special traffic enforcement details or projects (OTS funded) and that all officers are eligible to sign up for such overtime.

Federal Funding There are several programs at the federal level where funding cameras may be appropriate. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act funds can fund cameras for most or all of your agencies drug enforcement officers. Also, when authorized, the COPS technology program funds this type of technology for agencies of all sizes. This program funds by invitation only (appropriation) so your agency must be engaged with your local Congressman or Senator.

These are just a few suggestions on funding. You are only limited by your imagination or creativity. You will find that since many state and federal agencies are facing cuts, which causes grant programs to become smaller.

Therefore, the old mindset of one grant, one project may become a single project with a basket of grants and grant funds to complete a project such as lapel cameras.

Lastly, if you never apply for a grant then the answer will always be NO. Undersheriff Robert Levy is a 28-year veteran officer and has served as the Alpine County Undersheriff for the past 11 years. During his tenure as Undersheriff, Rob has raised more than $15 million for emergency services equipment and infrastructure projects. This includes more than $11 million dollars for Interoperable Communications Repeater Sites. He has also been involved in the Off Highway Vehicle Grant Program and chairs the Resource Advisory Council that directs and approves grants in Alpine County to improve recreation and resource protection facilities. Rob is married and has three boys. He and his family also operate a 20-acre ranch that engages in small-scale organic honey and food production.

continued on page 11 California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 9

Law, Lies and Videotape: Legal Issues and Police Video-Microphone Technology

By Christopher W. Miller, Esq.

I

n that cautionary tale of a police flick, “Training Day,” Denzel Washington’s character tells his young trainee, “It’s not what you know; it’s what you can prove.” Video-microphone technology, like in-car camera systems and digital recorders, allows for real-time recording of events to assist with evidence-gathering, report writing, internal affairs investigations, training and defense against civil claims. As with other new technologies available to law enforcement, however, there is a new set of potential risks, rights and liabilities involved in its use on the street and in the courtroom.

Evidentiary Issues Video-microphones present recorded evidence from a view not available through surveillance cameras, stationary cameras or in-car systems — the view of the responding officer. What the officer says, sees and hears throughout an enforcement contact is recorded, downloaded and stored for potential use in a criminal prosecution. There is nothing so compelling to a jury as a real-time video of the events at the heart of a case. Watch any BLUtube video and imagine how 12 people weighing the evidence in a federal civil rights trial might react when “up close and personal” microphone camera footage rebuts a plaintiff’s claims of police brutality or shows a suspect with knife in hand.

Recorded evidence, properly authenticated, has long been admissible in state and federal courts without expert testimony or the additional qualification required of new scientific or technological methods, and there is no reasonable bar to presenting “vid-mic” evidence through the officer whose viewpoint the video depicts.

Chain of custody concerns with video-microphone technology, likewise, should be relatively rare because the technology allows for downloading and storage directly from the device. Some systems use off-site downloading or downloading by the manufacturer instead of the agency, but agency control over the recordings is essential to maintaining a proper chain of custody.

Issues may arise in preliminary hearings where the officer testifying is not the officer whose video-microphone recording is in evidence; in proceedings where the prosecutor fails to lay a proper foundation for admitting the recording; or where the recording is incomplete or of such poor quality as to be of little persuasive value. Courts usually admit even bad quality recordings, however, leaving the weight of the evidence to the jury.

The inadvertent or intentional loss or destruction of a video- and audio-recording will raise obvious questions in court as well as in any criminal, civil or administrative investigation. Since even “fail-safe” systems fail, video-microphone data should be downloaded, stored and backed-up in the system’s database promptly and, if possible, with minimal officer involvement.

10

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

Internal Investigations Video-microphone technology, as with other recording devices, can be used to investigate citizen complaints and other misconduct charges against peace officers. Before an agency uses microphone camera technology to investigate officer misconduct, the intent to do so, and any related policy or general orders, should be discussed with the labor association. Implementation of new technology generally is recognized as a management right; however, there must be notice to the affected employees of the agency’s intention to use that technology as a basis for discipline.

The same technology, of course, can exonerate officers from citizen complaints in much the same way as in-car cameras and digital recorders. Many, many citizen complaints are fabrications calculated to mitigate a criminal charge, get an officer in trouble, or try to “cash in” on an adverse police contact. Video-microphone technology should give watch commanders and internal affairs investigators a “front line” view of an incident so that complaints and claims can be addressed promptly and fairly.

Policy Considerations As yet, there is no Lexipol policy on microphone cameras. Agency policy regulating the use of video-microphone technology should include—at a minimum—rules on when and what to record; whether the officer has discretion not to record; whether recording is limited to high-risk or high-frequency contacts, patrol areas, or specialized units; how recordings are to be stored, downloaded, and transferred to the District Attorney; and minimum training requirements for using a microphone camera.

Events recorded on a microphone camera may be public records subject to disclosure under California’s Public Records Act. (Gov. Code §§ 6250 et seq.) Therefore, policies on microphone camera use should require officers to turn cameras off at the end of an incident or shift to avoid inadvertent recordings that could become public record.

