Vol. 16, No. 1 by JM Publishing

RENO 2011

The Coalition 2012 NNOAC Executive Board

President Ronald E. Brooks 415-436-8199

Volume 16, No. 1 - Spring, 2012

rbrooks@nca.hidta.net

Published by Midwest Publishing, Inc.

Vice/President Bob Bushman 651-201-7352 robert.bushman@state.mn.us

Coalition Magazine Editor William Butka

oin J Publication Designer he t! Jessica Manley - www.jmpublishing.us t h g fi On the cover:

Secretary Allen A. Katcher 908-687-4360 katch62207083@yahoo.com

In memory of the Galloping Ghost Reno Air Races, 2011

To become a member of NNOAC You must establish a local or state narcotics officers association. The membership fees are $500 per year for member states with over 1000 members in their association, $300 per year for associations with 500 or more members and $200 per year for associations with under 500 members. For more information on how to become a member or for additional information please contact one of our Executive Board Members.

Treasurer Philip Little 910-876-7871 ncneoa@embarqmail.com Executive Director Richard M. Sloan West Covina, California 91793-2456 rmsloan626@verizon.net Member at Large JOE JACOB 570-474-9251 chief891@aol.com

ARCHIVES of past issues are available online at

our website www.natlnarc.org or by clicking on the image of our last magazine to be directed to our online digital library.

Submission Guidelines The Coalition is published twice per year. Any articles or photographs received after the deadlines will be held for the next edition. Please, DO NOT type in ALL CAPS. All articles must be signed to be printed. The editor reserves the right to edit any submission for clarity, brevity, etc. Photos must be captioned. Do not staple captions to, or write on photos. Submit articles to: William Butka, Phoenix Park Ste. 10, 29 North Plains Hwy., Wallingford, CT 06492. If you have any questions, call 203-627-2644 or 860-258-5856 or e-mail: webutka@snet.net.

Deadlines for Submissions by Issue

Issue

Deadline

1st Edition

January 1

2nd Edition

August 1

The Coalition

Drug Legalization: An Evaluation of the Impacts on Global Society By Calvina Fay, Executive Director, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. Adapted from the Position Statement located at www.itfsdp.org/projects.php

The flawed proposition of drug legalization

and have consistently been upheld. The UN system of drug control includes the Office of Drugs and Crime, the International Narcotics Control Board, and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. The works of these bodies are positive and essential in international drug demand and supply reduction. They are also attacked by those seeking to legalize drugs. It is frequently and falsely asserted that the so-called “War on Drugs” is inappropriate and has become a very costly and demonstrable failure. It is declared by some that vast resources have been poured into the prevention of drug use and the suppression of illicit manufacturing, trafficking, and supply. It is further claimed that what is essentially a chronic medical problem has been turned into a criminal justice issue with inappropriate remedies that make “innocent” people criminals. In short, the flawed argument is that “prohibition” monies have been wasted and the immeasurable financial resources applied to this activity would be better spent for the general benefit of the community. The groups supporting legalization are: people who use drugs, those who believe that the present system of control does more harm than good, and those who are keen to make significant profits from marketing newly authorised addictive substances. In addition to pernicious distribution of drugs, dealers circulate specious and misleading information. They foster the erroneous belief that drugs are harmless, thus adding to even more confused thinking. Superficially crafted, yet pseudo-persuasive arguments are put forward that can be accepted by many concerned, well intentioned people who have neither the time nor the knowledge to research the matter thoroughly, but accept them in good faith. Frequently high profile people claim that legalization is the best way of addressing a major social problem without cogent supporting evidence. This too influences others, especially the young, who accept statements as being accurate and well informed. Through this ill-informed propaganda, people are asked to believe that such action would defeat the traffickers, take the profit out of the drug trade and solve the drug problem completely. The total case for legalization seems to be based on the assertion that the government assault on alleged civil liberties has been disastrously and expensively ineffective and counter-productive. In short, it is alleged, in contradiction

arious well-funded pressure groups have mounted campaigns to overturn the United Nations Conventions on drugs. These groups claim that society should accept the fact of drugs as a problem that will remain and, therefore, should be managed in a way that would enable millions of people to take advantage of an alleged ‘legal right’ to use drugs of their choice. It is important to note that international law makes a distinction between “hard law” and “soft law.” Hard law is legally binding upon the States. Soft law is not binding. UN Conventions, such as the Conventions on Drugs, are considered hard law and must be upheld by the countries that have ratified the UN Drug Conventions. International narcotics legislation is mainly made up of the three UN Conventions from 1961 (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs), 1971 (Convention on Psychotropic Substances), and 1988 (Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances): • The 1961 Convention sets out that “the possession, use, trade in, distribution, import, export, manufacture and the production of drugs is exclusively limited to medical and scientific purposes”. Penal cooperation is to be established so as to ensure that drugs are only used licitly (for prescribed medical purposes). • The 1971 Convention resembles closely the 1961 Convention, while establishing an international control system for Psychotropic Substances. • The 1988 Convention reflects the response of the international community to increasing illicit cultivation, production, manufacture, and trafficking activities. International narcotics legislation draws a line between licit (medical) and illicit (non-medical) use, and sets out measures for prevention of illicit use, including penal measures. The preamble to the 1961 Convention states that the parties to the Convention are “Recognizing that addiction to narcotic drugs constitutes a serious evil for the individual and is fraught with social and economic danger to mankind”. The Conventions are reviewed every ten years

Continued on next page

The Coalition to evidence, that prohibition has produced more costs than benefits and, therefore, the use of drugs on a personal basis should be permitted. Advocates claim that legalization would eliminate the massive expenditure incurred by prohibition and would take the profit out of crime for suppliers and dealers. They further claim that it would decriminalise what they consider “understandable” human behaviour and thus prevent the overburdening of the criminal justice system that is manifestly failing to cope. It is further argued irrationally that police time would not be wasted on minor drug offences, the courts would be freed from the backlog of trivial cases and the prisons would not be used as warehouses for those who choose to use drugs, and the saved resources could be used more effectively.

as needle exchange programmess, drug injection sites, heroin distribution to addicts, and facilitation of so-called safe use of drugs that normalize drug use, create the illusion that drugs can be used safely if one just knows how, and eliminates a goal of abstinence from drugs; • legalized growing of industrial hemp; • an inclusion of drug users as equal partners in establishing and enforcing drug policy; and • protection for drug users at the expense and to the detriment of non-users under the pretense of “human rights.”

