Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition - Local 5016

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #196

2012-02-10T23:40:00.002-05:00

In this issue:

I. A first for the Certification Course...and other training notes.
II. Is prone positioning really riskier for suspects? No, says new study
II. New expert report on excited delirium stresses 4-point protocol

I. A first for the Force Science Certification Course...and other training notes

Congratulations to the graduates of the most recent Force Science Certification Course! This particular class, hosted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is the first to be conducted exclusively for one North American agency. 53 RCMP members achieved their Certified Force Science Analyst status during the course as did seven invited guests of the RCMP from five neighboring agencies and organizations. Well done! [If you're interested in potentially having a Force Science Certification Course conducted exclusively for your agency, please drop a note totraining@forcescience.org.]

Quick seating update: One seat remains in the April 16-20 course being conducted in Alexandria and less than 10 remain in the course scheduled for October 22-26, 2012 in Cincinnati, OH. Additional seats are still available in the remaining 2012 courses. To see the current schedule,CLICK HERE.

II. Is prone positioning really riskier for suspects? No, says new study

An exaggeration of the sudden in-custody death problem is generating "persecution and prosecution" of LEOs and their agencies and is resulting in "reactionary changes in policy and procedure that may well be based in conjecture rather than fact," according to new findings by a Canadian research team.

In particular the study group challenges the widely held belief that simply placing a subject face-down in a prone position after a use of force creates a substantial threat to life. In fact, the only subject who died in more than 1,200 consecutive force encounters that the team meticulously analyzed was lying on his side, a position commonly advocated for its presumed safety.

"[S]udden in-custody death," the study concludes, "has more to do with the features of the individual" than with his or her positioning. Even among suspects supposed to be at high risk--the drug and alcohol intoxicated and those with mental illness--there appears to be no scientific basis for believing that prone positioning is as dangerous as its reputation suggests, the researchers report.

"The true understanding of use-of-force events will come from comprehensive, scientific protocols such as this one, which was carried out under the rigorous conditions of a scientific medical study and supervised by the Institutional Review Boards of the universities involved," Hall told Force Science News.

"Rather than focusing solely on 1 type of force or another, the goal of the study is to evaluate alluse-of-force events to better understand which subjects and situations may represent particular risk."

The investigative team was headed by Dr. Christine Hall, an emergency room physician and a medical faculty member at the University of British Columbia and the University of Calgary. An internationally recognized expert on excited delirium syndrome, Hall is also on the faculty for the certification course in Force Science Analysis conducted by the Force Science Institute.

ORIGIN OF CONTROVERSY. Concern about the relationship between suspect positioning and death first arose in the early 1980s after a medical examiner in Washington State analyzed 3 cases in which prisoners were transported while hogtied and concluded that such positioning was associated with sudden in-custody death because of the suffocating effect on breathing and the inability of the subjects to shift to a different position.

More articles warning about "positional asphyxia" and "restraint asphyxia" followed in medical journals and law enforcement publications and positioning became a widespread training and policy issue.

Hall points out that the medical examiner's original work on the effects of positioning was shown to be "fraught with methodological errors," and that other, more sophisticated studies disputed alleged adverse findings. Nonetheless, the debate about suspect positioning "gradually translated into the unsupported idea that any and all prone positioning for any length of time is immediately dangerous."

Moreover, prone positioning came to be regarded "without scientific evidence" as "particularly dangerous" to restrained suspects who are "under the influence of intoxicants such as alcohol and/or stimulants, experiencing mental distress, or in the agitated, incoherent state known as excited delirium," as well as those who have been Tasered.

"When a cause of death cannot be found otherwise, positional asphyxia is often suggested to have [played] a role...," the researchers note.

As the bias against any form of prone positioning intensified, Hall perceived that what was lacking in the debate was a broad-based, detailed examination of real-life incidents to determine exactly what variety of physical positions restrained suspects end up in after force encounters with police and what association there might be between each of these positions and ultimate unfavorable outcomes.

FORCE POOL. With the cooperation of police executives in an unnamed Canadian city with more than 1,100,000 population and nearly 2,000 street cops, Hall and her team collected a vast statistical database across a recent 3-year period. (The city is anonymous in their report to protect privacy, an ethical consideration required by the universities involved.)

Without officers being aware of the researchers' interests, certain study-related entries were embedded in the department's standard electronic form that must be filled out after any use of force above soft-hand control. Among other things, officers had to specify the apparent cognitive condition of the subjects they encountered and their "final resting position...once physical control had been achieved...and while awaiting further disposition": i.e., either prone (face-down) or not prone (face-up, side-lying, sitting, kneeling, or standing). The department involved does not specify a favored position in policy, so there was no motive for officers to shade their responses, Hall points out.