Video-microphone technology, like digital recorders and in-car camera systems before it, can be integrated successfully into law enforcement agencies so long as there is due regard for the legal considerations involved. Policies and practices that provide for notice, training, secure downloads, and an emphasis on video-recordings as an aid, not a substitute, for written documentation and live testimony will help officers prove what they know to be true.

Christopher W. Miller is a partner with Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen. He is a former prosecutor and has represented CPOA Legal Services Program members for over 15 years.

EFFECT OF BODY-WORN VIDEO continued from page 9 tion: credibility, liability, accountability, and professionalism. Individually, these themes are intertwined into the Vacaville Police Department core values. These core values include: (1) Integrity in our actions; (2) Service to the community; (3) Ethical conduct and decision making; and (4) Respect for human dignity.

Collectively, they represent the level of trust within the organization, and are considered in the following context with respect to the research conducted for the use of PVR devices: Credibility: Internal credibility can be enhanced depending on how the organization uses this technology and implements a policy.

Liability: Police contacts are generally the most significant cause of civil and financial liability. Any reasonable procedure that reduces liability is welcomed.

Accountability: Officers recording themselves will naturally affect how they respond in public. This accountability effect may improve police response.

Professionalism: The level of quality services delivered can increase based on use and feedback from recordings.

Officers wanting to protect themselves from false allegations from the public are willing to wear recorders to capture hostile incidents. In order to achieve the desired outcome that creates an atmosphere of trust, Vacaville Police Department provides body-worn video recorders to all officers, but allows officers discretion as to when the recorders should be used, rather than mandating the use of them. Collaboration during this research helped identify shared values and positive outcomes of enhancing professionalism, reducing complaints and providing evidence in support of criminal cases. Internal trust between police officers and managers was positively affected when information learned through research was used to develop a meaningful policy.

Ultimately, with proper development of a meaningful policy, the use of body-worn video devices used to record police-citizen contacts gives credibility to officer statements and behavior while promoting internal trust. r

Lieutenant John Carli is the Commander of the Investigative Services Division, which is comprised of the Family Investigative Response Services Team (FIRST), Youth Services Section (YSS), Investigative Services Section (ISS), Narcotics Enforcement Team (NET), Crime Suppression Team (CST), Property and Evidence (CSI), and the Family Resource Center (FRC). John came to the Vacaville Police Department in 1989, and during his career he has served as a Detective, Field Training Officer and K9 officer. As a Sergeant, John supervised the Critical Incident Negotiation Team, K9 Unit, Firearms Instructors, Police Technology, and the Office of Professional Standards. He holds an Associate’s degree in Criminal Justice, a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice Management, and a Master’s degree in Strategic Leadership. As an Associate Professor, John teaches various law enforcement classes and speaks to audiences nationwide regarding computer crime investigations and Internet intelligence.

NOW HIRING

INVESTIGATORS! Positions available throughout California

Investigator: • Peace Officer • Statewide Investigative responsibilities • Criminal Insurance Fraud Investigations • Work with local, state and federal law enforcement agencies Specialized Training: Police Academy, Basic Investigator Course, Search and Arrest Warrant Operations, Computer Forensics, Gangs, Organized Crime Groups, Building Entry, Surveillance, Auto Theft, Interview and Interrogations, Leadership and Promotional Skills Development, and Officer Safety and Survival Assignments: Fraud Investigations: Auto, Health, Arson, Life, and Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud; Task Force Assignments include: Auto Theft Task Force, Drug Diversion Task Force, Underground Economy Task Force and Homeland Security Liasion; Specialized Assignments include: Firearms, Arrest and Control, Building Entry, Academy Staff, and Internal Affairs Career Advancement: Investigator; Supervising Fraud Investigator I; Supervising Fraud Investigator II; Chief, Fraud Bureau; Division Chief; Deputy Commissioner

www.insurance.ca.gov 916.492.3308

Dedicated, Proud and Loyal.

Loyally serving First Responders since 1953, SF Police Credit Union passes earnings on to a growing membership in the form of better rates and services, plus lower fees.

We’re here solely because of you.

We’re here solely for you.

Be a part of the tradition and enjoy the exclusive benefits of SFPCU membership. Join today!

Financial Services for First Responders 800.222.1391 • www.sfpcu.org

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 11

12

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

Save Time at COPSWEST!

By Chris Eldridge

We are all challenged with more and more on our daily agendas. We are all looking for ways to be more efficient with our time and money. If you are interested in the latest law enforcement gear and technology, you will not find a better place to be on October 16 and 17.

Each year, the California Peace Officers’ Association hosts law enforcement professionals from the West and across the country. The show includes excellent seminars as well as an outstanding tradeshow, all while keeping your budget in mind. Again this year, you can be a guest of a COPSWEST exhibitor and receive a free pass to the show by visiting www.copswest.com.

COPSWEST presents an excellent opportunity to get your hands on just about any tool available to support law enforcement—all under one roof, in a convenient location, easily accessible from Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange or San Diego counties. It is also very convenient to fly directly into the Ontario Airport and get a shuttle or taxi to the convention center or adjacent hotels located less than a mile from the airport. Starting Tuesday morning and concluding Wednesday afternoon, you will have the opportunity to visit with over 250 vendors from throughout the country, attend training and emerging technology presentations, as well as enjoy the 5th Annual Charity BBQ. The next generation of law enforcement vehicles is here! If you have the opportunity to visit the Auto Club Speedway, just minutes away in Fontana, on Thursday, October 18, you will be able to witness one of only two nationally recognized law enforcement vehicle tests, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Vehicle Test and Evaluation Program. The Los Angeles Co. Sheriff’s Department goes to great length to provide a comprehensive evaluation of all law enforcement sedans, utility vehicles and motorcycles. As in years past, it will conclude with a great lunch!

