BULLETIN PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
USPS 425940 • ISSN 0031-4404
WINTER 2015 - VOL. 117; ISSUE 1
IN THIS ISSUE
13
ARTICLES
11 PCPA Police Testing Services 13 PCPA Annual Education and Training Conference
ARTICLES
20 Feature Article by PCPA Strategic Partner CODY Systems
22 Leadership Integrity: How to Get It,
16 Bensalem Township Police
How to Keep It, and Why It Matters
Department Completes PLEAC Assessment in Half the Time
18
22
COLUMNS & DEPARTMENTS
4 President’s Message 5 Executive Director’s Message 6 PCPA Executive Board and Committees 6 PCPA Staff 7 In Memoriam 7 Memberships 8 The Chiefs Legal Update 18 Technology Update
Cover photo courtest of: s_bukley / Shutterstock.com
Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association BULLETIN (ISSN 0031-4404) is published quarterly (March, June, September and December) by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. Subscription to PCPA BULLETIN is included in PCPA annual dues. Periodicals Postage paid at Harrisburg, PA. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to PA Chiefs of Police Association BULLETIN, 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1536.
The content of the PCPA BULLETIN is to be a practical reference featuring PCPA information of specific interest and relevance to law enforcement professionals. Topics of interest include professional development, current legislative and goals, news items, PCPA upcoming events and legal issues. PCPA Reviews, reports and articles are submitted by members, experts and other interested law enforcement personnel. PCPA Articles or ideas for content should be submitted to PCPA Headquarters c/o R. Dane Merryman, 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1536 or emailed to dmerryman@pachiefs.org.
PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
DEAR PCPA MEMBERS, What A Year This Has Been For Our Profession – And PCPA Is Rising To The Challenge!
Friends and Colleagues, A year ago, most of us had never even heard of Ferguson, Missouri. Now, the aftermath of the tragedy in that community makes its way into virtually every conversation about our great profession. I want you to know that your Association has been busy, making sure that our voice is being included and heard during this critical time!
OTHER ISSUES At a previous meeting, the PCPA Executive Board Meeting voted to participate with the “Coalition Against Bigger Trucks.” Yes, believe it or not, there is a movement to increase the weight and length of trucks on our highways! We have been very active in opposition of this movement and we will keep you informed as major developments occur.
In January, Executive Director Dane Merryman and I were part of a strategy session with representatives of the State FOP, the District Attorneys’ Association, and other law enforcement associations. While Body Cameras were the primary topic, this meeting was the first of what we hope will be many more strategy sessions with our law enforcement counterparts.
Another critical issue relates to the increase in drug overdose cases and deaths across Pennsylvania. In February, I attended a Roundtable and Press Conference sponsored by the District Attorneys’ Association and U.S. Senator Pat Toomey to discuss recently proposed Federal and State Legislation to further address this crisis.
In late January, Dane Merryman, Board Chairman Tom King and I had a historic meeting with representatives the PA Legislative Black Caucus. The discussion was very productive and they were very impressed with our Association’s Flagship Program – the Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Accreditation Program. More meetings are being planned for the future. Our Association is partnering with the Office of the Attorney General to develop a joint Community Relations Advisory Board. Also, the Executive Board directed Director Merryman to explore the possibility of a PCPA “Go Team” to respond to any Pennsylvania location where a Chief is faced with a terrible situation similar to the one in Ferguson. Along with others, I participated in the IACP’s Webinars regarding their new “Protect and Serve” initiative. You can find some valuable information and resources at http://www.theiacp.org/ protectandserve. 4 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES: At February’s Legislative Committee Meeting, I observed as PCPA Executive Director Dane Merryman showed Legislative Committee CoChairs Dave Spotts and Mike Beaty, and the entire Legislative Committee, the modern, computerbased method of tracking the blizzard of upcoming legislative proposals related to law enforcement. Our Association is geared up and ready to respond quickly to support or oppose legislation affecting our Departments and our Profession! Chiefs Tim Dickinson and Bill Heim are spearheading our Association’s newest committee, The Pennsylvania Law Enforcement Executives Orientation and Mentoring (PLEEOM) Committee. Meanwhile, Captain Ashley Heiberger and Joe Blackburn (PCPA Staff ) are leading the Pa. Law Enforcement Executive Certification (PLEEC) Committee. CONTINUED ON PAGE 6u
www.pachiefs.org
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
DEAR MEMBERS, Let me tell you why I think PCPA and our members are a good fit.
First of all, being engaged with the Association keeps us networked with our fellow Chiefs here in Pennsylvania and at a national level, aware of pending legislation, and current with best practices in policing. The Association provides access to resources, technology tools and services that would be out of reach for many of our member departments. PCPA is your partner advocate in meetings with organizations like the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Pennsylvania Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs, the General Assembly, the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, the State Fraternal Order of Police, and more. Lately, there has been a lot of talk about police and community relations. There have been allegations of excessive force and criticisms of the militarization of police around the country. There have been peaceful demonstrations and destructive civil disobedience. Fortunately, things have been peaceful in Pennsylvania. There are probably numerous explanations for that, but I think one reason is the level of professionalism demonstrated by Pennsylvania Police Departments. Which leads me to the second reason why PCPA and our member Chiefs are a good fit. PCPA is an association committed to supporting superior public safety services by ethical, well trained, and disciplined police officers. Our members who lead these police departments believe in transparency and accountability, and service above self. It is the culture of dedicated police officers.
www.pachiefs.org
Here at PCPA, the mission is supporting our members by providing technology resources, training, legislative advocacy, information sharing, consulting services, and collaborative networking. What could be better work for a guy like me? Recently our Association President Bill Kelly, Chairman Tom King, and I met with members of the Legislative Black Caucus. It was particularly notable because we believe it was the first time our Association has met with an organized group of legislators to discuss current events and how our two organizations can work together for the common good. Issues like body cameras, use of force, cultural competency, and the use of military types of equipment were on the table. Our candid discussion clarified some misunderstandings about how police work, why police do some of the things we do, and how we hire and train our officers. One thing is clear; there is plenty of common ground when we talk about our communities and what we want to see in evolving police-community relations. It is amazing to realize how similar our goals are. It is also gratifying to participate in this proactive approach to maintaining quality of life for Pennsylvanians. All the best,
R. Dane Merryman Executive Director
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 5
PRESIDENT ’S MESSAGE
EXECUTIVE BOARD & COMMITTEES
Members:
PCPA Executive Board – On February 14, 2015 our Association’s Executive Board held its quarterly meeting at the Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square – the site of this year’s Annual Conference. We were all impressed at what an attractive and functional venue it is. We hope that you will join us there for our Conference (see below.)
2nd Vice President Chief of Police • Clarion Borough
EDUCATION & TRAINING
At that meeting the Executive Board directed Executive Director Merryman to send out a Press Release condemning Governor Wolf’s Moratorium on the Death Penalty. That Press Release can be seen on the PCPA Website.
David Spotts
Joe Elias, Chair S. Michael Murphy, Vice Chair
OFFICERS
BUDGET & PERSONNEL
William Kelly
Thomas R. King, Chair John W. Mackey, Vice Chair
President Chief of Police • Abington Township
Robert Jolley
1st Vice President Chief of Police • Dallas Township
Mark Hall
3rd Vice President Chief of Police • Mechanicsburg Borough
Scott Bohn
4th Vice President Chief of Police • West Chester Borough
Thomas King
Chairman Chief of Police • State College Borough
William Richendrfer
Secretary- 2017 Chief of Police • South Centre Township
David DiSanti
Treasurer - 2017 Chief of Police • Oakmont Borough
Joseph J. Daly • Mark E. Hall Richard E. Hammon • Robert G. Jolley William J. Kelly • Michael A. Klein David A. Mettin • William F. Richendrfer David J. Spotts
Members:
T. Robert Amann • Charles J. Crawford William J. Daly • Joseph G. Elias Milton Fields • Michael J. Flanagan Douglas E. Grimes • William L. Harvey Ashley J. Heiberger • Robert G. Jolley David M. Laux • John T. Maxwell Catherine R. McNeilly • James L. Santucci Carl Scalzo • Kevin J. Stoehr George J. Swartz • Oscar P. Vance, Jr. Robert W. Wilson • Raymond F. Zydonik
LEGISLATIVE David Spotts, Chair Mike Beaty, Vice Chair
UPCOMING EVENTS On March 16 and 17, 2015 – The PCPA, along with Penn State University and other respected Police Organizations will co-sponsor an outstanding training seminar at the Valley Forge Radisson Hotel. This Conference will focus on a new approach to community wellness and safety developed in Canada and spreading around the world. If you want to see the “cutting edge” of Law Enforcement, or the next step in Community Policing, come see what I call “The Next ‘Big Thing’ in Policing!” Go to www.jasi.outreach. psu.edu for info and registration.