The problem is with the drugs and not the drug policies Legalization of current illicit drugs, including marijuana, Types of drug legalization is not a viable solution to the global drug problem and would The term “legalization” can have any one of the following actually exacerbate the problem. meanings: The UN Drug Conventions were adopted because of the recognition by the international community that drugs are an 1. Total Legalization - All illicit drugs such as heroin, enormous social problem and that the trade adversely affects cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana would be the global economy and the viability of some countries that legal and treated as commercial products. No government have become transit routes. The huge sums of illegal money regulation would be required to oversee production, generated by the drug trade encourage money laundering marketing, or distribution. and have become inextricably linked with other international organised criminal activities such as terrorism, human 2. Regulated Legalization - The production and distribution trafficking, prostitution and the arms trade. Drug Lords have of drugs would be regulated by the government with limits subverted the democratic governments of some countries to on amounts that can be purchased and the age of purchasers. the great detriment of law abiding citizens. There would be no criminal or civil sanctions for possessing, Drug abuse has had a major adverse effect on global manufacturing, or distributing drugs unless these actions health and the spread of communicable diseases such as violated the regulatory system. Drug sales could be taxed. AIDS/HIV. Control is vitally important for the protection of communities against these problems. 3. Decriminalisation - Decriminalisation eliminates There is international agreement in the UN Conventions criminal sanctions for drug use and provides civil sanctions that drugs should be produced legally under strict supervision for possession of drugs. to ensure adequate supplies only for medical and research purposes. To achieve the agenda of drug legalization, advocates argue The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction for: combined with education and treatment during 100 years of • legalizing drugs by international drug control lowering or ending have had a significant ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Calvina penalties for drug impact in stemming the Fay is the Executive Director of Drug possession and drug problem. Control is Free America Foundation, based in use - particularly working and one can only St. Petersburg, Florida, is a Nonmarijuana; imagine how much worse Governmental Organization (NGO) in • legalizing the problem would have Special Consultative Status with the marijuana and become without it. For Economic and Social Council of the other illicit drugs instance: United Nations that focuses on drug as a so-called • In 2007, drug policy and prevention. Ms. Fay is also medicine; control had reduced the the founder of the International Task • harm reduction global opium supply to Force on Strategic Drug Policy. programmes such one-third the level in 1907

The Coalition and even though current reports indicate recent increased cultivation in Afghanistan and production in Southeast Asia, overall production has not increased. • During the last decade, world output of cocaine and amphetamines has stabilized; cannabis output has declined since 2004; and opium production has declined since 2008. Nations should, therefore, be urged to uphold and enhance current efforts to prevent the use, cultivation, production, traffic, and sale of illegal drugs. Leaders should be further urged to reject the legalization of currently illicit drugs as an acceptable solution to the world’s drug problem because of the following reasons: • Only 6.1% of people globally between the ages of 15 and 64 use drugs (World Drug Report 2011 UNODC) and there is little public support for the legalization of highly dangerous substances. Prohibition has ensured that the total number of users is low because legal sanctions do influence people’s behaviour. • There is a specific obligation to protect children from the harms of drugs, as is evidenced through the ratification by the majority of United Nations Member States of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Article 33 states that Member States “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances”. • Legalization sends the dangerous tacit message of approval, that drug use is acceptable and cannot be very harmful. • Permissibility, availability and accessibility of dangerous drugs will result in increased consumption by many who otherwise would not consider using them. • Enforcement of laws creates risks that discourage drug use. Laws clearly define what is legal and illegal and emphasise the boundaries. • Legalization would increase the risks to individuals, families, communities and world regions without any compensating benefits. • Legalization would remove the social sanctions normally supported by a legal system and expose people to additional risk, especially the young and vulnerable. • The legalization of drugs would lead inevitably to a greater number of dependencies and addictions likely to match the levels of licit addictive substances. In turn, this would lead to increasing related morbidity and mortality, the spread of communicable diseases such as AIDS/HIV and the other blood borne viruses exacerbated by the sharing of needles and drugs paraphernalia, and an increased burden on the health and social services. • There would be no diminution in criminal justice costs as, contrary to the view held by those who support legalization, crime would not be eliminated or reduced. Dependency often brings with it dysfunctional families together with increased domestic child abuse. • There will be increases in drugged driving and industrial accidents. • Drug Control is a safeguard protecting millions from the effects of drug abuse and addiction particularly, but not exclusively, in developing countries. • Statements about taxation offsetting any additional costs are demonstrably flawed and this has been shown in the case of alcohol and tobacco taxes. Short of governments distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain them would continue to do so if they became legal. • Legalization would not take the profit out of the drug trade as criminals will always find ways of countering legislation. They would continue their dangerous activities including cutting drugs with harmful substances to maximise sales and profits. Aggressive marketing techniques, designed to promote increased sales and use, would be applied rigorously to devastating effect. • Other ‘legal’ drugs – alcohol and tobacco, are regularly traded on the black market and are an international smuggling problem; an estimated 600 billion cigarettes are smuggled annually (World Drug report 2009). Taxation monies raised from these products go nowhere near addressing consequential costs.

Continued on next page

The Coalition • Many prisons have become incubators for infection and the spread of drug related diseases at great risk to individual prisoners, prison staff and the general public. Failure to eliminate drug use in these institutions exacerbates the problem. • The prisons are not full of people who have been convicted for mere possession of drugs for personal use. This sanction is usually reserved for dealers and those who commit crime in the furtherance of their possession. • The claim that alcohol and tobacco may cause more harm than some drugs is not a justification for legalizing other dangerous substances. The pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of psychotropic substances suggest that more, not less, control of their access is warranted. • Research regularly and increasingly demonstrates the harms associated with drug use and misuse. There is uncertainty, yet growing evidence, about the long-term detrimental effects of drug use on the physical, psychological and emotional health of substance users. • It is inaccurate to suggest that the personal use of drugs has no consequential and damaging effects. Apart from the harm to the individual users, drugs affect others by addiction, violence, criminal behaviour and road accidents. Some drugs remain in the body for long periods and adversely affect performance and behaviour beyond the time of so-called ‘private’ use. Legalization would not diminish the adverse effects associated with drug misuse such as criminal, irrational and violent behaviour and the mental and physical harm that occurs in many users. • All drugs can be dangerous including prescription and over the counter medicines if they are taken without attention to medical guidance. Recent research has confirmed just how harmful drug use can be and there is now overwhelming evidence (certainly in the case of cannabis) to make consideration of legalization irresponsible. • The toxicity of drugs is not a matter for debate or a vote. People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Those who advocate freedom of choice cannot create freedom from adverse consequences. • Drug production causes huge ecological damage and crop erosion in drug producing areas. • Nearly every nation has signed the UN Conventions on drug control. Any government of signatory countries contemplating legalization would be in breach of agreements under the UN Conventions which recognise that unity is the best approach to combating the global drug problem. The administrative burden associated with legalization would become enormous and probably unaffordable to most governments. Legalization would require a massive government commitment to production, supply, security and a bureaucracy that would necessarily increase the need for the employment at great and unaffordable cost for all of the staff necessary to facilitate that development. • Any government policy must be motivated by the consideration that it must first do no harm. There is an obligation to protect citizens and the compassionate and sensible method must be to do everything possible to reduce drug dependency and misuse, not to encourage or facilitate it. Any failures in a common approach to a problem would result in a complete breakdown in effectiveness. Differing and fragmented responses to a common predicament are unacceptable for the wellbeing of the international community. It is incumbent on national governments to cooperate in securing the greatest good for the greatest number. It is easy for the advocates of drug legalization to claim that the “Drug War” has failed and to call for the legalization of drugs but, as they say “the devil is in the details.” Legalization is thrown around as the solution to the drug problem with absolutely no evidence that it would fix the situation and lots of evidence that it would make drug use increase, worsen crime and public safety, endanger public health, put more children at risk of abuse and neglect, make the job of law enforcers more difficult, and put any country that sub comes to drug legalization in violation of international treaties. It is time to hold these advocates accountable and demand proof of effectiveness of their reckless proposed way out of the drug problem!