As members of the COPSWEST steering committee, we work very hard to make sure the show provides you with as much valuable information as possible in just a few days. Our committee is comprised of law enforcement and vendor representatives working together to provide the best experience possible for those attending the show as well as the exhibitors who support the show each year. Most of those on the committee have volunteered for more than five years, but we are always looking for new members who want to help us make the show more successful.

While you are at the show this year, please approach any member of the committee to share suggestions you have. Just look for the committee member badges. We would also appreciate hearing what you like about the show, and what we can do to make it even better. r

PHOTOS COURTESY OF JOHN STANDISH

COPSWEST presents an excellent opportunity to get your hands on just about any tool available to support law enforcement—all under one roof, in a convenient location, easily accessible from Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange or San Diego counties.

Chris Eldridge currently is the Fleet Manager of the Western United States for Ford Motor Company. He serves as the 2012 COPSWEST Tradeshow Committee Chairman.

Chris is a graduate of Appalachian State University and has worked 23 years with Ford Motor Company, Marketing Sales and Service. Chris has held multiple positions in Ford Sales Division and Ford Customer Service Division and he has worked directly with law enforcement for nine years.

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 13

Scenes from CPOA’s 92nd Annual Leadership Summit Next year will be the inaugural year with the Leadership Summit and COPSWEST Expo being held in conjunction with one another offering everyone the opportunity to take advantage of the training seminars as well as attend the COPSWEST Expo all at the same time! This event is planned for November 3-6, 2013, in Ontario, California, held at the DoubleTree Hotel and Ontario Convention Center.

Presentation of the Micki Rainey award to Lieutenant Mike Elerick of the Pleasanton Police Department.

CPOA and its Board of Directors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the Leadership Summit sponsors.

Diamond Level: Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller and Johnsen

Sapphire Level: 5.11 Tactical

Raytheon

Ruby Level: ShoreTel San Francisco Police Credit Union (SFPCU) SpeakWrite

Outgoing CPOA President Chief Sandra Spagnoli handing off the gavel to incoming CPOA President Chief Rick Braziel.

Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department awarded CPOA’s Award of Valor during the Annual Awards Program.

Scenes from CPOA’s Welcome Reception.

Scenes from CPOA’s Welcome Reception.

CPOA thanks the vendors in attendance during the Summit.

14

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

Becoming More Productive With a Reduced Workforce: How Crime Analysis Can Help

By Danielle Martell

C

rimes in California and across the nation fluctuate annually and are almost always tied to police performance measures. Tracking these crime rates and the trends behind them, in an easy and efficient manner, has historically proved to be challenging. The heavy lifting behind this effort is typically assigned to a department’s Crime Analysis Unit (CAU). In the weeds of these crime rates are calls for service, response times and caseloads. There are also repeat crime locations, questions of victimology and day/time patterns.

Many departments find it helpful to use this data for COMPSTAT type programs. In addition, the information can assist patrol officers work more effectively and also provide critical information to the community.

Over the past couple of years, the Anaheim Police Department has made significant technology investments that were intended to partially offset a reduced workforce. Essentially, we wanted to make sure the officers, detectives, and civilian staff were getting the most information they could and in a timely manner. Every area works different shifts and hours and even different locations. In order to get information out that is accurate, timely and useful to each of them, constant updating of briefing information and mapping has had to take place.

In order to meet these demands, the Anaheim Crime Analysis Unit partnered with The Omega Group to create a technology solution. In 2008,

The Omega Group provided a software mapping program called “CrimeView.” This information was available to department employees and also available on the Department’s web page. We opened this information to the public in hopes that it would become involved in crime prevention and problem solving in its neighborhoods. More recently, The Omega Group created a product called “CrimeView Dashboard” that allows an agency to use their data from RMS and CAD to display information to officers, Intelligence Led Policing, detectives, civilian field personnel, etc. in a customizable application.

The Omega Group offers two platforms for implementing the dashboard. The application can be maintained and supported by the police department or The Omega Group can “host” the product on their own secure servers to push out data. APD decided to have The Omega Group host the product on their servers which greatly limited the amount of IT work on our end.

The dashboard product displays a variety of information in an organized manner to help make data driven decisions about when and where crime is occurring. It uses ArcGIS server mapping and organizes the information from multiple databases into visualizations that provide a snapshot of current activity. The process is automated so the data can be updated as often as the agency wants. Any user with a secure password can log into the website continued on page 20

Danielle Martell began her career as a Crime Analyst in 1999 with the Westminster, California Police Department. While at the Westminster Police Department, she was promoted to Supervisor over Records, IT and Crime Analysis is 2000. In 2007, Danielle was hired as a Crime Analysis Supervisor for the Anaheim Police Department. She earned a BA in Anthropology from Cal State Fullerton in 1993, and a certificate in Intelligence and Crime Analysis from Cal State Fullerton in 1998.