Members:
Chief of Police • York Area Regional
James W. Adams • Darryl L. Albright Scott L. Bohn • Randolph G. Cox Joseph J. Daly • Richard M. Danko Michael A. Donohue • Eric D. Gill Erik P. Grunzig • Bryan B. Kelly Daniel J. Kortan, Jr. • Joseph F. Lawrence Marshall A. Martin • Coleman J. McDonough Dean E. Osborne • Lawrence R. Palmer David Souchick • David J. Spotts David E. Steffen • Michael J. Vogel Dennis H. Walters • Steven R. Wheeler Frank E. Williamson
April 14 & 15, 2015 – The Eastern Montgomery County Emergency Management Group Training includes: Ed Deveau, the Chief of the Watertown (Mass.) Police Department regarding the Boston Marathon Lockdown and Manhunt; Troy Anderson, Connecticut State Police CISM on debriefing of Sandy Hook; and Lt. Brian Murphy the first responding officer at the Sikh Temple Shooting in Wisconsin, who was was shot 15 times! Information and registration at www.emema.org
Howard Kocher – 2017
MEMBERSHIP/BYLAWS
July 12 to 15, 2015 – Our Association’s Annual Conference at the magnificent Marriott Lancaster Hotel. You will notice a difference at this year’s conference! In response to your suggestions, this year’s conference is shorter and more compact. One business meeting instead of two, three nights instead of four – yet filled with valuable training, fun, entertainment and time with your colleagues. Go to www.pachiefs.org for information and registration.
BOARD MEMBERS Andrew Havas – 2017 Retired Chief of Police • West Hills Regional PD
James Sabath – 2017
Chief of Police • Tinicum Township
Thomas Gross – 2017
Chief of Police • Lehman Township
Brian Kelly – 2015
Mark G. Pugliese I, Chair
Members:
Chief of Police • Upper Providence Township
Kenneth M. Truver • Curt A. Martinez Donald J. Aubrecht • Guy A. Salerno Harold C. Lane • John E. Petrick John F. Slauch • Keith Keiper Mark L. Bentzel •Mark E. Hall • Paul Yost Samuel J. Gallen • Timothy P. Trently William P. Grover
Kenneth Truver – 2016
RETIRED CHIEFS
Chief of Police • Shaler Township
James Adams – 2015
Chief of Police • Upper Allen Township
Mark Toomey – 2015
Chief of Police • Castle Shannon Borough
J. William Schmitt, Chair
Lawrence Palmer – 2016
Members:
Chief of Police • Palmer Township
William Daly – 2016
Chief of Police • Horsham Township
Donald G. Hunter, Sr. • Joseph F. Ferrelli Keith D. Guthrie • Richard E. Hammon Stephen W. Ott • Wendell A. Rich William L. Eckert • William L. Howatt William S. Weaver
May God bless and protect you, your family, and all members of our noble Profession. And I look forward to seeing you at our Conference in July!
PCPA STAFF R. Dane Merryman, Executive Director, dmerryman@pachiefs.org Kathleen Bates, Administrative Assistant, kbates@pachiefs.org Joseph Blackburn, Consulting and Member Services Manager, jblackburn@pachiefs.org Christopher Braun, Technology Coordinator, cjbraun@pachiefs.org Cheryl Campbell, Financial Coordinator, ccampbell@pachiefs.org Richard Hammon, Accreditation Coordinator, rhammon@pachiefs.org Jerry Miller, Offender Identification Technology, jmiller@pachiefs.org Andrea Sullivan, Accreditation Assistant, asullivan@pachiefs.org Bill Gibson, Physical Fitness, fitcop@hotmail.com
William J. Kelly PCPA President, 2014-2015 wkelly@abington.org
6 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
IN MEMORIAM Harry Lynn Shumaker Retired Chief of Police East Pennsboro Township Christopher M Pelchar, Sr. Chief of Police Sugar Notch Borough Police Department Ashley, PA
NEW
MEMBERS ACTIVE Chad Adams SGT-OIC Pulaski Township Police
Michael A. Moravec Chief of Police Township of Kingston
Joseph Kelly III Chief of Police Yardley Borough PD
Ray Allen Taylor Lieutenant West Shore Regional Police
Michael Gallagher Deputy Chief Mt. Lebanon Police Richard A. Weaver Chief of Police Tamaqua Borough Charles Tappe Captain Murrysville Police Dept. Troy D. Bell Chief of Police Reynoldsville Borough Michael Sliker Chief of Police North East Borough PD Michael S. Burgan Chief of Police Richland Township Supervisors
Brand Briggs Chief of Police Liberty Township Police Dept Salvatore J. Pinzone Assistant Chief Milford Borough Police Gene Karch Chief Jefferson Twp Police Kevin Raymond McKeon Chief of Police New Hanover Township Kerry J. Parkes Chief of Police Riverside Borough Chad Thomas Chief of Police Mahoning Township
Timothy C. Rodman Chief of Police Etna Borough www.pachiefs.org
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 7
LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
Provided by Chris Boyle, Esq. and reprinted with permission from Marshall, Dennehey, Coleman
Once criminal proceedings were brought against Wright, he filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered from his apartment. […]Although the District Court found that Agent Taylor’s culpability was “low,” it read the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Leon, … as holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule could never excuse reliance on a facially invalid warrant. Consequently, it ordered the evidence suppressed. On appeal, a panel of this Court vacated and remanded. [T]he Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Herring v. United States… required an additional analytical step before the exclusionary rule could be applied. Specifically, the District Court could not suppress the evidence unless it evaluated Agent Taylor’s culpability and found that his conduct was at least grossly negligent. […] A. The Exclusionary Rule
The affidavit summarized the Government’s knowledge of the conspiracy and stated that Agent Taylor expected to find further evidence in Wright’s apartment, including drugs, money, and documents such as ledgers and telephone lists. UNITED STATES V. WRIGHT, 2015 U.S. APP. LEXIS 1939 (3RD CIRCUIT FEBRUARY 6, 2015) […]I. Background of the Case Having gathered significant evidence of Michael Wright’s ongoing conspiracy to distribute marijuana, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania prepared a warrant application for the search of Wright’s apartment. In the portion of the warrant identifying the items to be seized, the warrant referred to an attached affidavit of probable cause prepared by Drug Enforcement Agency Task Force Agent Jeffrey Taylor. The affidavit summarized the Government’s knowledge of the conspiracy and stated that Agent Taylor expected to find further evidence in Wright’s apartment, including drugs,
money, and documents such as ledgers and telephone lists. A federal magistrate judge approved the application, signing both the warrant and the attached affidavit. Before the warrant was executed, however, the affidavit was removed at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and sealed in order to protect the ongoing investigation. Agent Taylor, who was organizing the raid, received the final warrant but did not notice that it no longer included a list of items to be seized. As a result, although the magistrate judge had approved the list, the list was not present when the warrant was executed. The search was nevertheless conducted in conformity with the warrant, and there is no indication that items not listed were seized.
8 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
[…]Although the exclusionary rule was designed to deter Fourth Amendment violations, the heavy social costs of suppressing evidence counsel against its indiscriminate application. […] Accordingly, in Leon, the Supreme Court created a “good-faith exception” to the suppression remedy for “evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.” […]The Leon Court also observed, however, that “depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient—i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized—that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” […]Simple, isolated negligence is insufficient to justify suppression. […] [W]hen a warrant is “so facially deficient that it fail[s] to particularize . . . the things to be seized,” the officers involved are usually at least “grossly negligent” and cannot avail themselves of the good-faith exception. […]We recently clarified in United States v. Franz, however, that this is not a categorical rule. […]”[I]n examining the totality of the www.pachiefs.org
LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT circumstances, we consider not only any defects in the warrant but also the officer’s conduct in obtaining and executing the warrant and what the officer knew or should have known.” […]Thus, even if a warrant is facially invalid, an assessment of the officers’ culpability and the value of deterrence may counsel against suppression.
on the legal context and the jurisdiction.” […]This Court has explained that gross negligence has “been described as the want of even scant care and the failure to exercise even that care which a careless person would use.” […]By contrast, ordinary negligence “means no more than a failure to measure up to the conduct of a reasonable person.” […]
[…]B. Wright’s Motion to Suppress
Whether Taylor was “grossly” negligent or merely negligent in the “ordinary” sense is difficult to assess if we consult only the hornbook formulations of these terms. Did Taylor fail to exercise “reasonable care,” or did his failure to read the warrant before executing it demonstrate the absence of even “scant care”? Fundamentally, the precautions we would expect an officer to take depend largely on what might happen if he failed to take them. The probable consequences of the failure to exercise care are certainly relevant to the value of deterrence. […] [I]t makes sense to consider (1) the extent to which the violation in this case undermined the purposes of the Fourth Amendment and (2) what the Government gained from the violation.