The Coalition History

ince the beginning of the drug epidemic in the 1960’s, law enforcement officers in many states have formed statewide narcotic officer associations. Most of these associations are involved in providing drug enforcement training for law enforcement officers and drug resistance education to the public. Additionally, most associations worked closely with their own state legislatures and criminal justice policy organizations to develop strong drug laws and policies. These associations have been responsible for enhancing the professionalism of narcotic enforcement. Although many of the narcotic officers’ associations were very successful in representing the needs of law enforcement officers within their own state, they realized that they were not especially effective in working with the Congress or Federal criminal justice policy agencies. It became apparent to the leadership of these state associations that they needed to come together as a combined group in order to effectively represent narcotic officers at our national capital. During 1994, the Funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Program was removed from the Administration’s budget. This funding was crucial for the continuation of many local and state drug enforcement programs. This was the catalyst for the foundation of the National Narcotic Officers’ Associations Coalition (NNOAC). The NNOAC was created in July of 1994 in Chicago, Illinois, when the leadership of many of the nation’s state narcotic officers’ associations came together as part of an effort to re-establish the Edward R. Byrne Memorial Fund. As a direct result of the NNOAC’s efforts and the efforts of many other concerned groups, funding was restored to this vital program. The NNOAC is currently comprised of 40 individual state narcotic associations, the six RISS projects and the Territory of Puerto Rico representing more than 55,000 law enforcement officers from across the nation. It serves as an umbrella organization, coordinating the efforts of these associations in our nation’s capital. Each member association appoints a delegate to represent them at the NNOAC Board meetings. With, “one association, one vote”, every association receives equal representation regardless of the size of their association. The NNOAC is managed by an Executive Board, which consists of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and Executive Director. Those positions are elected from within the ranks of the appointed delegates. The President appoints committees such as membership, drug policy and web-site, as well as regional directors to represent each region of the country. The NNOAC represents its member associations by monitoring all relevant Federal legislation and policy. The Coalition focuses on domestic and international drug-related crime issues by developing and maintaining relationships with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) and the National Guard Counter Drug Program and all other relevant agencies and programs. The NNOAC allows state and local narcotic officers’ associations to work through their congressional delegations allowing for the unified voice in the nation’s capital. The Coalition actively researches, monitors, and supports legislature initiatives designed to increase the effectiveness of narcotic enforcement and law enforcement in general. Over the past eight years, the NNOAC has been very successful in representing narcotic officers from its member associations. Our successes have included restoration of the full funding for the Edward Byrne Program

in 1994, and providing support, which resulted in the passage of legislation regarding the ban of assault weapons, the Administration’s Crime Bill. The NNOAC has participated in policy meetings and conferences with other law enforcement organizations and have been active participants in the preparation of ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy, the Department of Justice’s National Methamphetamine Strategy, and DEA’s National Heroin Strategy. The NNOAC has also been responsible for increasing the awareness of the Administration and Congress regarding state and local drug enforcement issues. NNOAC delegates have testified before the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate on a variety of drug issues, including the Byrne hearings, asset forfeiture, minimum mandatory sentencing, medical marijuana, funding for the National Guard, and the Certification of Mexico. NNOAC delegates have also participated as briefing team members for congressional study trips. In addition, a member of NNOAC was part of the President’s Law Enforcement Steering Committee, which consists of National law enforcement groups. This committee is responsible for advising the President on key law enforcement issues. NNOAC serves on the ONDCP committee to develop the National Drug Control Strategy, on the Advisory Committee for the Counter-Drug Intelligence Executive Secretariat for the implementation of the Central Counter-Drug plan. NNOAC also serves on the Law Enforcement Intelligence Forum (LEIF), which advises the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance on Regulations regarding the collection and distribution of criminal intelligence information and serves on the committee for National Model Drug Laws. As the NNOAC continues to grow, so will its participation in the legislative and policy areas. To learn more about the NNOAC and our positions regarding Federal drug policy and legislation, please visit our web site at www.natlnarc.org. Here is a list of NNOAC’s goals and objectives: • To ensure that the Edward R. Byrne Memorial Fund is fully funded in order to maintain the multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, which are the backbone of narcotics law enforcement. • To maintain, increase, and intensify drug asset revenue sharing – the most important tool that narcotic law enforcement has today. • To assist in the preparation of the National Drug Strategy. • To place more emphasis on the domestic side of the drug strategy by increasing state and local level involvement on the direction taken in the fight against drugs. • To increase unification, networking, and act as a liaison for the exchange of information. • To have an impact on legislation affecting narcotic officers and narcotic enforcement in the United States. • To act as a conduit for the exchange of information, intelligence, and training guidelines affecting narcotic enforcement. • To identify and refer members to quality training for narcotic law enforcement officers to ensure their safety and effectiveness. • To act as a resource for states that want to establish a narcotics officers’ association. 

The Coalition

provided by

c/o Colorado Drug Investigators Association www.healthydrugfreecolorado.org

Top 10 Reasons Not to Legalize Marijuana 10:

IT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL

In July 2011 the federal government reaffirmed marijuana as a Schedule I substance; i.e., no accepted medical use and high abuse potential. Therefore, its possession and use remains a federal crime. Since federal law preempts state law, marijuana would still be illegal in Colorado. 9:

MARIJUANA POSSESSION/USE IS NOT IMPACTING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Proponents often make misleading statements about marijuana arrests and the jail population. In Colorado, the use and possession of less than two ounces (120 - 168 cigarettes) is treated as a traffic violation with a fine and not jail time.