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 15

The Crisis Response Team— Peer Support Partnership: A Better Service Delivery Model for Law Enforcement

By Heather C. Williams and Craig A. Hunter

Introduction

One of the unique benefits of a victim service agency having a CRT is the continuity of care that takes place from first response through the investigation and prosecution.

16

In the summer of 1961, a young Anaheim police officer responded to a call of a traffic accident in a major intersection. A drunk driver had crossed the double yellow line and smashed into a car filled with a Utah family headed to Disneyland. The mother died instantly. Officer Jimmie Kennedy scooped the infant off the floorboard and held her as she gasped for the last time. He recalls the scene in vivid detail, even now, nearly 50 years later. Talking about it still brings now retired Anaheim Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy to tears.

On October 12, 2011, Scott Dekraai entered Salon Meritage in Seal Beach, California, and killed eight of the nine victims he shot. The ripple effect of this historical mass casualty was far reaching; next of kin, victims who ran out of the salon during the shooting, witnesses, business owners in the center, first responders and the generalized tight-knit community were severely impacted.

It was for scenarios just like these that the CSP Crisis Response Team (CRT) was born. Services provided by the team include—but are not limited to—crime scene response at the request of the police department, individual and group crisis intervention, emergency assistance, education, site accompaniment, referrals to community resources, victims of crime compensation assistance, first responder debriefings, and on-going victim advocacy for primary victims. One of the unique benefits of a victim service agency having a CRT is the continuity of care that takes place from first response through the investigation and prosecution.

The Anaheim Police Department and other law enforcement agencies in Orange County have witnessed firsthand the difference education regarding police protocol and the validation and stabilization of emotional reactions makes in empowering people following a traumatic incident.

According to the International Trauma-Healing Institute, the impact from experiencing a traumatic event can be pervasive and destructive to individual lives, families and communities. Unresolved trauma to society is incalculable and has been correlated to physical and mental illness, addictions, deviant or aggressive behavior, racial intolerance and violence in individuals, in schools and communities.

By having the CRT handle the emotional end of a crime, law enforcement has the opportunity to focus on the investigation, the victims/witnesses feel more cared for and are more likely to talk, which in turn means sharing

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

information relevant to the investigation and leading to a more successful prosecution.

In the 1960s, there were few police chaplains, police psychologists or peer support teams—and certainly not a Crisis Response Team. Retired Anaheim Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy recalled not only his own experience at the fatal accident, but also an incident involving the wife of one of his police officers.

“I saw a lot of situations where a professional debrief would have helped a lot,” Kennedy says. “I started in 1958.

Back then, ‘suck it up’ really was what we had to do.”

In January 2010, 30-year-old Anaheim Police Officer Staci Dietz searched the ransacked home of an elderly woman whose car had been stolen and used in a crime miles away. She and four colleagues couldn’t find her.

Eventually, an officer moved a blanket near the bottom of a pile of overturned drawers. The 84-year-old woman, Bessie, had been raped, tortured and beaten to death.

Six months later, Officer Dietz raced to another horrifying scene. A five-year-old boy told a dispatcher that “daddy killed mommy,” had shot his three-year-old brother, and then killed himself. Inside the home, Dietz— who has an infant son of her own—sprinted past two dead bodies sprawled in pools of dried blood. She found the three year old on his back near trash cans on the side of the house, shot three times, conscious, but not moving.

Miraculously, the boy survived. Dietz later watched his five-year-old brother recount the violent death of his parents as if he had just watched them on a cartoon. “It was like a scene out of a movie,” she says.

Dietz thought she was fine following the killing of Bessie, until she started talking about it.

“To actually be there, to find it … this woman will stick with me forever,” she says. “We were all affected by it, her age and what took place. It’s a mental picture I will never forget.”

She is unsure if she would have talked to anybody if CRT wasn’t around. She’s glad they are. “It probably helps me more than I know,” she said. “It’s got to be better than keeping it all inside.”

Trauma experienced by first responders that is unrecognized and untreated creates strained interpersonal relationships and greater conflict, such as more frequent arguments with family members and coworkers. In addition, the liability to the police department is greater when an officer is unable to stay focused while in the field. Use of force complaints and other public concerns become com-

“I saw a lot of situations where a professional debrief would have helped a lot. I started in 1958.

Back then, ‘suck it up’ really was what we had to do.”

—Retired Anaheim Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy

mon. This puts their personal safety and that of their partner and the community at greater risk.

As a result of identified police stress, Anaheim Police Department and the CSP Crisis Response Team are working together to address the acute stress reactions and to prevent the onset of PTSD by offering first responder debriefings and coordination with the Peer Support Team.

Historically, the Anaheim Police Department offered officers a choice to either speak to a police psychologist or participate in a peer counseling group discussion. For a variety of reasons, some employees can be uncomfortable with both services. The CRT and Peer Support Program fill that gap and offers yet another venue for debriefing and they have trained numerous Orange County law enforcement agencies about the impact of trauma in our communities and in our organizations. Because the team has vast experience in the criminal justice system and an expertise in trauma they are keenly aware of and able to recognize the cumulative stress police officers experience as a result of the job and the culture of police work.