Forms involving suspects at least 18 years old and all "general police duty" uses of force beyond merely "a bent wrist or straightened elbow to gain compliance" were then parsed for particulars. "We did not pick and choose between subjects, events, or outcomes," Hall says, "but included all uses of force over 3 consecutive years."

The pool the researchers analyzed ended up being 88% males. Some 40% appeared drunk at the time of police contact; 10% were judged to be drug-intoxicated; 9% seemed mentally distressed; and 28% demonstrated some combinations of those states.

In all, out of 1,566,908 interactions between police and subjects across the study's 3 years, force was used in only 1,269 contacts."[C]ontrary to current suggestion that police use of force is rampant, 99.92% of all police-public interactions [recorded by the agency studied] did not involve police use of force," the researchers report. "This finding did not vary across 3 years of study."

RISK OUTCOMES. In terms of positioning, nearly 43% of subjects ended up prone in their final resting pose after their force encounter. About 57% were not prone. All were handcuffed, but none was leg- or ankle-restrained or hogtied. "[E]ven though prone positioning was very common," the researchers noted, none of the "hundreds of subjects in the prone position" died.

Indeed, with only 1 death [a not-prone subject] discovered in the entire study, statistically "there was no [significant] difference in the death rate between prone and not-prone positions."

Suspects with drug/alcohol intoxication, mental illness, or some combination thereof were essentially evenly distributed between prone and not-prone positioning. Despite the prevalent suspicion that such individuals are at greater risk, "no subject died in the prone position even with a large number of abnormally behaving individuals" in the force pool.

Of the large number of subjects against whom a Taser was used, about 29% ended up prone, 25% not-prone. Again, positioning did not determine how these suspects fared, the researchers emphasize.

The 1 subject who died during the study "was an individual who was assessed by officers on the scene as having both drug intoxication and mental distress, had undergone a single contact stun exposure with a CEW, and had many abnormal characteristics before and after police involvement at the scene," the study report says. "This subject was placed in the side-lying position at the conclusion of the use-of-force event, prior to cardiopulmonary collapse.

"[He] displayed multiple features of excited delirium. The details...are strikingly similar to other in-custody death occurrences both in and out of the prone position and...with and without CEW application."

BOTTOM LINE. Hall points out that this is believed to be the "only study to document the incidence of sudden in-custody death across all use-of-force modalities" in a major urban police agency.

Besides dispelling some persistent myths about the risk of prone positioning, she feels the findings are important for confirming the overall rarity of sudden in-custody death. It's "profoundly low in the real-world environment of police use of force which includes many abnormally behaving individuals in varied circumstances."

Media publicity of in-custody deaths without an appreciation of their context "results in the presumption of a falsely elevated prevalence" of these occurrences, she writes in the study report. "This, in turn, generates persecution and prosecution of individual police officers and police agencies at great personal and societal cost, fear and mistrust for the police in the public eye, and results in reactionary changes in policy and procedure that may well be based in conjecture rather than fact."

RECOMMENDATIONS. Hall acknowledges that all research studies have some limitations. Because hogtying was not used in any of the encounters her team studied, the researchers could not assess its specific danger to prone subjects, if any, for example. Also, while they were aware that "weight force" was very likely applied to the back of some of the proned subjects, they were not able to determine how often that occurred. That variable will be evaluated in the future.

"[R]egardless of the low incidence of sudden in-custody death, further study is required," the team reports. Hall's objective is to "determine what, if anything, can predict sudden in-custody death in order to improve the outcomes for people undergoing police use of force."

Meanwhile, the researchers caution that suspects restrained in a prone position--any position, actually--should not be abandoned "for protracted lengths of time." Suspects always bear close observation.

"[T]he best way for non-medically trained pre-hospital personnel to monitor the [well-being] status of any human being is through observation of the face...," the researchers suggest. Therefore it is "advisable to assign 1 officer to monitor the restrained subject's face for signs of distress/difficulty."

This study was funded by the Canadian Police Research Center. The results appear in the latest issue the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, under the title "Incidence and outcome of prone positioning following police use of force in a prospective, consecutive cohort of subjects." Click here for a brief abstract that's is available free of charge. The full 7-page study paper can be ordered for a fee at that site.

[Our thanks to Chris Lawrence of the Ontario Police College and a member of the Force Science certification faculty for alerting us to the publication of this study.]

III. New expert report on excited delirium stresses 4-point protocol

An international panel of experts, including 2 MDs involved in Force Science training, has recommended a 4-step protocol as offering the best hope for a successful outcome when dealing with suspected cases of excited delirium. Already in use by some progressive departments in the US and Canada, the endorsed procedures should serve as "models for other communities," the panel says in a pending report.