WHY REPEAT AMSTERDAM’S MISTAKE

The wrong type of people would be attracted to Colorado and for the wrong reasons. We need tourists attracted by our pristine streams and beautiful mountains, not as the mecca for getting ‘stoned.’ 7:

NEGATIVE IMAGE OF COLORADO

If marijuana is legalized under Colorado law, our state would be considered the ‘POT CAPITAL’ of the nation. This notoriety would have a negative impact on attracting new businesses and families deterred by Colorado’s image and quality of life issues. This could also impact decisions to send students to Colorado institutes of higher education.

HARM TO EXISTING BUSINESSES AND THE ECONOMY

Substance abuse studies have shown that businesses and employers will experience greater rates of absenteeism, industrial accidents and tardiness as well as less productivity with a potential work force regularly using marijuana. This not only results in economic losses, but conflicts with the federal Drug Free Workplace requirements and companies losing federal contracts. Businesses would be less likely to stay or move into a state where drug use related risks are high.

BLINDSIDE ECONOMICS

At best, potential tax revenue generated by legalizing marijuana will cover only 15% of the collateral costs to our community such as: increased drug treatment,

The Coalition Top 10 Reasons NOT to Legalize Marijuana Page | 2

emergency room visits, crime, traffic accidents and school ‘drop-outs’ to name just a few of the costs related to marijuana use. 4:

MARIJUANA USE WOULD INCREASE

Marijuana use and its negative health, behavioral and societal impacts will increase among both youth and adults. The best estimates from experts project that the number of regular users would at least double and likely triple in the most vulnerable 12 – 25 age range.

TREATMENT AND ADDICTION RATES WOULD RISE

Regular marijuana use can be addictive and lead to deteriorating behavior, particularly in young people. In 2009, 830,000 youth had marijuana addiction characteristics. Sixty-eight percent of youth in drug treatment are there for marijuana use.

ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT

As parents and citizens, we have a responsibility to prepare our youth for a healthy and successful future. The basis for their future lies in providing them with a quality educational environment. If marijuana was legalized, it is estimated that 20 – 30 percent of our school-aged children will become regular marijuana users. That will negatively affect their attendance, concentration, memory, brain development and thus academic achievement and participation in a positive educational setting. Walt Disney:

“Our greatest natural resource is the mind of our children.”

Let’s not allow those minds to be polluted with pot. 1:

DEATHS FROM IMPAIRED DRIVING WOULD INCREASE

Marijuana use affects coordination, decision-making and perception which directly results in impaired driving. Annually, approximately 50 people are killed in Colorado traffic accidents due to people driving under the influence of marijuana. With the increased use of marijuana, we can project that figure will at least double.

THE ABOVE ARE BOLD STATEMENTS BUT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY STUDIES, RESEARCH AND PAST EXPERIENCE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT: www.healthydrugfreecolorado.org.

CONSIDERING THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA, ASK YOURSELF: “Do we want to make Colorado the country‟s „experimental lab‟ with such potentially devastating human, economic and social costs so a small fraction of people can „get stoned‟ with impunity?”

IT DOES NOT PASS THE ‘COMMON SENSE’ TEST. 9

The Coalition

Affiliated with the Colorado Drug Investigators Association www.healthydrugfreecolorado.org

MARIJUANA: What is the truth? READ WHAT OBJECTIVE EXPERTS, SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND WELL DOCUMENTED STUDIES HAVE DISCOVERED TRUTH: INCREASED USE

 The number of teenage and adult users would increase if marijuana was legalized. 1 The number would at least double and most likely triple.  There are 16.7 million regular marijuana users (6.7% of Americans 12 years old or older.) 2 The increase would mean an additional 17 to 34 million users in the United States.  Colorado could have anywhere from 20% to 30% of its teenage population regularly using marijuana. ASK YOURSELF: Do you think increased marijuana use among teenagers and adults is good for America and its future?

TRUTH: NEGATIVE IMPACT ON YOUTH

 Signs that a youth may be using marijuana are apathy, disrespect, disinterest in activities, lower grades, frequent mood changes, depression, and isolation from the family.  Teens who use marijuana are more likely than non-users to engage in delinquent and dangerous behavior.3  Those same teens experience increased risk of schizophrenia and greater levels of depression including being three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts.3  Teens using marijuana are more likely to engage in violent behavior (fights/assaults). 3  Marijuana-using teens are more likely to have multiple sexual partners and engage in unsafe sex. 4  Marijuana use has been shown to permanently impair brain development in youth.5 Learning skills such as problem solving, concentration, motivation and memory are negatively affected. Of those youth in drug treatment, 68% are there for marijuana use.6 In 2009, 830,000 youth displayed characteristics of marijuana addiction.7 Colorado currently has the nation‟s third highest rate of marijuana use among youth ages 12 – 17.5 ASK YOURSELF: Would you want your son or daughter to become involved in using marijuana?

TRUTH: IMPAIRED AND DANGEROUS DRIVING

Marijuana use adversely affects concentration, coordination, and perception, all important skills to safe driving. Stanford Medical School research shows that tested pilots were still somewhat impaired on a simulator twenty-four hours after having smoked marijuana.8 In 2009, 28% of all fatally-injured drivers tested positive for marijuana use.9 In California, from 2005 to 2010, 1,240 persons were killed in traffic accidents where the driver had used marijuana.10 Last year in Colorado, over fifty people were killed because of marijuana-impaired drivers.11  More people driving on weekend nights were under the influence of marijuana (8.3%) than alcohol (2.2%). 12  A study of 182 truck accidents causing death found 12.8% of the drivers were under influence of marijuana and 12.5% under the influence of alcohol.13  A study revealed 28,000 high school seniors admitted to at least one accident after using marijuana. ASK YOURSELF: Do you want more impaired drivers on our interstates and roadways?

The Coalition MARIJUANA: What Is The Truth? Page 2

TRUTH: INCREASED-RISK EMPLOYEES

Safety, absenteeism, turnover rate, tardiness, productivity, work quality, and lawsuits are significant liabilities for employers with marijuana-using employees. Employees who tested positive for marijuana had 55% more industrial accidents and 85% more injuries compared to those that tested negative on a pre-employment exam.14  Employees who abuse drugs are five times more likely than non-users to injure themselves or coworkers and cause 40% of all industrial fatalities.1 Those testing positive for marijuana had absenteeism rates 75% higher than those that tested negative. 14 A study found that 38% to 50% of all workers‟ compensation claims are related to substance abuse. 15 ASK YOURSELF: If you were an employer, would you want to hire an employee who uses marijuana?