Conclusion

The utilization of the CSP Crisis Response Team has lead to a number of invaluable outcomes including, helping the community understand normal stress reactions following a traumatic incident, education on the law enforcement response and better communication and understanding between the community and police agencies. While customer service is at the core of what law enforcement does, expanding that service to secondary victims, witnesses and our own employees has been historically overlooked. It’s part of a commitment to offer a higher level of customer service—an unexpected level of service.

The CSP Crisis Response Team supports the COPPS policing philosophy by developing stronger police community relations and the notion that more than the police need to be involved in crime prevention and problem solving. Ultimately, the collaboration is a much more efficient and effective service delivery model.

The Crisis Response Team, in conjunction with a viable peer support program are a excellent model of how a police department can work creatively to ensure the health of its community and their police officers. r

In 1982, Craig Hunter joined the Anaheim Police Department, where he now serves as Deputy Chief of Police in California’s tenth largest city, overseeing all daily operations for the department of nearly 800 full-time and volunteer members and a budget of $120 million. His leadership achievements and list of accomplishments includes a host of “firsts”: developed and implemented the inaugural undercover tagger program in the United States, which was reported in Police Chief Magazine (1993) and developed the first countywide HazSWAT team, which was also the first team in the U.S. (2005). He also developed and commanded the Anaheim national model Tourist Oriented Policing Program. Craig’s proactive approach to ensuring public safety has positioned Anaheim as a national leader in numerous areas, including tourist policing; community policing and problem solving (COPPS) and homeland security. Anaheim has been named the safest resort city in America and is consistently one of the safest of California’s ten largest cities. Craig also holds a B.A. degree in Organizational Leadership from Bellevue University and a Master’s Degree in Criminal Justice, from Chapman University. He is a graduate of several prestigious law enforcement leadership programs, including the FBI National Academy, Command College, POST Leadership Institute, and the Delinquency Control Institute at USC. Heather Williams is a Program Director with CSP Victim Assistance Programs and oversees all special victim programs, which include Sexual Assault Victim Services, Sexual Assault Prevention and Community Outreach, Gang and Hate Crime Victim Services, Domestic Violence Assistance Program, Homicide Victim Services and is the CSP Crisis Response Team Coordinator. In addition, Heather is the Chair of the OC Hate Crime Victim Assistance Partnership, a member of the Orange County Child Abduction Response Team and a Board Member of the Region 1 California Peace Officers’ Association. She has a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice, teaches as adjunct faculty at Chapman University and is a POST certified instructor.

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 17

general counsel’s message

The Need to “Follow the Rules” Regarding New Tactics, Equipment and Technology

By Martin J. Mayer

F

or many years, law enforcement officers had limited “tools” available to them beyond the baton and the gun. This generated significant litigation on the theory that officers could find themselves in a situation where the baton might not be sufficient to stop an aggressor and the only other “tool” available was the deadly weapon.

As a result, we saw a growth in alternatives officers could use: OC spray, beanbag shotguns, electronic control devices (“Taser”), nets, etc.—devices designed to be less than lethal. Unfortunately, this didn’t diminish the onslaught of litigation, which was now based on the alleged misuse of these devices.

In addition to those defense weapons, law enforcement has also benefited from the advent of new technology in other areas, as well. For example, the use of a GPS tracking device enables law enforcement to monitor the movement of a suspect’s vehicle. However, this also has precipitated lawsuits.

As in all situations involving law enforcement’s actions, it is imperative that our officers be aware of the laws which regulate their actions. In order to be able to successfully utilize these tactics, equipment and/or technology, it is necessary that law enforcement officers “follow the rules.” Following are a few examples of the rules set forth by the courts.

GPS TRACKING DEVICE

Martin J. Mayer is a name partner with the public sector law firm of JONES & MAYER which represents law enforcement agencies throughout the state.

Mr. Mayer has served as general counsel to CPOA for over 25 years.

18

In a unanimous decision on January 23, 2012, in United States v. Antoine Jones, the U.S. Supreme Court held that attaching a GPS device to a vehicle, and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment and, as such, it requires that the officer first secure a warrant.

The opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia and, although it was a unanimous decision, the justices had different rationales in arriving at that decision.

Therefore, the question of how much protection one may expect from the Fourth Amendment in the digital age remains unclear.

The case involves Antoine Jones, a Washington nightclub owner, who was sentenced to life in prison for

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

conspiracy to sell cocaine. Police used information against him which was obtained from a GPS tracker they placed on his Jeep Grand Cherokee.

Jones said the evidence was obtained unlawfully, because police didn’t have a valid warrant. In fact, a warrant had been obtained, which authorized the installation to be done within 10 days thereafter, and within the District of Columbia. However, the device was not placed on the car until 11 days later and in Maryland, not D.C. The government then tracked the vehicle’s movement 24 hours a day, for the next 28 days.

The federal District Court suppressed data secured while the vehicle was parked at Jones’ home, but held the remaining data was admissible because it held that Jones had no reasonable expectation of privacy when the vehicle was on public streets. The Court of Appeal reversed his conviction stating that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated since the evidence had been obtained without a valid warrant, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

Supreme Court’s Analysis “By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area,” wrote Justice Scalia.