[O]ur analysis here focuses on the culpability of the agents and prosecutors who failed to ensure that a list of items to be seized was attached to the warrant that was executed. Wright does not argue that anyone deliberately or recklessly violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He argues instead that Agent Taylor was grossly negligent and, consequently, that deterrence is worth the price of suppression. Franz is instructive but not directly on point. In both Franz and this case, the agents obtained valid warrants in consultation with federal prosecutors and seized only those items authorized by their warrants. In Franz, however, Agent Nardinger was inexperienced, and he understood the magistrate judge’s sealing order as prohibiting him from giving Franz the list of items to be seized. We cannot say the same about Agent Taylor, who has extensive experience with search warrants and did not interpret the magistrate judge’s sealing order as excusing compliance with the particularity requirement. This is significant for two reasons. First, […]an “officer’s knowledge and experience” bears on whether it was objectively reasonable for that officer to believe that the search was legal. […] Second, the Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when an officer “reasonably relie[s] on the Magistrate’s assurance that the warrant contain[s] an adequate description of the things to be seized and [i]s therefore valid.” […]The agents’ relative culpability does not, however, answer the question of whether Agent Taylor’s conduct meets the standard for gross negligence. “’Gross negligence’ is a nebulous term that is defined in a multitude of ways, depending www.pachiefs.org
The requirement that warrants particularly describe the things to be seized has a number of purposes. First, it provides “written assurance that the Magistrate actually found probable cause to search for, and to seize, every item mentioned.” […]Second, it prevents “general searches” by confining the discretion of officers and authorizing them to seize only particular items. […] Third, it “informs the subject of the search ‘of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.’” […] The violation at issue here did not undermine the first two purposes of the particularity requirement. This was no general search, as Agent Taylor oversaw it and “assured that the [other] officers acted in accordance with the warrant’s limits.” […]Wright does not argue that these limits were exceeded in any way. Furthermore, we can be confident that the magistrate judge found probable cause to search for and seize every item listed in Agent Taylor’s affidavit. When the
warrant was approved, the affidavit was attached and expressly incorporated by reference in the space for identifying the items to be seized. Indeed, in addition to signing the warrant, the magistrate signed the affidavit, albeit for the purpose of certifying that Agent Taylor had sworn to it. […] […]The importance of this distinction is, however, questionable. The Supreme Court has observed that […]”neither the Fourth Amendment nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41” requires “the executing officer [to] present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search.” […]The Fourth Amendment “protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant, but by interposing, [before the search], the ‘deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . between the citizen and the police,’ and by providing, [after the search], a right to suppress evidence improperly obtained and a cause of action for damages.” […] It is therefore unclear how Wright was harmed by his inability to peruse the list of items the Government intended to seize at the time of the raid on his apartment. It follows that the Government gained nothing from the Fourth Amendment violation. Even if the list of items to be seized had been present at the scene, the agents would have collected precisely the same evidence, and Wright would have been unable to stop them. The violation in this case had no impact on the evidence that could be deployed against Wright at trial. […]III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the District Court was correct to hold that Agent Taylor was not sufficiently culpable for the costs of suppression to outweigh its benefits. The District Court’s denial of Wright’s motion to suppress will be affirmed. COMMENT: I do love a cautionary tale. You know. A story where, even though everything turns out good for our hero, where he gets the girl and rides off into the CONTINUED ON PAGE 10u
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 9
LEGAL UPDATES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT sunset, there is still a lesson to be learned. THE CHIEF’S LEGALAsUPDATE far as demanding (proper) identity, you may only I don’t think I am sitting too far out on a limb here by saying that if Agent Taylor do so if investigating a violation of the law. Problem had it to do over again, he would include is, the statute only covers providing false identifying that list of items to be seized. It is painful information, not refusing to provide any at all. to watch your work dissected by a court to determine your “level of culpability”, like Otherwise, they go through life as a John the owner of the car but you tried all watching your own colonoscopy I imagine. Doe. It will be up to the magistrate means possible. You tow the car just to Agent Taylor, for helping us all pick up a judge to set a bail high enough to make make sure it wasn’t stolen but not yet little something from your examination, them appear. On a car stop, perhaps reported. we thank you. better to seize the car and cite the owner What can police do to make him give ID? for allowing an unauthorized person to The traffic violation/s are only a summary drive. Not the ideal answer, but the best STUMP THE CHUMP i.e 4703(a) and 6308. He hasn’t resisted one I have been able to come up with. I or committed any other identifiable Mr. Boyle, would be very wary of pulling people crimes. The only misdemeanor (M2) that off the street on mere suspicion. The I have a timely question that I thought looks like it might apply is obstructing words “Nazi regime” are, unfortunately, others might be wondering as well. the administration of justice, but that sure to come up if we are demanding to seems like we can’t charge if you read In the current climate of increasing identify citizens who are not accused of the last part. If we take him back to the encounters with sovereign citizen types a crime. This situation is a very difficult station to attempt to do a Fingerprint who essentially don’t recognize state one for law enforcement, I know. It is Suspect ID (this is something I am wary and federal laws, what is the basis and like arguing with a lunatic or a child. of because essentially they are under arrest legal authority for an officer to demand No matter how right you are, they are and we don’t even have a charge) AND someone’s identity and their requirement going to land up frustrating you anyway. either he still doesn’t comply OR perhaps to produce it? What then is our legal (Difference is, I like lunatics and children. he does and the prints are not on file recourse if someone flat out refuses. How Sovereign Citizens? Not so much. ) Best to (means never printed but he still might be does it differ when dealing with a driver remember that all they really want is to a wanted “Named” but never caught serial as opposed to someone on the street? see you angry. No sense giving them the killer). What else can we do? satisfaction, and they’ll get to experience I am a firm believer in getting voluntary You can take him for a DJ immediate some of that frustration. Wish I had a cooperation and in my few interactions hearing, however the DJ can only make magic bullet for you, but I don’t think one with folks such as this I have always been him pay the amount of the summary exists for this particular problem, short of successful but I suspect there will come a fine/s and can’t hold him in contempt the Legislature passing a law to address it. time. for not giving ID. To have an immediate Thank you very much, hearing we also have to assume the guy The Chump Ignatius R. Mutt is out of State for the hearing because we can’t prove otherwise because he won’t tell § 1574. Permitting unauthorized person And: us. We only know the car is registered in to drive. PA. He might live in or out of state. CB: (a) General rule. --No person shall So, after the hearing it appears he pays authorize or permit a motor vehicle You like a challenge. the @$200 in fines and gets to leave as a owned by him or under his control to be “John Doe”. Any suggestions??? You traffic stop a 20ish year old for driven upon any highway by any person expired inspection. He chooses not to Cornelius T. Jeff who is not authorized under this chapter give his license/ID (John Doe). He or who is not licensed for the type or class is polite but implies he will sue. Let’s Dear Mutt and Jeff: of vehicle to be driven. suppose he is one of those whack job Keep the car. As far as demanding Freemen who don’t comply. The car is (b) Penalty. --Any person violating the (proper) identity, you may only do registered legally to someone named provisions of subsection (a) is guilty of a so if investigating a violation of the John Smith from Philadelphia and is summary offense and shall be jointly and valid. The car is not suspicious or stolen law. Problem is, the statute only covers severally liable with the driver for any providing false identifying information, and there is nothing that you might be not refusing to provide any at all. If there damages caused by the negligence of such able to use for a search warrant. You driver in operating the vehicle. is a crime, then we make the arrest, and want the drivers ID because maybe process them as a John Doe until/unless he is wanted or suspended but that is The Chump. their prints match up with someone. just a hunch. You can’t find/contact 10 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
PCPA POLICE TESTING SERVICES
PCPA POLICE TESTING SERVICES
F
or over a decade the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association (PCPA) has partnered with Stanard & Associates, Inc. (S&A) to help its members meet the challenges of hiring and promoting top quality individuals in today’s ever-changing law enforcement climate. Pennsylvania agencies large and small have used S&A’s off-the-shelf exams to improve their personnel selection processes and quickly identify the candidates with the greatest potential for success. In addition, a portion of the proceeds from every exam purchased through the PCPA goes directly to the Association. So not only do Pennsylvania agencies reap the benefits of enhancing the quality of their own workforce through standardized testing, but they also help the PCPA further its mission of improving the quality and professionalism in law enforcement in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since our Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies face everincreasing budget constraints and the significant investment of time and money needed to train and fully prepare new hires for the job, departments just cannot afford to take a chance on applicants who lack the basic skills for the position. That’s where testing comes in. Entrylevel exams allow agencies to quickly and inexpensively narrow down the applicant pool to only those individuals who possess the basic cognitive skills needed for success in training and, ultimately, for the job. Backed by extensive research and development, S&A’s entry-level exam, the National Police Officer Selection
www.pachiefs.org
Test (POST), focuses on the areas deemed most important to job success. Since 1991, the POST has been administered to tens of thousands of applicants across the United States. Measuring proficiency in arithmetic, reading comprehension, grammar, and report writing, the POST can be scored on-site by department personnel for immediate results or scored by S&A. Study Guides for applicants and multiple test versions are available. Ordering POST is easy. Go to the PCPA website (www.pachiefs.org). Select Police Testing from the Quick Links. Complete the POST Order Form which is now PDF-fillable with an electronic signature option for the Security Agreement. Email your order form to testorders@pachiefs.org. You will receive your tests within a week. You will be invoiced later only for the tests you use as long as you return the unused tests to S&A. The results of tests scored by S&A are usually sent to the agency within 5 days of S&A receipt. Future articles and email blasts will focus on other PCPA/S&A products and services. This includes the National Dispatcher Selection Test, Pennsylvania First Line Supervisor Test, Pennsylvania
Second Line Supervisor Test, and National Detective/Investigator Test. S&A also offers a full-service, online employment application website, www.ApplyToServe.com. This comprehensive program handles all facets of the application process, from distributing and collecting candidate applications, to organizing, verifying and recording required documentation, to answering applicant inquiries, to producing a complete listing of applicants ready to move on to the next phase of recruitment. Some exciting news from S&A. Effective March 1st, they will be offering an online version of the POST candidate Study Guide, as well as an online practice version of the POST itself available for purchase directly by the applicants. The PCPA will share in the proceeds of these sales. Additional information and web links will become available in the next few weeks. For more information on how your department can benefit from the products and services offered by the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association, please contact Joe Blackburn, Consulting and Member Services Manager at 717-236-1059 or jblackburn@pachiefs.org.