TRUTH: SKYROCKETING POTENCY

Today‟s marijuana potency is five times higher than that of the 70‟s. During the 70‟s when marijuana use was at an all-time high, the THC potency was between 1.5 – 3%. During that same time users would speak about being „stoned‟, „wasted‟, „out of it‟, or „spaced out‟ clearly indicating that even 3% potency causes intoxication. In 2009, the average THC level was 10% which is well over a 300% increase from the 70‟s. 16 Some marijuana has tested at 30% potency. At a similar rate for increased potency, there has been a corresponding increase in emergency room visits for marijuana use.1 ASK YOURSELF: Do you think the higher intoxicant level in marijuana is a positive factor for the health and safety of Americans?

TRUTH: ADDITIONAL ADVERSE AFFECTS

Despite assertions to the contrary, marijuana is addictive. More than 4 million Americans are classified as meeting the criteria for marijuana addiction.17 Of emergency room visits, 374,000 people were there because of a primary marijuana problem.18 Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing agents than smoked tobacco.19 Only .7% of all state inmates are there for marijuana possession, with many pleading down from more serious crimes.20 In Colorado, possession of less than two ounces of marijuana (between 120 – 168 marijuana cigarettes) although illegal, is only a citable offense with a $100 fine. Taxing marijuana to create revenue is „blind side economics.‟ Based on the experience with heavily taxed alcohol and cigarettes, revenue from marijuana would cover less than 15% of societal cost associated with the adverse consequences of increased marijuana use. ASK YOURSELF: Do you think it enhances our future or attracts quality people and businesses to be considered “The Pot Capital” of the U.S.?

IF YOU ANSWERED ‘NO’ TO ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE QUESTIONS, THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO SAY ‘NO’ TO LEGALIZING MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE. FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT: ____________________

www.healthydrugfreecolorado.org

DEA, “Speaking Out Against Drug Legalization”, 2003 and 2010 (see document for specific citation) SAMHSA, 2009 Annual Survey on Drug Use and Health, September 2010 3 DEA, “DEA Position on Marijuana”, July 2010 (see document for specific citations) 4 Bovassco, G., American Journal of Psychiatry, 2001 5 Dr. Christian Thurstone, M.D., Director, Denver Health – Substance Abuse, Treatment, Education and Prevention Programs 6 SAMHSA, “Highlights for the 2008 Treatment Episode Data Set” 7 SAMHSA, “2009 National Survey of Drug Use and Health”, September 2010 13 CNOA, “The Myths of Drug Legalization”, 1994 9 Cesar Analysis of 2009 National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration FARS Data 10 Cramer and Associates, “Study Shows Passage of California Cannabis Initiative Will Increase Traffic Deaths” 11 “Drugged Driving Getting Worse in Colorado”, 9News.com, 2011 February 17 12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Report, 2009 13 Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc. citing National Transportation and Safety Board, 1994 14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Marijuana – April 26” 15 National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, September 21, 2010 16 ONDCP, “New Report Finds Higher Levels of THC in U.S. Marijuana to Date”, May 2009 17 National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Marijuana”, 2010 18 ONDCP, Director Kerlikowske Speech, March 4, 2010 19 ONDCP, “Marijuana: Know the Facts”, October 2010 20 Bureau of Justice Assistance Report, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners”, January 1999 1

The Coalition

The Coalition Advocate Home Health Care Alfonsi Railroad Construction

Thank You Ata Pharmacy

Avenue O Pharmacy Corp. C U Answers Carquotes Corporation

Center For Intgrative Pain Mgt. Creative Transportation Soluti D J Knoll Transport, Ltd. Danceworks

Thank You

Dickens Consulting Group LLC Dicom Express, Inc.

Dr. Robert E. Doerr DDS E R Drugs

East Side Marble and Granite Forman Mechanical Full Quiver & More Gem Sports Supply

Hinsdale Associates Financial

Thank You

C o r p o r a t e S p o n s o r s

Kid-a-co Ventures

Klingenstein Fields & Co.

Lake State Saginaw Bay So. Railway

08/16/2011 - 02/08/2012

K L Harring Transportation

MS Management Mantei's Transport Ltd. Mountain Empire Medical Care Old Penny Bar Ontario Steel Haulers Inc. P & L Inspections Inc. P & P Service Center Inc. R P M Consulting Inc. Rocket Drywall Inc.

Thank You

Sandcastle Realty Sidley Austin

Siebel Institute of Tech Inc. Smouse Electric

St. Jesus Pharmacy Tek Systems Transgab, Inc.

Transport Humar, Ltee.

Thank You

Transx Ltd.

Unified Service

Howe Products

James C. Perkins CPA PC

Lonn's Equipment

Unique Ink Custom Tattoos

Wal-mart Stores Inc. DC6059 Wayne Wells

Westye Group White Lightning Hauling LLC Zone Manhattan

Lee's TV Repair 16

The Coalition

Expert Las Vegas Golf Course Knowledge, Tee-Times, and Rental Clubs. DISCOUNTS for NNOA Attendees. The Nevada Narcotics Officers Association

www.vipgolfservices.com Call toll free: (877) 669-2847 Mention NNOA and receive special pricing on tee-times and rental clubs *FOR ANY LAS VEGAS GOLF COURSE*

"Law Enforcement Training has been the cornerstone for the Nevada Narcotic Officers' Association. Be sure to join us for the 2012 Conference which will be located at the New York - New York Hotel and Casino in Fabulous Las Vegas Nevada. Law Enforcement Instructors from several states will coordinate

3790 Las Vegas Blvd. South Las Vegas, Nevada, 89109 1.866.815.4365 www.newyorknewyork.com

some of the best training available. This year's conference is geared to address the current trends and problems facing our

* Two welcome cocktails upon check in * 10% off selected restaurants for individual use (America, Gonzalez Y Gonzalez and Gallagher’s)

local Law Enforcement Agencies. Keeping up to date is vital for the survival of our Officers.

* Link:

https://reservations.mgmmirage.com/bookingengine.aspx?pid=010&host=offer&code=SCNNOA0412

This is your chance to be a part of the growing Nevada Narcotic Officers' Association. See you there" -- President Paul DeAngelis

• 3 full days of training

NNOA NNOA P.O. Box 96922 Las Vegas, NV 89193 -6922 702.335.6949 ph bgentner@nnoa.biz www.nnoa.biz

• Located at the New York-New York Hotel Las Vegas • Lunch and Dinner Provided • Networking Mixer in the evening *Room discounts avail at a special rate of $75.00

The Coalition

The California Narcotic Officers’ Association Winner of the 2010 POST Excellent in Training Award

Proudly Presents the

48 Annual Training Institute and

Law Enforcement Exposition November 17th – November 20th, 2012 Anaheim, CA

CNOA IS YOUR BEST CHOICE FOR TRAINING “48 YEARS OF TRAINING EXCELLENCE!” • Over 35 workshops will be offered • POST certified under Plan NA‐24 Hours • Nevada POST certified • Standards of Training for Corrections • CDAA will be providing MCLE Credit • Community College credit available

Pre-Register Now! Save $$!