He concluded that the installation of the device on the vehicle without a warrant was a trespass and, therefore, an illegal search. “The government’s physical intrusion on the Jeep for the purpose of obtaining information constitutes a search.”

“It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private proper­ty for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”

Trespass v. Right of Privacy In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that the issue wasn’t the “trespass” but, rather, whether Jones’ “reasonable expectations of privacy were violated by the long-term monitoring of the movements of the vehicle he drove.”

Alito said, “If long-term monitoring can be

accomplished without committing a technical trespass—suppose for example, that the federal government required or persuaded auto manufacturers to include a GPS tracking device in every car—the court’s theory would provide no protection.”

Nonetheless, said Alito, even though he did not believe the mere attaching of the GPS constituted an illegal search, “we need not identify with precision the point at which the tracking of this vehicle became a search, for the line was surely crossed before the fourweek mark.”

ELECTRONIC CONTROL DEVICES On October 17, 2011, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a ruling in two cases, Mattos v. Agarano and Brooks v. City of Seattle, which were combined by the court, involving the use of the Taser. The court concluded, in an en banc decision, that under the circumstances of those cases, the use of the Taser was excessive and unconstitutional.

In the Brooks case, “the officers pulled her over for speeding and then detained and took her into custody because she refused to sign a traffic citation.” Brooks, who was seven months pregnant, was informed that she was going to be cited for speeding. She became upset and refused to sign the citation, but said she would accept it without signing it. A Sergeant was called to the scene and, after speaking with Brooks, told the officers to arrest her. When she refused to get out of the car, they showed her a Taser.

“After Jones and Ornelas discussed where to tase Brooks, Ornelas opened the driver’s side door and twisted Brooks’ arm up behind her back. Brooks stiffened her body and clutched the steering wheel to frustrate the officers’ efforts to remove her from the car.” “ . . . (W)ith Ornelas still holding her arm behind her back, Jones applied the taser to Brooks’ left thigh in drive-stun mode. Brooks began to cry and started honking her car horn. Thirty-six seconds later, Jones applied the taser to Brooks’ left arm. Six seconds later, Jones applied the taser to Brooks’ neck as she continued to cry out and honk her car horn. After this third tase, Brooks fell over in her car and the officers dragged her out, laying her face down on the street and handcuffing her hands behind her back.” She was taken to jail and, ultimately, charged with two misdemeanors.

In the Mattos case, Maui police officers responded to a 911 call regarding a domestic dispute between Jayzel Mattos and her husband, Troy. Troy, who was a large man, was sitting outside the house, apparently intoxicated, nonetheless, when the officers asked to speak to his wife, Troy entered the house to get her.

“When Troy went inside to get Jayzel, [officer] Agarano stepped inside the residence behind him.

Troy returned with Jayzel and became angry when

he saw Agarano inside his residence.” Since Troy was upset, “Agarano asked Jayzel if he could speak to her outside. Jayzel agreed to go outside, but before she could comply with Agarano’s request, [officer] Aikala entered the residence and stood in the middle of the living room.”

Aikala announced that Troy was under arrest. Jayzel was standing between the officers and her husband. When officer Aikala moved forward, he pushed against Jayzel, “at which point she “extended [her] arm to stop [her] breasts from being smashed against Aikala’s body.”

She was also talking to Agarano, trying to calm down the situation, and asking everyone to step outside the house to avoid waking her children. “Then, without warning, Aikala shot his taser at Jayzel in dart-mode.”

The court held that the use of force was excessive, in both cases, and relied upon the factors set forth in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) in reaching that conclusion.

“We apply Graham by first considering the nature and quality of the alleged intrusion; we then consider the governmental interests at stake by looking at (1) how severe the crime at issue is; (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

In neither case, were those elements present.

Previously, on December 28, 2009, a unanimous Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals restricted when and under what circumstances Electronic Control Devices (ECD) can be used. In the case of Bryan v.

McPherson; Coronado Police Department; City of Coronado, the Court ruled that in order to deploy an ECD, the “objective facts must indicate that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officer or a member of the public.”

The decisions in the cases of Brooks and Mattos also focus on the need to justify the use of the ECD, with the immediate threat to the officer or others, being a key factor to be considered. The Court, in the Mattos/Brooks case, held that “(m)ore recently, the [Supreme] Court has emphasized that there are no per se rules in the Fourth Amendment excessive force context; rather, courts “must still slosh [their] way through the fact bound morass of ‘reasonableness.’

Whether or not [a defendant’s] actions constituted application of ‘deadly force,’ all that matters is whether [the defendant’s] actions were reasonable.”

As such, this determination will be made on a case by case basis.

SEARCHING AN ARRESTEE’S CELL PHONE On January 3, 2011, in the case of People v. Diaz, the Supreme Court of California, in a 5-2 decision, continued on page 20 California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 19

THE NEED TO “FOLLOW THE RULES” continued from page 19

held that if a cell phone is found on a custodial arrestee—incident to a lawful arrest—no search warrant is needed to review the contents of the cell phone (such as text messages).

The Court ruled that “like an article of clothing, the cell phone was an item of personal property on defendant’s person at the time of his arrest ….” As such, “the police were entitled to inspect its contents without a warrant … whether or not an exigency existed.”

(Emphasis added.)