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 11
Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association
Approved by MPOETC for 2015 MIST Credit www.PainBehindtheBadge.com
Annual Training & Education Conference Tuesday, July 14, 2015 Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square This powerful and motivating presentation, as exhibited below, is a very effective tool used to help first responders, police personnel, fire personnel, hospital personnel, military personnel, civilian employees and spouses to deal with tragedies commonly referred to as ‘Critical Incidents’. It is even more effective in helping the same personnel to deal with the every day stressors associated with their chosen careers that can and often do result in career-ending actions such as PTSD, depression, cumulative stress, domestic violence, failed relationships, alcoholism, substance abuse and even suicide.
Sergeant Clarke Paris (ret.) and Tracie Paris, RN,BSN Clarke Paris is Creator/Producer of award winning documentary file on Police Stress and Suicide, The Pain Behind the Badge and author of My Life for Your Life.
VA TECH Winning the Battle was presented to VA Tech PD officers and Area Officers after the 32 student massacre. Lakewood Winning the Battle was presented to Lakewood Police Officers after 4 of them were murdered in a coffee shop.
FLETC Winning the Battle was presented at nearly every Federal Lew Enforcement Training Center Symposium in 2011. Topics addressed Motivation, Police Stress Byproducts, including PTSD, Depression and Suicide.
US NAVY Clarke & Tracie Paris, at the request of the U.S. Navy, traveled to Bahrain where they presented Winning the Battle’ to the Naval Special Warfare Unit #3 (SEALs).
Register for the PCPA Conference Online at www.pachiefs.org 12 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
PCPA ANNUAL Education and Training
CONFERENCE
Pursuing the Mission: Leadership in Law Enforcement
July 12-15, 2015 Lancaster Marriott at Penn Square
25 South Queen Street, Lancaster, PA 17603
(717) 239-1600 The 2015 PCPA Annual Education and Training Conference keeps the momentum rolling! In addition to continuing our commitment to professional grade presentations, we have modified the conference format to enhance attendee participation, maximize training, and offer greater quality time with our exhibitors. Many of the format changes we have made are in response to suggestions we received from our attendee survey last year. Consistent with this year’s Conference theme, Pursuing the Mission: Leadership in Law Enforcement, the agenda includes timely and relevant presentations from internationally and nationally known speakers, media professionals, Homeland Security, State Police Forensics, and of course, legal updates from Chris Boyle and John Gonzales. Read on to learn how we have remodeled our Education and Training Conference to enhance your conference experience. www.pachiefs.org
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 13
PCPA ANNUAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING CONFERENCE
ABOUT THE CONFERENCE We believe there is value to starting the conference with a gathering event, and so we are kicking off the conference on Sunday evening with an opening ceremony. Comments from Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray, our host Chief, Keith Sadler, Posting of the Colors and our National Anthem will set the tone for us. We follow the opening ceremony with an extended evening in the Exhibit Hall with our vendors. Hospitality, a buffet, and entertainment will be provided in the Hall to encourage interaction between our attendees and vendors. Comfortable seating groups will be set up in the Hall for some quality networking time. Monday morning begins with a Keynote Speaker, Dr. Jim Reese, former FBI Special Agent and instructor at the FBI National Academy. Dr. Reese speaks internationally on leadership and motivation and promises to get things moving quickly. After a General Association Business Meeting, we will once again have time in the Exhibit Hall, including a lunch buffet. Once again, comfortable seating groups will be set up in the Hall for some quality networking time.
The training day continues with presentations and a panel on managing your relationship with the news media, including preparing for large incidents, media law, press access rights, and more. Monday evening features the Incoming President’s reception and dinner with a football tailgating theme. Our Incoming President Bob Jolley will be wearing Blue and White; be sure to bring your team jersey. Recognizing suicide and mental health issues are threats to our police officers, we have invited Clarke Paris to the conference on Tuesday with his presentation “Winning the Battle – Pain Behind the Badge.” Clarke is a former Las Vegas police officer and nationally recognized speaker. The seminar is designed to help officers and significant others recognize and understand the stressors associated with police work and how important it is to deal with those stressors. Two Important things to note about this presentation: 1. M POETC has certified the presentation for 2015 MIST credit. 2. S pouses and guests are encouraged to attend this presentation. Tuesday afternoon presentations include a Forensic Services presentation by the
Pennsylvania State Police and training for Police Liability Reduction by LTC Frank Rogers, NJSP (ret), CEO of the Rogers Group. The Annual Installation Reception and Banquet is Tuesday evening. Taking a cue from our member surveys, we have restructured the formalities to provide more time to enjoy the evening entertainment, a live jazz band, Third Stream. Check them out at http:// thirdstream.com. Wednesday there will be legal updates with Chris Boyle and John Gonzales and presentations by the US Department of Homeland Security. The presentations will outline Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) within the state of Pennsylvania, highlighting localized programs and operations, including Secure Communities, the Criminal Alien Program, the Philadelphia Air Transportation Hub, and Fugitive Operations, among others. The presentation will include examples of enforcement operations that exemplify the positive working relationships that ERO Philadelphia maintains with local law enforcement organizations. The 102nd PCPA Education and Training Conference concludes Wednesday afternoon at 4:00 PM. The detailed Conference schedule follows:
7/12/2015 Sunday
7/13/2015 Monday
7/14/2015 Tuesday
7/15/2015 Wednesday
7:00: Vendor Setup
8:30-10:15 Keynote speaker Dr. Jim Reese, PhD
08:30-12:00 Clarke Paris
8:30-10:00 Legal Updates -Boyle
12:15-1:00: Lunch
10:00 Break/Networking
12:00-2:00: Exec Board lunch and Business Meeting
10:15 Break/Networking 10:30-12:00 Business Meeting
1:00-3:00 Accreditation Commission Meeting
10:15-11:15 Homeland Security Investigations
3:00 Hotel Registration/Check-in
12:00-2:30 Lunch in Exhibit Hall; Ladies Luncheon
1:00-2:30 Liability Reduction Frank Rogers, The Rogers Group
11:30-12:30 ICE/Enforcement & Removal Operations
3:00 Exhibit Hall Closes
2:30 -3:00 Break
12:30 Lunch
5:30 Opening Ceremony*
2:30-4:30 Media Training
3:00-4:00 PSP Forensics Services
1:30-3:00 Legal updates - Gonzales
6:30 Hospitality in Exhibit Hall
6:00 Incoming President Reception
4:00 Networking/ Regional Meetings
3:00 Regional Meetings
7:00 Incoming President Dinner
5:30 Executive Board Pics
8:30: PCPA Staff Setup
4:00 Conference Registration/ Exhibit Hall Opens
7:00-9:00 Buffet Dinner in Exhibit Hall/ Networking/Entertainment 9:00 Exhibit Hall closes for evening
4:00 Conference ends
6:00-10:00 Reception & Banquet
14 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
By: Christine Goracke, Accreditation Manager, PowerDMS
Bensalem Township Police Department Completes PLEAC Assessment in Half the Time The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association (PCPA) partnered with PowerDMS, a web-based document management software solution, to provide a resource to tackle PLEAC accreditation electronically. One PCPA member agency, Bensalem Township Police Department, recognized the benefits of this partnership and purchased PowerDMS. Since then, they have been busy in the system and recently became the first agency to complete their entire PLEAC assessment electronically with PowerDMS. In the process, they’ve saved a tremendous amount of time, money and resources. Bensalem Township PD Sergeant George Price was excited to tackle their accreditation and mock audits in a new way and leave behind the traditionally cumbersome paper process. As you can imagine, everyone involved was a tad bit apprehensive at first. “I wouldn’t consider myself tech savvy, but PowerDMS is
extremely easy to use,” said Sgt. Price. “My fears quickly subsided. The help section in the software is easy to navigate and the PowerDMS support team is readily available and extremely helpful. You can pick up the phone or shoot them an email and someone will walk you through exactly what it is you are trying to do.” Sgt. Price quickly discovered using PowerDMS really does make it easier to achieve accreditation. He loves having everything in one location, being able to track progress along the way and the ability to pull comprehensive reports at any time. “I can quickly see where I am in the process. I know what’s in compliance and what’s not,” he said. “There’s no risk of losing anything or getting confused, everything is right there. You can even do mock assessments and put notes and feedback directly into the system.” Bensalem Township PD was thrilled to report that by using PowerDMS their
PLEAC assessment preparation time was cut in half. CUT IN HALF! This time savings freed the team up to focus on other things.
“I have time to research new general orders and policies we want to put into effect. I’m not constantly running to put things together in a paper file. I have the time to create organizational efficiencies and focus on operational excellence and having the best general orders in place rather than messing with files.” - Sergeant Price Aside from the time savings realized with PowerDMS, Sgt. Price estimates their
BENEFITS OF PowerDMS/PLEAC PARTNERSHIP •v iew PLEAC standards electronically anytime, from anywhere • c reate policies and attach to applicable standard •b uild electronic assessments with no paper shuffling •p rovide assessor login for foolproof onsite • c onduct online training to save time, money and resources • t est officers for knowledge retention •p ull reports for accountability • c ollaborate with peers for speedy approval •a nd much more 16 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLETES PLEAC ASSESSMENT IN HALF THE TIME
management and PLEAC accreditation processes Sgt. Price said, “I would tell other PLEAC members to absolutely buy PowerDMS!” Bensalem Township PD has future plans to expand their use of PowerDMS’s training function. They look forward to doing more online training and reducing the amount of classroom time.