Costs:

In appreciation of your continued support, CNOA is pleased to offer the 2012 48th Annual Training Institute in Anaheim, California at the 2010 prices.

Pre‐Registration: $495.00 Door Registration: $545.00 (After October 17, 2012)

(Registration includes CNOA Membership Dues for 2013. Must be a member to attend. Life members and members who have already paid the 2013 membership dues may deduct $75.00. Important!

A $60.00 surcharge will be applied if the College Education form is not submitted.

Hotels:

We look forward to seeing you this year in Anaheim, California

For more information about the 2012 Training Institute, visit our website at www.cnoa.org or call CNOA at (661) 775-6960

The Coalition

California Narcotic Officers’Association “Not Just for Narcotic Officers” The California Narcotic Officers' Association is a non-profit, corporation dedicated to providing high quality training for law enforcement professionals. Since 1964, CNOA has grown to become the largest non-profit Training Association in California, with early 7,000 members. Our members include: local, state, and federal peace officers, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and other national and international associates. For over 48 years, CNOA has offered the finest training available in all areas of narcotic enforcement activities to the dedicated men and women who are our first line of defense against the proliferation of illegal drugs in our state. In recent years CNOA has recognized the nexus of illegal drugs to many other crimes, and has developed training programs that are beneficial to almost every area of law enforcement including; patrol, traffic, gangs, terrorism and other specialized units. CNOA tracks all legislation at both a state and federal level that addresses the regulation of illegal drugs, legalization efforts and officer safety. Our Legislative Committee and our Legislative Advocate track all legislation and provides expert testimony to the legislature when necessary. Through our Narcotic Educational Foundation of America (NEFA), a non-profit educational organization, CNOA furnishes free anti-drug information to the general public as well as schools and other organizations. The Survivor’s Memorial Fund was established to provide immediate financial assistance to the families of all California law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in the line of duty in California. Since its inception, the fund has distributed assistance to over 190 families in their time of need. The California Narcotic Officers’ Association is not just for those officers assigned to narcotic enforcement. We are a diverse Association that provides valuable training and member services to law enforcement personnel, regardless of assignment. Join CNOA and become a member of the finest law enforcement Training Association in the United States.

The Benefits of Membership in CNOA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

regional and statewide training programs P.o.s.t. cPt for recognized classes college credits for training classes reduced training costs legislative representation training for qualification as an expert witness networking Quarterly magazine certificate for Free cnoa training class worth up to $45 when joining or renewing membership scholarship awards annual special recognition awards amusement park discounts travel and rental car discounts enhanced accidental death & dismemberment insurance Families of cnoa members killed in the line of duty receive an additional 7,500 paid from the survivor's memorial Fund For more information on how to become a member of CNOA go to www.cnoa.org or call the California Narcotic Officers’ Association toll free at: (877) 775-NARC (6272)

14. What security measures are in place to ensure that information transmissions are secure when using RISSNET? 15. Are RISS criminal intelligence databases subject to 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 (28 CFR Part 23)? 16. Does RISS consider privacy rights? 17. What is the U.S. Department of Justice Global Justice Extensible Markup Language (XML)? 18. What is RISSIntel? 19. What is RISSLeads? 20. What is RISS ATIX™? MAGLOCLEN MOCIC NESPIN RMIN ROCIC WSIN Home Contact Us FAQ Help Logon 21. What is the RISSGang™ Program? 22. What is RISSafe™? 23. How has RISS partnered with fusion centers? 24. How does RISS make use of Federated Identity Management? 25. What is the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)? 26. How does RISS measure the effectiveness of the program? 27. How do I contact a RISS Intelligence Center?

The Coalition

What is RISS?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

RISS is a national program composed of six regional centers, operating in unique multistate geographic regions. RISS offers services to local, state, federal, and tribal law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to enhance their ability to identify, target, and remove criminal This Frequently Questions (FAQ) page provides information the Regional Informationboundaries. Sharing Systems (RISS) Program. This page conspiracies andAsked activities spanning multijurisdictional, multistate about and, sometimes, international RISS supports investigation and will be updated, revised, andterrorism, republished astrafficking, it becomeshuman appropriate to provide additional information about thecriminal RISS program incriminal this format. prosecution efforts against drug trafficking, identity theft, cybercrime, organized activity, gangs, violent crime, and other regional priorities, while promoting officer safety. RISS provides information sharing services, investigative analysis Download this document (PDF) support, equipment sharing, investigative funds support, training, and technical assistance to law enforcement and criminal justice agencies Adobe that areReader members of RISS.

Table contents Whereof are the six RISS Centers located and what regions do they serve? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

What is RISS? Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Law Where are the six RISS Centers located and what Crime regions doEnforcement they serve?Network® How is RISSMAGLOCLEN different from other national information sharing programs? How is RISSNewtown, funded? Pennsylvania Who governs RISS and what is role of the RISS Maryland, National Policy Group? Provides services tothe Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and the District of What is theColumbia, role of theasRISS of Information wellOffice as Australia, Canada,Technology? and England. What is the role of the Institute for Intergovernmental Research? Who are the primary customers of RISS? What services does RISS provide to its member agencies? Organized Information Center® What is theMid-States RISS Secure Intranet Crime (RISSNET™)? MOCIC What resources are available on RISSNET? Springfield, Missouri How does an authorized user access RISSNET? What is theProvides RISSNET services Portal? to Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin, as well What security measures are in place to ensure that information transmissions are secure when using RISSNET? as Canada. Are RISS criminal intelligence databases subject to 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 23 (28 CFR Part 23)? Does RISS consider privacy rights? What is the U.S. Department of Justice Global Justice Extensible Markup Language (XML)? What is RISSIntel? New England State Police Information Network® What is RISSLeads? NESPIN What is RISS ATIX™? Franklin, Massachusetts What is the RISSGang™ Program? Provides services to Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, as well as Canada. What is RISSafe™? How has RISS partnered with fusion centers? How does RISS make use of Federated Identity Management? What is the National Information Exchange Model (NIEM)? How doesRocky RISS measure effectiveness of the program? Mountainthe Information Network® How do I contact RMIN a RISS Intelligence Center?