The Court drew a sharp distinction between “warrantless searches ‘of the person’ rather than searches ‘of possessions within an arrestee’s immediate control.’” If a suspect is lawfully arrested, and then searched incident to the arrest, a cell phone found on the suspect’s person may be both seized and searched without a warrant—and the search does not need to be related to the cause of the arrest.

However, if a cell phone is not on the arrested person, then a warrantless search of the cell phone is not a valid search incident to arrest. A search would not be valid, for example, if a cell phone was found in the trunk of a car when the driver is arrested; in that case, a warrant would be needed to search the phone.

A question can still be raised regarding the delay of a search. The Diaz Court did not state exactly how long a delay of a warrantless search of a cell phone seized pursuant to a lawful arrest would be considered reasonable, however, if the search becomes “remote in time … from the arrest” then the search is subject to challenge as an invalid warrantless search. This Court did find ninety minutes to be a reasonable delay, and cited to a ten hour delay in a prior U.S. Supreme Court case as having been reasonable in that case (see United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974).

CONCLUSION As was stated at the beginning of this article, law enforcement is continuously provided with new tactics, equipment and technology to assist it in carrying out its duties. However, it is still important to recognize that challenges to the use of those tactics, equipment and/or technology will continue to be brought by defendants. It is imperative, therefore, for law enforcement officers to understand the rules which govern their use of these tools.

The cases referred to above are just a few of the published, and unpublished, decisions affecting how the use of this equipment and technology can be seen as a constitutional violation of the subject’s rights.

As an example, the advent of personal cell phones has opened a door to accessing information which didn’t necessarily exist before. BUT, if we don’t “follow the rules” to gain that information lawfully, it will be suppressed by the courts and, possibly, access to that information might be eliminated by legislation.

These tools and techniques are very important for law enforcement and the loss of their availability would have a seriously negative impact on society’s response to criminal activity. One of the fastest ways to lose those devices or techniques would be to misuse them or apply them inappropriately. As always, we urge that chiefs and sheriffs insure that their officers receive information regarding the law on a timely and regular basis. In that way, they will know what the rules are and will be able to follow the rules. r

20

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

BECOMING MORE PRODUCTIVE WITH A REDUCED WORKFORCE continued from page 15 and access the data they need from their desktops, mobile units or even at home. The CAD data in our system displays the date, time, location, response times, type of call and notes from the dispatchers about what occurred on the call. The RMS data displays date, time, location, type of crime, clearance information, motive operandi, CAD remarks, and notes about the crime. This is all available for viewing by the users.

Data is displayed as “heat maps/hot spot maps,” pin maps, repeat call/crime locations, day of the week charts, time of the day graphs, response time analysis, etc. The dashboard uses the maps, charts, and reports to create a common operating picture for the different areas within the police department. It allows the department to set up different “briefing books” for different divisions. Example: Executive staff has one briefing book, the Burglary Unit has one briefing book, Patrol Teams within districts have briefing books, etc. Within these briefing books you can create “widgets” of information based on geography, crime type or policing unit.

Personnel in CAU created queries and displays for different areas of the department. The “briefing books” have been created for over 10 areas within the department. Each area has participated in the development of the data they would like to utilize to make their jobs easier and more productive. Some examples of this include the following: • Burglary Unit – mapping of residential burglaries with heat maps and time of day/day of week analysis.

• Patrol – visual display of response times by beat with individual call information for monitoring of our priority one response times.

• Community Policing Team – display all calls for service and crime data for neighborhoods that have been designated as a priority for problem solving.

• Traffic – visualization of collisions on a heat map with information on time of day/day of week.

These are a small sample of the types of queries that have been set up for the work units within Anaheim Police Department. All users also have access to create their own queries on the fly based on their needs at the time. This versatility allows people to quickly view “premade” queries or running their own queries for a different viewpoint.

Supervisors can see at a glance the problem areas and individuals working on particular problems can get the details of that problem through the charts, graphs, printouts, etc.

This project is still in the beginning phases, but the feedback for all areas of the department has been very positive. In addition to crime data, the dashboard also allows us to place “interties” onto the map.

These can be documented gang members, sex registrants, parole or probationers or others. For instance, a user would be able to quickly see all sex offenders in a chosen area when handling a sex offense call for service and then see if the suspect matched a description. Not only does this allow them quick access to the data without having to query another system; it allows them to correlate crime trends with known offenders.

Because the data is mined automatically, the CAD and RMS data is virtually real-time. In the past, it would have taken days or weeks to get RMS data into the system, i.e. MO, suspect descriptions, detailed loss etc. This product will change how we as a department look at our data.

Patrol briefings can be powered by the information on current calls and crimes. Investigators will be able to see where trends are emerging without having to read every report. Community policing can help focus its problem solving on areas of the city that need it the most. Most of all, CAU will have time to do more comprehensive analysis and problem solving rather than traditional data collection and dissemination. r

legal service program news

Legal Services Program Helps Central California Police Chief Fight Off City Manager’s Political Assault

By Christopher W. Miller, Esq.