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT’S SAVINGS WITH PowerDMS ½ the time spent on assessment $13,500 on training costs $2,580 on paper costs agency has already saved a tremendous amount of money. “We can estimate we have already saved $2,580 on paper alone,” he said. Bensalem Township PD has also been using PowerDMS for their training needs and saving there as well. “If we use PowerDMS to conduct a two-hour training, during working hours, with only sworn officers—instead of sending them to the training or having them come in on their off-time—we’re saving about $13,500.00. This is salary alone and doesn’t even include paying an instructor, travel expenses and everything else.” Conducting officer training via PowerDMS also assisted with the assessment process. “With the reports we generate, we’re able to show training provided and attach it as proof of compliance to PLEAC standards,” said Sgt. Price. “We are uploading older training records, so they are included in our reports and part of an officer’s complete training file.” Since there are no paper files to compile, Sgt. Price provided PLEAC assessors a login to remotely access his assessment in PowerDMS. Assessors were able to view all files ahead of time, electronically. By starting the process early and instantly reacting to assessor feedback and comments, Bensalem Township PD had a flawless onsite. PLEAC assessor Lt. Leon Crone from Lower Allen Township Police was the team leader for their assessment. “Bensalem PD’s PLEAC onsite was our www.pachiefs.org
first experience using PowerDMS for an assessment,” said Lt. Leon Crone. “The application lends itself to falling into a routine rather quickly and once that’s set the rest of the assessment went very smoothly.” The assessors were impressed with the simplicity and how pleasant the experience was and especially the quick review during the exit interview. “We were done in less time than anticipated,” he shared. “Having been on both sides of the assessment, I would certainly prefer and recommend agencies use PowerDMS.” The only complaint the assessment team shared was it’s too quiet. “The constant shuffling of paper and hefting of boxes is replaced by near-silence interrupted occasionally by the sound of keystrokes,” Lt. Crone said. “We joked about the need for a page-turn sound to break up the silence!” When asked if he had words of advice for other agencies thinking about using PowerDMS for their document
ABOUT THE AUTHOR After a 25-year career in law Document Management Simplified enforcement as a compliance a d m i n i s t r a t o r, Christine Goracke joined the team at PowerDMS where she loves helping CHRISTINE GORACKE agencies streamline accreditation. She’s been in your shoes and understands the ins and outs of accreditation and the difficulties associated with preparing for and conducting an assessment. As she travels throughout the country, forwardthinking accrediting bodies willing to help their members by introducing new tools designed to simplify and achieve accreditation continually impress her. Visit www.PowerDMS.com/videotour to see firsthand how PowerDMS can simplify your PLEAC accreditation, while saving time, money and resources.
“BENSALEM PD’S PLEAC ONSITE WAS OUR FIRST EXPERIENCE USING PowerDMS FOR AN ASSESSMENT,” LT. LEON CRONE
SAID LT. LEON CRONE.
“THE APPLICATION LENDS ITSELF TO FALLING INTO A ROUTINE RATHER QUICKLY AND ONCE THAT’S SET THE REST OF THE ASSESSMENT WENT VERY SMOOTHLY.” PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 17
TECHNOLOGY
UPDATE By Christopher J. Braun, MSIT, PCPA Technology Coordinator
PAVTN January 2015, the Pennsylvania Virtual Training Network, PAVTN, opened for its fourth year with a new look and new features. The PAVTN provides thirty online courses for criminal justice and law enforcement to over twelve thousand users. The redesigned web site places the courses in two curriculums, the Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission Curriculum and the PAVTN Curriculum. The MPOETC Curriculum contains the mandated courses for police officers under PA ACT 180. For 2015, MPOETC requires twelve hours of training. Nine of those twelve hours are provided in three mandated courses, Human Trafficking (15-423), Legal Updates (15-201) and Civil Law
(15-202). An additional three hour elective course, Domestic Violence (15-802) allows officers to fulfill the required twelve hours online. Also, for any officer that still needs to meet the previous year’s mandates, eight courses from 2013/14 are available. The PAVTN Curriculum is divided into three groups, Investigation, Programs and Systems and Roll Call. In Investigations there are courses on Sexual Assault, Stalking, Strangulation, Human Trafficking and Responding to Domestic Violence Calls. The Special Programs and Systems section has courses on Live Scan Fingerprinting, DUI Crackdowns, Arrest Fingerprinting, PA SAVIN and Protection from Abuse Orders. The Roll Call training has courses
18 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
on Missing Persons with Alzheimer’s, Suspicious Activity Reporting, Encountering Persons with Autism and the Administration of Naloxone. New functions have been added to allow a student to keep track of their activity in a course and get a complete copy of all their activity and print a transcript. Additional functions now let a department’s chief to see the activity of their personnel individually or create a report on their entire department. Throughout the year additional functions will be added to allow departments to add have custom section in a course just for their department. This would allow departments to add policy and procedure to roll call training. They also will be able to create a record of other training the officer attended. The PAVTN is expanding to provide courses to those that process sexual offenders. These courses will include what is called performance support. The performance support application will allow instant access to information at the time the individual needs to perform a certain task. This course will expand the PAVTN to Probation/Parole and Corrections Officers. The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association and its training partners continually strive for excellence in the PAVTN. Courses in the PAVTN have received national and international acclaim. The Strangulation course was adopted by the Department of Justice to serve as the national model. This course is taken by law enforcement in all fifty states, Canada and England. The Introduction to Human Trafficking course received an international creativity award for ELearning and Web design and became the basis for this year’s MPOETC mandated course. A video created for the Invisible Wounds course won a bronze Telly award. www.pachiefs.org
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE
PA ACT 139 allows first responders (law enforcement, fire fighters, EMS) acting at the direction of a health care professional authorized to prescribe naloxone, to administer the drug to individuals experiencing an opioid overdose. More information about the PAVTN is available on the PAVTN web site www. pavtn.net under the FAQ section of my email to cjbraun@pachiefs.org. PA ACT 139 PA ACT 139 allows first responders (law enforcement, fire fighters, EMS) acting at the direction of a health care professional authorized to prescribe naloxone, to administer the drug to individuals experiencing an opioid overdose. The law also provides immunity from prosecution for those responding to and reporting overdoses. Additionally, individuals such as friends or family members in a position to assist a person at risk of experiencing an opioid related overdose may receive a prescription for naloxone. The Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association through a grant from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency is providing online training on the use of naloxone and providing $100,000 worth of naloxone to police departments in the Commonwealth in cooperation with the county District Attorneys and the District Attorney’s Association. Naloxone is a medication that can reverse an overdose that is caused by an opioid drug (i.e. prescription pain medication or heroin). When administered during an overdose, naloxone blocks the effects of opioids on the brain and restores breathing within two to eight minutes. Naloxone has been used safely by emergency medical professionals for more than 40 years and has only one function: to reverse the effects of opioids on the www.pachiefs.org
brain and respiratory system in order to prevent death. The training will be available on the Pennsylvania Virtual Training Network
(www.pavtn.net) in mid February 2015. A plan for the distribution of the naloxone is being developed and will be available sometime before the end of February 2015.
FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS, CARFAX HAS PARTNERED WITH THOUSANDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO REDUCE CRIME AND KEEP COMMUNITIES SAFER. CARFAX HAS MORE THAN 12 BILLION VEHICLE HISTORY RECORDS AND RECEIVES MORE THAN 3.5 MILLION RECORDS EACH DAY FROM MORE THAN 76,000 SOURCES. USING DATA, WE PROVIDE SEVERAL NO-COST SOLUTIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT CARFAX®, VISIT WWW.CARFAXFORPOLICE.COM. Matthew Simpson | matthewsimpson@carfax.com | 610-858-7304
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 19
FEATURE ARTICLE BY PCPA STRATEGIC PARTNER CODY SYSTEMS
E-citation/E-crash Data from PA TraCS to RMS Goes LIVE: UPPER MACUNGIE PD and CASTLE SHANNON BOROUGH PD A lesson in how key interface development can eliminate errors increase efficiency, and reduce administrative overhead. Written by Maggie Riker, CODY Systems
Upper Macungie Police Department in Lehigh County, PA recently deployed two interfaces between PA TraCS and the department’s records management system (RMS) for citations and crash reporting. Officers are raving about what it has done for streamlining their overall workflow and administrative function. “It works simply and seamlessly,” said Detective Darren Simmers of Upper Macungie PD. “Data entered into PA TraCS by our officers in the car or at the station, now populates the appropriate fields in our CODY RMS system, thus eliminating redundant data entry and reducing errors that come from duplicate work. Plus, all related records are created in the system based on the data coming in from TraCS including Citation records, Crash reports/Incident records (including crash diagrams), Master Name records and even Vehicles records plus any narratives associated with these records.” “Our department started using PA TraCS to some extent last year for e-crash and e-citations, but as of January 2015 with the implementation of this enhancement from CODY, all officers are now required to use PA TraCS for all citations and crash reports as well as written warnings for motorists,’ said Detective Simmers.