Phoenix, Arizona Provides services to Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Canada. RISS is a national program composed of six regional centers, operating in unique multistate geographic regions. RISS offers services to local, state, federal, and tribal law enforcement and criminal justice agencies to enhance their ability to identify, target, and remove criminal conspiracies and activities spanning multijurisdictional, multistate and, sometimes, international boundaries. RISS supports investigation and prosecution efforts against terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, identity theft, cybercrime, organized criminal activity, criminal gangs, Regional Crime Information Center® officer safety. RISS provides information sharing services, investigative analysis violent crime, and other Organized regional priorities, while promoting ROCIC support, equipment sharing, investigative funds support, training, and technical assistance to law enforcement and criminal justice agencies Nashville, that are members of RISS. Tennessee Provides services to Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

What is RISS?

Where are the six RISS Centers located and what regions do they serve?

Middle States Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network® Western Information Network® MAGLOCLEN WSIN Newtown, Pennsylvania Sacramento, California Providesservices servicestotoAlaska, Delaware, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey,as New Ohio, Pennsylvania, Provides California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington, wellYork, as Canada and Guam. and the District of Columbia, as well as Australia, Canada, and England.

How is RISS different from other national sharing programs? Mid-States Organized Crimeinformation Information Center®

RISS, among other MOCIC criminal justice programs, has different roles and responsibilities; distinctive operational capabilities; multiple sources, formats, and mechanisms to collect and disseminate information; and different customers. Systems such as the Homeland Security Information Springfield, Missouri Network (HSIN), theProvides Federal services Bureau of (FBI) Law Enforcement Online (LEO), and RISS Dakota, represent critical components of the as well toInvestigation’s Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North South Dakota, and Wisconsin, Information Sharing (http://www.ise.gov) and offer valuable services for their individual customers. These systems are not asEnvironment Canada. duplicative. Each system provides primary services or programs that make it distinct. RISS maintains criminal intelligence databases, the RISSLeads Bulletin Board, the RISS Automated Trusted Information Exchange™ (ATIX), the the RISSGang™ Program, RISSafe, and a variety of other investigative tools and systems. RISS also connects disparate systems that otherwise may not be able to communicate and seamlessly share information. New In addition automated capabilities, RISS provides investigative support, such as analytical services, equipment loans, Englandto State Police Information Network® technical assistance, case funds support, and intelligence research. NESPIN Franklin, Massachusetts Creating one single national information sharing system is not the answer for ensuring seamless communications and information sharing. services to Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode proven Island, technology. and Vermont, as well as Canada. The goal is to buildProvides a capability for disparate systems to connect and communicate by leveraging RISS provides a mature and proven infrastructure that is ready to meet the national demand for a seamless information sharing system by connecting disparate systems. These connected systems share information and intelligence both bidirectionally and through direct data transfer. RISS members are able to search the RISS Secure Intranet, known as RISSNET™, and connected systems with a single query in a secure Web-based and trusted environment.

How is RISS funded?

RISS is federally funded and administered by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), through grant awards. BJA provides funding oversight and program management for the RISS Program.

The Coalition

2012 NNOAC REGIONAL DIRECTORS Northwest Region - Ron Nelson Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho 503/378-6347 jrcnelson1@gmail.com Southwest Region - Bob Cooke California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado 408/452-7273 bob.cooke.@doj.ca.gov Midwest Region - Mark Henry North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois 847/ 987-1166 Mark_Henry@isp.state.il.us South Central Region - Jason Grellner Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana 636/239-9700 jakelaw@yhti.net

Great Lakes Region - Gary Ashenfelter Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York 800/558-6620 training@indianadea.com Northeast Region - Bill Butka Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts 860/258-5856 webutka@snet.net East Central Region - Tommy Loving Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey 270/843-5343 Tommy.Loving@ky.gov Southeast Region - Tim Lane Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida 931/684-0406 dtf17th@aol.com

The Coalition Reprinted with permission of the NLEOMF.

Law Enforcement Officer Deaths: Preliminary 2011

Research Bulletin www.LawMemorial.org

info@nleomf.org

Firearms-related Incidents are the Leading Cause of Officer Fatalities in 2011 Total Law Enforcement Fatalities Rise to 173 Officers Killed in 2011 According to preliminary data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 173 officers have been killed during 2011 — up 13 percent from 153 line-of-duty deaths in 2010.

Total Fatalities: 1961-2011

For the first time in 14 years, more officers died from firearms-related incidents than trafficrelated incidents. Sixtyeight officers were shot and killed in 2011, up 15 percent from 2010 when 59 officers died from gunfire. The number of officers killed by firearms has now risen during each of the past three years. Traffic-related incidents claimed the lives of 64 officers this year, a 10 percent decrease from 2010 when 71 officers died on the roadway. This year, 44 officers were killed in automobile crashes, 11 officers were struck and killed, seven were killed in motorcycle crashes, and two officers were killed by train while in their automobile. Florida led the nation with 14 fatalities, closely followed by Texas (13), New York (11), California (10) and Georgia (10). Thirty-three percent of all officer fatalities occurred in these five states. The New York City Police Department and Puerto Rico Police Department both lost four officers — the most officers of any agency in 2011. In addition to firearm and traffic-related deaths, 41 officers died due to other causes including physical-related incidents, which accounted for 27 officer fatalities. Physical-related incidents include heart attacks and other illnesses, which are further explained on page four of this bulletin. The data and statistics contained in this report are preliminary and do not represent a final or complete list of individual officers who will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in 2012.

A Closer Look: Chiefs & Sheriffs Chief Ralph Painter Rainer (OR) Police Department Chief of Police Painter was shot and killed responding to a report of an auto theft in progress. Upon arriving at the scene, the suspect attacked Chief Painter and took the gun from his duty belt. The suspect shot Chief Painter who was transported to a hospital and pronounced dead. Chief Jerry Hicks Leadwood (MO) Police Department Chief of Police Hicks died as a result of injuries sustained in a single-vehicle crash when his patrol vehicle slid on a patch of ice and struck a tree. Chief Capers Wannamaker, Jr. St. Matthews (SC) Police Department Chief Wannamaker lost control of his patrol vehicle on a curved part of the roadway which caused the vehicle to veer off of the road and strike a tree. Chief Wannamaker died at the scene. Sheriff James Stewart Spalding County (GA) Sheriff’s Department Sheriff Stewart was on routine patrol when he attempted to cross an intersection and collided with a vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. Sheriff Stewart was airlifted to a hospital where he remained until his death 10 days later.

The Coalition Law Enforcement Officer Deaths: Preliminary 2011 Report

Firearms-related Fatalities: 2011 Firearms-related Fatalities: 1961-2011

In 2011, more law enforcement officers died in firearms-related incidents than any other cause for the first time in 14 years. Sixty-eight officers were shot and killed, a 15 percent increase from 2010 when 59 officers were shot. There have been 4,162 law enforcement officer fatalities due to firearms-related incidents in the last 50 years. The deadliest year was 1973 when 156 officers were shot and killed. Since the 1970’s, firearms-related incidents have decreased, reaching a 50 year low in 2008 when 40 officers were shot and killed. Average Firearms-related Incidents Per Decade

However, firearms-related fatalities have increased 70 percent from 2008 to 2011. This year’s total also represents a 19 percent increase from the decade average of 57 fatalities from 2001-2010. Of the 19,298 officers killed in the line-of-duty from the first known fatality in 1791 until 2010, there have been 10,876 officers shot and killed — 56 percent of all line-of-duty deaths in the nation.