A survived this unfortunate

s police chief of the small Kern County city of Arvin, an agricultural community 15 miles southeast of Bakersfield, Tommy Tunson never expected to use the CPOA Legal Services Program. But last December, Tunson, a veteran law enforcement manager who has been Arvin’s chief since 2006, was confronted with a “no-confidence” vote and complaint from the police officers’ association and a new city manager calling for Tunson’s job. Chief Tunson turned to the CPOA Legal Services Program and its attorneys for representation.

experience without

POA Files “No Confidence” Complaint

“I could not have

the help of the Legal Services Program.”

—Chief Tommy Tunson

Chief Tunson’s troubles began December 1, 2011 when the Arvin Police Officers’ Association served the chief, city manager and city council with a “no-confidence” petition complaining about the chief’s management of the police department. The petition attacked the chief’s policies requiring supervisor approval for felony arrests, his enforcement of the grievance procedure and his decision not to create gang and narcotics specialty assignments in a department of 18 officers. The complaint was riddled with patently false statements and should have been dismissed on its face by the council and city manager.

Instead, the matter went before the Arvin City Council in closed session just a few days before Christmas. We dispatched an attorney to represent Chief Tunson at the council meeting in the event the council set a hearing or took other action adverse to the chief. At the meeting, the council directed the city manager to investigate the POA’s claims, despite obvious evidence the complaints were unfounded.

City Manager Mishandles Investigation Christopher W. Miller is a partner with Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen. He is a former prosecutor and has represented CPOA Legal Services Program members for over 15 years.

Arvin’s inexperienced new city manager first attempted to interview the chief about the complaint without regard to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA). We also learned he had been meeting with the POA without the chief’s knowledge, in violation of the city’s grievance procedure and the department chain of command.

In his six months with the city, the city manager repeatedly had interfered in police department operations by trying to set the patrol schedule, violating officers’ due process rights,

investigating POA grievances without the chief’s involvement, and even trying to read the chief’s e-mails. We filed our own grievance on Chief Tunson’s behalf over the city manager’s conduct.

The city attorney finally commissioned an outside investigator to question the chief about the POA complaints, as well as baseless complaints the chief had violated POBRA rights and retaliated against a POA board member by issuing him a letter of deficiency for performance issues. The CPOA Legal Services Program provides for representation in administrative investigations, and I attended the interview with Chief Tunson.

The outside investigator determined the chief had done nothing wrong. The city manager was forced to declare the allegations unsubstantiated and exonerate the chief of any wrongdoing.

Public Supports Chief at Council Meeting

Tommy Tunson’s battle was not yet over, however, as the city council again scheduled a closed session to consider his retention. In response, Chief Tunson prepared a Management Accountability Study demonstrating he had attempted during his tenure to implement statewide police management and leadership practices while maintaining appropriate relationships with various stakeholders in the city and county. I sent the council a letter before the meeting identifying the problems caused by the city manager and advising them any adverse action against the chief would be taken as retaliatory.

On May 18, 2012, the Arvin City Council chambers overflowed with former police chiefs, business leaders, educators, leading citizens and members of the community unanimous in their praise of Tunson’s leadership. Longtime activist and United Farm Workers leader Dolores Huerta even spoke in Tunson’s favor, as did the city’s mayor and vice mayor. By the end of the four-hour meeting, the council voted to retain Chief Tunson.

“I could not have survived this unfortunate experience without the help of the Legal Services Program,” said Chief Tunson. “I am deeply grateful to the program’s lawyers and the LSP trustees for their uncompromising, professional support and representation throughout my ordeal.” r

California Peace Officer | Summer 2012 | 21

resource guide COMMUNICATIONS Raytheon (714) 213-0977 Please see our ad on page...........................23

LEGAL SERVICES Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller, Johnsen (916) 446-4692 www.mastagni.com Please see our ad on pages.................. 7 & 22

SIMULATION TRAINING FAAC Inc. (734) 761-5836 www.FAAC.com Please see our ad on page..............Back Cover

CREDIT UNION San Francisco Police Credit Union (415) 682-3388 www.sfpcu.org Please see our ad on page.................... 2 & 11

PEACE OFFICER OPPORTUNITIES California Department of Insurance (916) 854-5787 www.insurance.ca.gov Please see our ad on page...........................11

SOFTWARE SpeakWrite (512) 913-9942

www.raytheon.com

www.speakwrite.com Please see our ad on page...........................17 UNIFORMS AND PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 5.11 Tactical (866) 451-1726 www.511tactical.com Please see our ad on page.............................2

AD INDEX 5.11 Tactical.................................................2 California Department of Insurance..............11 FAAC Inc........................................Back Cover Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller, Johnsen.................................... 7 & 22 Raytheon.....................................................23 San Francisco Police Credit Union........ 2 & 11 SpeakWrite..................................................17

22

| Summer 2012 | California Peace Officer

™

INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIONS

COMMUNICATIONS

YOU CAN COUNT ON. BECAUSE LIVES COUNT ON YOU. For daily operations or in times of crisis, Raytheon’s interoperable communications ensure a unified, real-time response across local public safety and federal agencies. As a long-term employer in California with a proven legacy of customer commitment, we continue to serve the police officers who so bravely and tirelessly serve us all.

INNOVATION IN ALL DOMAINS www.raytheon.com | Keyword: CA1 Follow us on:

© 2011 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved.

“Customer Success Is Our Mission” is a registered trademark of Raytheon Company.