“The automated process eliminates errors that come from re-keying citations,” commented Detective Simmers. “We issued over 6000 citations in 2014, which resulted in over 100 hours of labor for our secretary to enter the citations into our RMS. The CODY-PA TraCS interface has freed up time to commit to other tasks.”
Lt. Michael Sitoski, Patrol Division Commander at Upper Macungie PD Initially developed in 1994 by the Iowa Department of Transportation in partnership with the Federal Highway Administrations and the Iowa Department of Public Safety, the system that would come to be known as TraCS (Traffic and Criminal Software) was originally conceived to address the need for automated management, sharing, and reporting of crash information in an effort to improve accuracy, timeliness, and data availability.
For the Upper Macungie PD, this has helped to cut administrative overhead in half. What the PA TraCS-CODY interfaces provide the department is an efficient approach that eliminates duplicate data entry for both officers and administrative staff. A true paperless system, data is literally entered once and flows through the entire crash reporting and citation issuing process to the district court and PennDOT, once validated and approved. For the Upper Macungie PD, this has manifested itself in cutting administrative overhead in half.
Since then, TraCS has evolved to become an integrated system for the collection, sharing, and electronic transfer of citation, crash, and other types of highway safety incident data. To date, over 13 states, including PA, have opted to use TraCS for electronic citation and crash reporting, and electronic submission to several state entities, state departments of transportation and the administrative court systems.
20 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
FEATURE ARTICLE BY PCPA STRATEGIC PARTNER CODY SYSTEMS Problem was, since its implementation in PA, police Problem was,who sincehad its an implementation PA, police departments RMS in placeinbut also wanted to departments who had an RMS in place but also wanted to take advantage of the traffic safety-specific functionality take advantage of the traffictosafety-specific of PA TraCS were forced duplicate workfunctionality by entering of PA TraCS were forced to duplicate work by entering incident data into both the PA TraCS system and their incident data into both the PA TraCS system and their local RMS independently. local RMS independently. The key was that these same departments invested time in The key was that these same departments invested in deploying and implementing PA TraCS and wantedtime to see deploying and implementing PA TraCS and wanted to see the return on investment without the burden of duplicate the return on they investment burdentoof duplicate entry. What neededwithout was an the interface facilitate a entry. What they needed was an interface to facilitate a one-time data entry between PA TraCS and their RMS one-time between TraCS and their system sodata theyentry could benefit PA from the breadth of RMS system so they could benefit from the breadth of functionality the PA TraCS system provides while at the functionality the PA TraCS the same time getting crash andsystem citationprovides data intowhile theiratRMS same time getting crash and citation data into their RMS system to leverage the data for other purposes. system to leverage the data for other purposes.
Chief Ken Truver, Castle Shannon Borough PD Chief Ken Truver, Castle Shannon Borough PD
“One of the selling points of CODY,” commented Chief Truver, “is their ability and willingness to “One of the sellingintegrate points of with CODY,” commented Chief Truver,already “is their multiple IT vendor products in ability place.”and willingness to integrate with multiple IT vendor products already in place.”
As proven experts in data conversion, migration, As proven experts in data conversion, migration,that PAinterfaces, and integration, this was a challenge interfaces, andSystems integration, wastoaaccept challenge that PA-on. based CODY wasthis eager and deliver based CODY Systems was eager to accept and deliver on.
In the first quarter of 2015, CODY Systems became one of In first quarter of 2015, Systems became thethe first public-safety RMSCODY software providers in one of the first public-safety RMS software providers in Pennsylvania to develop and deploy interfaces with PA Pennsylvania to develop and deploy interfaces with PA TraCS for citations and crash reporting. This new TraCS for citations and crash reporting. This new functionality allows agencies who have invested in and functionality allows agencies who have in andby used PA TraCS for years to enhance its invested functionality used PA TraCS for years to enhance its functionality providing a direct connection between PA TraCS andbyan providing a direct RMS connection agency’s CODY system.between PA TraCS and an agency’s CODY RMS system. Castle Shannon Borough Police Castle Shannon Borough Police Department in Allegheny County was Department in Allegheny the first department to go County live withwas the to goThe live with thisfirst newdepartment enhancement. this new enhancement. The Ken department’s Chief of Police, department’s Chief of Police, Ken Truver, attests to CODY’s expertise Truver, attests to CODY’s expertise in working with data and how this in working with and how this connection withdata PA TraCS connection with PA TraCS will allow his department to keep doing business as will allow hisofdepartment keep of doing business as usual. “One the sellingto points CODY,” commented usual. “One of the selling points of CODY,” commented Chief Truver, “is their ability and willingness to integrate Chief Truver, “is their ability and willingness to integrate with multiple IT vendor products already in place.” with multiple IT vendor products already in place.”
In fact, the PD recently replaced their legacy RMS with a In fact, the PDfrom recently replaced theirAccording legacy RMS with a new solution CODY Systems. to Chief new solution from to Chief Truver, one of the CODY driving Systems. factors inAccording that decision was that, Truver, one of the driving factors in that decision was that, “the legacy system in place was not meeting modern-day “the legacy system in place notTruver, meeting modern-day integration standards,” said was Chief “and after the integration standards,” Chief Truver, “and after legacy vendor refused said to integrate with certain key the legacy vendor refused integrate with certainfor key modules/systems, we to accelerated out search a new modules/systems, we accelerated out search for a new RMS system.” RMS system.” Now Castle Shannon PD enjoys a complete, unified Now Castle Shannon PD enjoys a complete, unified system -- one that provides an integrated RMS hub for system -one that provides an integrated RMS hubtofor data storage, integration, exchange, and retrieval reduce data storage,ofintegration, and retrieval to reduce duplication effort and exchange, eliminate time wasted searching duplication effort and eliminate time wasted searching and enteringofdata into multiple systems and databases. and entering data into multiple systems and databases. In addition to Upper Macungie PD and Castle Shannon In addition to Upper Macungie PD and Shannon PD, other CODY customer agencies in Castle PA have purchased PD, other CODY customer agencies in PA have this new interface, with many more on the way. purchased “Our this new has interface, more onboth the the way. “Our mission alwayswith beenmany to improve efficiency mission hasofalways been to improve both the across efficiency and safety law enforcement professionals the and safety of law enforcement professionals across the county, but we take particular pride in investing in county, but we that takeaffect particular pride in in investing in state,” developments departments our home developments that affect departments in our home state,” said Fran Heffner, President of CODY Systems. “The said Fran Heffner, President of CODY Systems. “The development of this connection with PA TraCS is just development of this connection with PA TraCS is just another example of this.” another example of this.”
To learn more about this project, please feel free to contact : To learn more about this project, please feel free to contact :
Detective Darren Simmers, Upper Macungie PD, dsimmers@uppermac-pd.org Detective Darren Simmers, Upper Macungie PD, dsimmers@uppermac-pd.org
www.pachiefs.org
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 21
LEADERSHIP INTEGRITY: HOW TO GET IT, HOW TO KEEP IT, AND WHY IT MATTERS By Brian D. Fitch, PhD, Lieutenant, Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff’s Department
T
here is simply no denying that good leadership begins with good character. The careerending decisions, bad behaviors, and lack of integrity demonstrated by many politicians, entertainers, athletes, and others in the public eye are almost beyond belief. Indeed, the leadership failures in the private and public sectors—including law enforcement—are, more often than not, failures of integrity. The ethical failures so common among today’s leaders seem to point not to a crisis of skill or ability, but to a crisis of character.1 Unfortunately, rather than rewarding leaders with strong character, followers are too often captivated by leaders with charisma. Yet, despite the importance that many followers place
on charisma, history has demonstrated repeatedly that charisma does not reflect the personal and professional integrity necessary for effective leadership. History is full of examples of leaders, who, despite their obvious charisma and political skill, failed in their roles because they lacked the character necessary to sustain the public trust. For example, former U.S. President Richard Nixon’s legacy was forever changed by the Watergate scandal and subsequent cover-up. Rather than being remembered for his foreign policy achievements, he is forever remembered for lying about his involvement with Watergate. The scandal so destroyed Nixon’s credibility as a leader that he lost
22 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
all influence, eventually forcing him to resign in disgrace. Indeed, the people of the United States have never looked at their government leaders in quite the same way again. Another U.S. president who suffered integrity issues was Bill Clinton— despite all his gifts and talents, questions about his integrity hounded him and undermined his leadership throughout most of his presidency. It is worth noting that character is different than charisma. Charisma is based on personality or image, while character represents a leader’s moral center. Character influences a leader’s goals, values, self-concept, work ethic, and code of behavior. Indeed, some scholars have argued that the study of ethics is the study of character itself and that, without character, there can be no ethics.2 This implies, among other things, that a leader can have a charismatic personality, but be devoid of character. In other words, a leader can be charming, personable, and dynamic, but hold core values based on egoism, power, and arrogance. Truly effective leaders, on the other hand, understand the relationship between good character and leadership effectiveness— especially the importance of integrity. INTEGRITY As far back 350 BCE, the Greek philosopher Aristotle wrote extensively about the importance of character.3 Aristotle identified a number of moral virtues, including courage, temperance, truthfulness, modesty, and patience, that he believed to be central to a well-lived life. He defined virtue not simply as an isolated act, but as a “habit” of acting well.4 Thus, by this understanding, for an action to be virtuous, a person must do it deliberately, know what he or she is doing, and do it because it is a noble action. The actions of a person who does the right thing for the wrong reasons would not be virtuous because he or she did not perform the act deliberately, did not know what he or she was doing, or failed to perform the act simply because it was the right thing to do.