Circumstances of Fatal Shootings: 2011 Of the 68 officers killed by gunfire this year, 14 officers died while attempting to arrest suspects. Nine officers each died responding to domestic disturbance calls or while investigating suspicious persons and circumstances. Other officers were shot while handling mentally deranged persons (2) , tactical/hostage/barricaded offender situations (2) , handling/transporting and custody of prisoners (2) and in traffic pursuits (1). Four multiple-fatality, “cluster-killing” incidents (when two or more officers were shot and killed) occurred in 2011 — two in Florida (St. Petersburg and Miami-Dade), one incident in Grundy, VA and one incident in Rapid City, SD.

The Coalition Law Enforcement Officer Deaths: Preliminary 2011 Report

Traffic-related Fatalities: 2011

For the first time in 14 years, traffic-related fatalities were lower than firearms-related fatalities, with 64 officers killed in 2011 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a 10 percent decrease from 2010 when 71 officers were killed. This tied 2005 for the secondlowest number of officers killed on the roadway in the last 15 years. Forty-four officers were killed in automobile crashes, 11 were struck and killed, seven were killed in motorcycle crashes and two were struck and killed by a train while in an automobile.

Average Traffic Fatalities per Decade: 1961-2011

Auto crashes decreased 12 percent from 50 to 44. Officers struck and killed decreased 21 percent, from 14 officers in 2010 to 11 this year. Traffic-related Fatalities:1961-2011

Despite the decrease in officers killed in traffic-related incidents this year, the overall trend has continued to rise since the 1960s, which averaged 60 officer fatalities on the roadway each year. The average in the 2000s was 72 officer fatalities due to traffic-related incidents â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a 20 percent increase over the past fifty years. The deadliest year for law enforcement officers on the road remains 2007 when 85 officers died in trafficrelated incidents.

Geographic Distribution of Officer Fatalities: 2011 Forty-one states lost an officer in 2011. Florida lost 14 officers, the highest total of all states. Texas (13), New York (11), California (10) and Georgia (10) round out the top five states. Ten Federal officers and four officers from U.S. territories were killed. The 10 Federal officers were from the following agencies: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Dept. of States with four or more fatalities the Interior, National Park Service, U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Park Police. States with at least one fatality States with no fatalities

The Coalition Law Enforcement Officer Deaths: Preliminary 2011 Report

Other Causes of Officer Deaths: 2011

A Closer Look: Physical-related Incidents Police Officer Daniel Ackerman Buena Park (CA) Police Department Police Officer Ackerman died of a heat stroke after completing a SWAT physical fitness test the previous day. After finishing the exercise, Officer Ackerman displayed symptoms of over-exertion and was transported to a nearby hospital. Officer Ackerman remained in the hospital until his death the following morning. Officer Rogerio Morales Davie (FL) Police Department

Physical-related incidents were the third highest leading cause of officer fatalities in 2011, with 27 officer fatalities, up from 14 fatalities in 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a 93 percent increase. This includes other illnesses (13), heart attacks (12) and officers succumbing to injuries sustained in years prior (2). Other causes of officer fatalities include: aircraft accidents, beatings, bomb-related incidents, being crushed, drowning, electrocution, falls, stabbings and strangulations.

Officer Morales collapsed during SWAT team tryouts due to hyperthermia. Officer Morales had participated in a physical agility test, which involved a half-mile run and two obstacle courses. Approximately fifteen minutes into the course, Officer Morales had scaled a rope suspended above the ground, when he dismounted and became unresponsive. Officer Morales was transported to the hospital where he remained until his death three days later.

Demographic Profile: Race/Ethnicity

Jurisdiction

Gender

Caucasian

136

Female

Municipal Officers 91

African American

Male

162

County Officers

Hispanic

Average Age

State Officers

Native American

Average Years of Service

Federal Officers

Asian American

Unknown

Territorial Officers 4

This Research Bulletin was produced by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, in conjunction with Concerns of Police Survivors.

Rank

Total Fatalities

Rank

Total Fatalities

Rank

Total Fatalities

Police Officer

Senior Police Officer

Investigator

Deputy Sheriff

Border Patrol Agent

Master Patrolman

Sergeant

Deputy Marshal

Master Public Safety Officer

Trooper

Lieutenant

Officer

Patrolman

Park Ranger

Parole Officer

Correctional Officer

Reserve Deputy Sheriff

Patrol Officer

Detective

Special Agent

Probation Officer

Agent

Constable

Public Safety Officer

Captain

Detective Corporal

Senior Officer Specialist

Chief

District Administrator

Sheriff

Corporal

Game Warden Pilot

Undersheriff

901 E Street NW Suite 100 Washington, DC 20004-2025 202.737.3400 info@nleomf.org www.LawMemorial.org Craig W. Floyd, Chairman & CEO

National Police Week 2012 May 12, 2012

Police Unity Tour Arrival Ceremony 2:00 pm at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

May 13, 2012

24th Annual Candlelight Vigil 8:00 pm at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

10th Annual Honor Guard Competition 8:30 am at John Marshall Plaza, located on Pennsylvania Ave NW at 4th Street, NW

May 15, 2012

NCIS/USMC Wreathlaying Ceremony 8:00 am to 11:00 am at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

National Police Survivors’ Conference Concerns of Police Survivors 9:00 am to 4:30 pm at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center (Registration is Mandatory)

31st Annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Day Services Fraternal Order of Police Fraternal Order of Police Auxiliary 11:00 am at the West Front of the United States Capitol

Philly to DC Memorial Run 12pm at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

FOP/FOPA Wreathlaying Ceremony 2:30 pm at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

18th Annual Emerald Society & Pipeband March & Service National Conference of Law Enforcement Emerald Societies, Inc. Assemble at 4:30 p.m. at New Jersey Avenue, & F Street, NW. Step-off promptly at 6:00pm. March will proceed to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial

May 16, 2012

May 14, 2012

National Police Survivors’ Conference Concerns of Police Survivors 9:00 am to 4:30 pm at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center (Registration is Mandatory)

National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Retail Center will be located one block from the Memorial at First Trinity Lutheran Church at 501 4th St NW, Washington, DC 20001. Visit www.LawMemorial.org/PoliceWeek for more information.