www.pachiefs.org
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE A person does not need to be a leadership scholar to identify the virtues necessary for good leadership. At a minimum, good leaders must demonstrate honesty, fairness, consistency, humility, respect, loyalty, accountability, and courage. However, arguably, the single most important leadership virtue is integrity. While no leader can be truly effective without integrity, the precise meaning of the word is often misunderstood. Integrity is not the same thing as honesty, trustworthiness, or courage. Nor does it mean doing the right thing when nobody is watching, as is commonly believed. Rather it derives from the Latin word integri, meaning wholeness. Simply put, it refers to a “state of being whole or undiminished.”5 Leadership is the ability to influence, inspire, and motivate others.6 Integrity is vital to a leader’s ability to build and maintain credibility with followers. Without integrity, leaders lack the trust and respect necessary to influence others. For leaders to have integrity, their actions must match their words. Unfortunately, many leaders live a double life—behaving virtuously in their public life, but lacking virtue in their personal life. Living two separate lives based on two different value systems, as any follower can testify, is the very definition of hypocrisy. Truly great leaders acknowledge the importance of integrity by remaining true to their word and by behaving virtuously and ethically in both their personal and professional lives. Simply put, character is important in leadership. One primary quality that sets good leaders apart is their values. Leaders with integrity act in accordance with a set of guiding principles, or core values, that define who they are and how they behave. They do not say one thing and then do another. Their core values allow them to remain true to their word by demonstrating consistency between what they say and what they do. Their values serve as the guiding principles for their work ethic, treatment of others, and important decisions. Leaders with strong moral character are not swayed by power, rewards, or praise; rather, their www.pachiefs.org
choices and behaviors are guided by their character and core values.7
one thing but behave in a different way are seen as insincere and deceitful.
ROLE MODELING To be truly effective at influencing others, leaders must show the way. In other words, they must act as positive examples
Good leaders understand that it is human nature to model the attitudes and behaviors of others, especially those in leadership positions. Good leaders
Good leaders understand that it is human nature to model the attitudes and behaviors of others, especially those in leadership positions. Good leaders recognize that, if they expect followers to be positive and to work hard, they must demonstrate a positive attitude and exemplary work ethic. by modeling the kinds of attitudes and actions they hope to inspire in others, both on and off the job. Good leaders recognize the impact of their attitudes and actions on others. They understand how followers look to them for clues about how to behave and what is expected. Leaders demonstrate what is important by how they spend their time, by the priorities they set, by the questions they ask, by the ways they treat others, and by the behaviors they reward.8 When followers believe that their leader is credible, they feel loyal and committed to the organization and its purpose. On the other hand, when followers have little faith in the character or integrity of their leader, they feel disconnected and uncommitted. Effective role modeling requires trust. Trust is the result of character, not charisma, style, or image, and the trust necessary for effective leadership must be earned. Trust is awarded only to those leaders who have consistently demonstrated the integrity and character necessary to earn the respect of their followers. A leader’s behavior speaks louder than personality, charisma, or image. Charisma is helpful only to the extent that the leader connects it with integrity. On the other hand, character persists over time and situations because it is grounded in a set of core values that guide the leader’s behavior.9 People want to follow a leader who they can respect and admire. In contrast, leaders who say
recognize that, if they expect followers to be positive and to work hard, they must demonstrate a positive attitude and exemplary work ethic. If they believe in the importance of trust and teamwork, they must model trust and teamwork. When followers see a leader consistently behave in professional, ethical, and respectful ways long enough, it will eventually become hardwired into the followers’ everyday actions. While leadership can be a complex and difficult subject, one thing is sure— the most effective way to inspire excellence and loyalty is to act as a positive role model. FAILURES OF INTEGRITY Considering the importance of good character, why do so many leaders fail to demonstrate integrity? In other words, why do they say one thing, yet do another? Why do they continue to apply a double standard—one set of rules for followers, but a different set of rules for themselves? Why do they preach the importance of work ethic and attitude while acting in ways that are egotistical or self-serving? While the reasons can be as varied as the leaders themselves, one surprising finding is that, very often, the leader’s lack of integrity was never in doubt.10 In other words, some leaders fail to do the right thing not because they don’t understand what is expected, but because they don’t think the rules apply to them. CONTINUED ON PAGE 24u
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 23
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE It is not an exaggeration to say that leadership is not always easy. Many law enforcement leaders are forced to confront and resolve complex organizational and personnel issues on a daily basis. Indeed, the demands placed on law enforcement leaders are often very different from what is required of followers. And, while the demands on leaders can be significant, leadership also brings with it privileges that allow the leader to do things that others in the organization are not permitted to do. As a result, leaders sometimes see their behaviors as exempt from the normal requirements of morality and integrity. Ethical failures of leadership, however, are often more complicated and nuanced than simply believing that one is exempt from the normal rules. The unethical conduct and lack of integrity demonstrated by those in positions of leadership can be further divided into mistakes of content and mistakes of scope.11 Content refers to the kinds of actions that are ethically or morally permissible. For instance, a leader might believe that it is ethically permissible for him to lie to followers to encourage compliance. Scope, on the other hand, concerns which individuals are ethically required to follow the rules. Thus, while leaders may understand the importance of integrity, they may, nonetheless, succumb to the mistaken belief that because they have reached a position of influence, they are somehow above the rules. While the rules of honesty, integrity, and humility apply to followers, the leader is exempt. Because most leaders recognize the importance of integrity, they do not—and, in many cases, cannot—engage in immoral or unethical behavior unless they can somehow justify their actions. In other words, leaders must find ways to justify their actions that are outside the scope of what is morally or ethically permissible. It is worth noting, however, that justification is not the same thing as an excuse.12 When a leader’s behavior is excused, it means that, while the behavior is inappropriate, the individual is not held accountable because there were other factors that excused his or her misconduct. If, for example, the leader is unable to fulfill a commitment because others above him or her failed to honor the agreement, the leader is not liable because of factors beyond his or her control. On the other hand, the leader’s behavior is justified (but not excused) if the normal rules do not apply because of his or her role, responsibilities, or privileges. RATIONALIZING BAD BEHAVIOR Many of the excuses that leaders use to justify their bad behaviors or lack of integrity are closely tied to mistakes about the scope of ethical behavioral.13 To begin with, some leaders fail to demonstrate the integrity necessary for good leadership simply because they can. For example, a police chief may use the power of his or her office as a way of securing certain perks for no other reason than the simple fact that the position allows him or her to do so. In other circumstances, leaders may fail to act with integrity either because they do not fear the consequences or because they do not care about acting ethically. In still other cases, a leader may point to overly restrictive rules or policies to excuse
his or her misconduct or lack of integrity. The leader wanted to act with integrity, but the policy left him or her “no choice” but to break the rules. The same is true of leaders who claim to be “victims of circumstances” beyond their control. Again, the leader wanted to do the right thing, but because of events outside his or her control, the leader had no choice but to sacrifice his or her integrity. In other instances, a leader’s motives may be less suspect or less sinister, and the leader may excuse his or her lack of integrity or lapse in ethical behavior as necessary for the greater good of the organization.14 If, for example, a leader is committed to accomplishing certain organizational objectives for the good of the agency, it may be considered “necessary” to bend or, in certain cases, ignore the rules. If questioned about this lack of integrity or failure to follow the rules, the leader can justify his or her actions as necessary to get the job done, move the project forward, or accomplish the greater good. Regardless of the type of justification, the leader’s goal is the same in each of these situations: to find some moral rationalization to excuse a lack of integrity. It is worth noting that leaders can invoke excuses either prospectively (before the act) to avoid guilt or retrospectively (after the fact) to remove any regrets.15 In either case, the more frequently a leader makes excuses for his or her lack of integrity, the easier it becomes to find excuses for subsequent acts of unethical behavior. This is because the more frequently a leader offers an excuse for his or her bad behavior, the easier it becomes to propose similar excuses in the future. With enough time and practice, excuses can eventually become part of the ways leaders think about themselves, their duties, and the consequences of their actions—eventually allowing these types of leaders to engage in increasingly egregious acts of misconduct without the guilt or shame usually associated with wrongdoing. LEADING WITH INTEGRITY While lapses in judgment are understandable, a leader who constantly displays a lack of integrity is something altogether different. A leader who continuously fails to honor his or her word loses the ability to influence, inspire, and motivate others. Even more disturbing, however, is that when leaders learn to pay less attention to the morality of their actions, the ways they think about misconduct—that is, their attitudes, beliefs, and values—may begin to change as well. Leaders can begin routinely defining behaviors that were once seen as unethical or immoral as a necessary part of getting the job done. Moreover, once justifications become part of an agency’s dominant culture, the important role that integrity plays in the everyday conduct of officers throughout the organization can be undermined. Fortunately, by paying close attention to what they say and what they do, leaders can maintain their integrity and influence. To begin with, good leaders recognize the impact that their words and behaviors have on others. They recognize that the most important tools a leader has for influencing others are one’s
24 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
TECHNOLOGY UPDATE own attitudes and actions. Good leaders consciously create opportunities to walk their talk or practice what they preach. Equally important, however, is that good leaders recognize their own integrity as a potential blind spot—especially those at the top of the organization. For example, a study on the character strengths of leaders found that top-level leaders are often overconfident and overrate their integrity compared to the ratings of their direct reports, suggesting that many leaders may be out of touch with how they are perceived by others.16 In the end, leading with integrity requires consistency among one’s words and actions. Good leaders recognize that others are always watching; regardless of what a leader says or does, someone is always paying attention. And, while followers are always watching, they are especially sensitive to those times when their leaders behave badly or lack integrity. Good leaders recognize the impact of their behaviors on others and, therefore, are true to their word. They do not say one thing and then do another. They demonstrate consistency and predictability in all they say and all they do. Similarly, they do not hold followers accountable to one standard of behavior, while maintaining a different standard for themselves. Good leaders never ask from others what they are not willing to do themselves. By holding to these standards themselves, they inspire the trust and confidence necessary to consistently bring out the best in others.
Joseph L. Badaracco and Richard R. Ellworth, Leadership in Search of Integrity (Boston, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993). 10 Dean C. Ludwig and Clinton O. Longenecker, “The Bathsheba Syndrome: The Ethical Failure of Successful Leaders,” Journal of Business Ethics 12, no. 4 (1993): 265–273. 11 Terry L. Price, Understanding the Ethical Failures of Leadership (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 12 Terry L. Price, “Faultless Mistake of Fact: Justification or Excuse,” Criminal Justice Ethics 12, no. 2 (1993): 14–28. 13 John F. Veiga, Timothy D. Golden, and Kathleen Dechant, “Why Managers Bend Company Rules,” Academy of Management Perspectives 18, no. 2 (2004): 84–90. 14 Terry L. Price, “Explaining the Ethical Failures of Leadership,” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 21, no. 4 (2000): 177–184. 15 Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza, “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” American Sociological Review 22, no. 6 (1957): 664–670. 16 William A. Gentry, Kristen L. Cullen, and David G. Altman, The Irony of Integrity: A Study of the Character Strengths of Leaders (San Diego, CA: Center for Creative Leadership, 2012), http://www.ccl.org/Leadership/pdf/ research/ironyofintegrity.pdf (accessed November 25, 2014). 9
Reprinted with permission. Brian D. Fitch, “Leadership Integrity: How to Get It, How to Keep It, and Why It Matters,” The Police Chief 82 (January 2015): 22–25.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brian D. Fitch, PhD, is a lieutenant and a 32-year veteran of the Los Angeles County, California, Sheriff ’s Department. He holds faculty positions at Woodbury University and Southwestern University School of Law. Dr. Fitch teaches in the leadership development programs sponsored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles Fire Department. He can be reached for comments at bdfitch@lasd.org. NOTES: Y. Sankar, “Character Not Charisma Is the Critical Measure of Leadership Excellence,” The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 9, no. 4 (2003): 45–55. 2 Erich Fromm, Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (New York, NY: Fawcett, 1985). 3 Aristotle, The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, J. A. K. Thomson, Trans. (New York, NY: Penguin, 1976). (Original work published circa 350 BCE). 4 Ibid. 5 Wild Law in Practice, eds. Michelle Maloney and Peter Burdon (New York, NY: Rutledge, 2014), 200. 6 John C. Maxwell, The 5 Levels of Leadership: Proven Steps to Maximize Your Potential (New York, NY: Center Street, 2011). 7 Warren Bennis, Jagdish Parikh, and Ronnie Lessem, Beyond Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics, and Ecology (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 1994). 8 James Kouzes and Barry Posner, “Credible Leaders,” Executive Excellence 8, no. 4 (1991): 9–10. 1
www.pachiefs.org
PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015 | 25
IS YOUR INFORMATION UP-TO-DATE? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO VISIT THE PCPA WEBSITE AT WWW.PACHIEFS.ORG AND LOG IN AT THE TOP RIGHT CORNER USING YOUR EMAIL AND PASSWORD.
Logging in will allow you to gain access to members-only pages and information as well as the full membership directory. Here you can make changes to your contact information and department information. Increasingly, the PA Chiefs of Police Association uses electronic methods, such as a bi-weekly eNewsletter, to keep our membership up-to-date and informed. Please make sure your email address is current and correct so that you don’t miss out on pertinent information between magazines. Your accurate information will allow us to better serve you! Thank you!
26 | PA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION | BULLETIN | SPRING 2015
www.pachiefs.org
PENNSYLVANIA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
APPLICATION TYPE:
APPLY ONLINE!
oA ctive Membership $150 per year plus $100 Initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application) oA ffiliate Membership $150 per year plus $100 initiation Fee ($250 to accompany application)
3905 North Front Street | Harrisburg, PA 17110 | Tel: 717-236-1059 | Fax: 717-236-0226 | www.pachiefs.org ¨ CHECK HERE FOR A MAILED COPY OF THE BULLETIN...$25 PER YEAR Please type or print clearly.
APPLICANT INFORMATION
RECOMMENDING MEMBER
Full Name of Employer___________________________________
Please list a current member of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association who has recommended that you apply for membership. If the applicant holds a rank lower than Chief, your recommending member must be your Chief, Superintendent or Commissioner.
Office Address __________________________________________
Recommending Member Name and Title:
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Name__________________________________________________ Rank ___________________________ Date of Appt___________
______________________________________________________ County _____________________ Phone ____________________
Department Name and Phone Number: ______________________________________________________
Fax ___________________ Email ___________________________
APPLICANT DEPARTMENT INFORMATION
Are you a sworn police officer? Y or N
Provide the number of sworn police officers in your department
Full Time Police Officer in Above Department? Y or N
Full time ___________ Part time __________
MPOETC # ___________________________________________ If not applicable, please explain why MPOETC number is not present _ ______________________________________________________ Residence Address ______________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ County ____________________ Phone _____________________ Date of Birth _______________ Region _____________________ Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Record of the commission of a felony or misdemeanor? Y or N
If yes, explain on a separate sheet of paper and attach to application form. Signature of Applicant: ______________________________________________________
MAIL TOTAL FEE AND THIS FORM TO: PA Chiefs of Police Association 3905 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 For office use: Check Amount & No. ______________ Date __________________________
If industry, number of security officers under applicant’s command ___________ If other, state nature of business in relation to law enforcement ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________
MEMBERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS
Section 4. Active Membership. “Active” membership shall be open to the following: (a) All full-time sworn chiefs of police, superintendents, or commissioners of municipal police agencies in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have police powers and MPOETC Certification (b) All full-time sworn municipal police officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have police powers, MPOETC Certification and hold the rank of captain or above and persons who hold the rank of Captain or above that are members of the Pennsylvania State Police; (c) Special agents in charge, assistant special agents in charge, and resident agents of any law enforcement entity of the United States government if, at the time of application, such persons are headquartered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and; full-time persons with command-level responsibility in any law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provided that these individuals are not elected to their position by a popular vote of citizens Section 5. Affiliate Membership. “Affiliate” membership shall be open to those persons who, by occupation are Chiefs of Police who work part time, Police Officers In Charge of Police Departments, Directors of Police Agencies, and Ranking officers who have a supervisory role in a police department. This category also includes agency heads of Corporate Security and Police Academies . These individuals must share a mutuality of interests with the Association and its membership, enabling them access to information from the Association that is regularly provided to Active Members. Affiliate members may attend the Association’s Annual Meeting at the invitation of the Executive Board and under no circumstances shall such members have or exercise the privilege of voting, either by voice or ballot, on Association business. For the full by-laws regarding membership, please visit our website at www.pachiefs.org.
g Time 66% 66% DecreaseDecrease in Reporting Time in Repo y means means increased efficiency increased effici
“Since “Since we implemented we ourimplemented CODY System, we have effectively cut our our CODY System, we have effectively c officers’ officers’ reporting timereporting by almost two-thirds. Wetime have also found by almost two-thirds. We have also found better, better, more efficient more ways to complete efficient and document our ways job to complete and document our job performance performance through the CALEA accreditation through program. Great the thingCALEA is, accreditation program. Great t with with CODY Records, CODY we’ve actually Records, increased our officers’ we’ve efficiency inactually increased our officers’ efficien handling handling calls, both at thecalls, station and more both importantly, atinthe the field station and more importantly, in the fi through through CODY Express. CODY In fact, we noted Express. a 66% reduction in the In time fact, we noted a 66% reduction in th it takes it takes an officer to put an a simple officer complaint in to and that’s put huge. a simple complaint in and that’s huge
With With this 66% efficiency thisboost, 66% we wellefficiency exceeded my high expectaboost, we well exceeded my high exp tions. tions. This means less This time doing means paperwork, and less more time time for our doing paperwork, and more time f officers officers to be interacting to with be and serving interacting our citizens in the field.” with and serving our citizens in the fi Frank Williamson, Lower Allen Twp, PA Public Safety Director
Frank Williamson, Lower Allen Twp, PA Public Safety Dire
Data Driven.
info@codysystems.com info@codysystems.com www.codysystems.com
Real People. Real People. Real Technology. Real Technology. Real Solutions. Real Solutions. Data Driven.
www.codysystems.com