The core elements, along with supportive descriptive information, have been incorporated in a quick-reference card for first responders that is reproduced in the report:

Clearly identify ExDS [excited delirium syndrome] cases, based on common signs and symptoms;
Rapidly control the afflicted individual with adequate law enforcement personnel;
Sedate the subject (by EMS personnel) immediately after police control is established;
Transport him or her to a medical facility for follow-up treatment and evaluation, with documentation of the case.

"[T]hese protocols have helped save lives," one panel member was quoted.

The 34-member panel was assembled by the Weapons and Protective Systems Technologies Center at Pennsylvania State University under a National Institute of Justice directive to evaluate existing research about excited delirium and its role in in-custody deaths, with the goal of providing guidelines for law enforcement and corrections personnel.

Among other leading researchers and practical authorities on the subject, the panel includes Dr. Christine Hall of the University of Vancouver and the Vancouver Island Health Authority and Dr. Matthew Sztajnkrycer of the Mayo Clinic, both faculty members of the certification course in Force Science Analysis.

At this writing, the 50-page report, "Special Panel Review of Excited Delirium," is under peer review at NIJ and an official publication date has not been set. Once reviewed, the NIJ will determine how to best disseminate the document. Meanwhile, some panelists have published a synopsis of the group's findings, available for a fee. Click here for details.

After a thorough review of existing evidence, the panelists agreed on a number of critical points:

• Although it may not be identified consistently in medical literature as excited delirium, "the syndrome is indeed real" and, in Hall's words, is not something "made up by cops" to explain force encounters gone bad. The National Assn. of Medical Examiners and the American College of Emergency Physicians recognize it as an identifiable condition.

• The ExDS "clinically recognizable features" include "extreme mental and physiological excitement, extreme agitation, hyperthermia, hostility, exceptional strength, and endurance without apparent fatigue." The syndrome has been identified by researchers as "associated with sudden death," although a majority of persons experiencing it are believed to survive.

• "Prior chronic drug use," particularly of cocaine and methamphetamine, may damage the heart to the extent that it becomes "predisposed" to failure under the stress of struggling and being restrained.

• Because ExDS is "a medical problem masquerading as a police call," as 1 panelist put it, the initial response needs to be "a multi-disciplinary effort," involving dispatchers, officers, and EMS personnel. Dispatchers need to be trained to ask pertinent questions and officers need to know signs and symptoms to distinguish an ExDS encounter from "rowdy bar behavior" and get medical aid on the scene promptly.

• While verbal techniques may be attempted, "rapid and overwhelming" physical tactics are likely to be necessary to gain control of ExDS subjects. As 1 police training video notes, the goal "is to restrain the subject with the minimum amount of fight" because "the more they fight, the greater the chance for a negative outcome." A conducted energy device (Taser) can be "a fast way to restrain."

In conclusion, the report states that the 4-step protocol "will likely continue" to save lives. The panel expects that this will be confirmed as agencies collect data on these incidents, including "saves" and not just those that end in in-custody death.

Whether these recommendations "will reduce lawsuits is uncertain," the report notes, "but they will likely help agencies defend against them, especially if they adhere to a policy of copious documentation--both at the scene and at autopsy."

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #195

2012-01-30T01:39:00.003-05:00

CLICK HERE for the 2012 Force Science Certification Course schedule.
If you need information on discounted hotel rates for students in order to complete your departmental training request or if you have questions about the course, please e-mail us attraining@forcescience.org.

In this issue:

I. New study confirms health/safety dangers of LEOs' poor sleep
II. AELE: Beware the legal risks of spreading gory scene photos
III. %$!# the pain: Latest research on the benefit of foul language
IV. Should civilian shooters get the same treatment as OIS survivors?

I. New study confirms health/safety dangers of LEOs' poor sleep

Union reps, trainers, and human behavior experts who have been campaigning to get police fatigue recognized and addressed as a critical professional and public safety problem have been given an armory of ammunition for their battle by a comprehensive and complex new study of cops and sleeping disorders.

A team of 13 sleep specialists, headed by Dr. Shantha Rajaratnam of the Sleep Medicine Division at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, surveyed a broad range of nearly 5,000 U.S. and Canadian LEOs through online questionnaires or on-site screening and found that:

• 46% had "nodded off or fallen asleep while driving";

• over one-quarter reported that this occurs 1 to 2 times a month and more than 6% said they typically fell asleep at the wheel at least 1 to 2 times a week;

• over 40% tested positive for 1 or more sleep disorders, most commonly (33.6%) obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a potentially fatal affliction that causes the airway to close, leaving the victim choking or gasping for breath.

• by 1 screening method, more than half (53.9%) of officers working nights tested positive for shift-work disorder, which involves excessive wake-time sleepiness, moderate to severe insomnia, and repeated awakening during a sleep cycle.

• In most cases, the disorders, which also included restless-legs syndrome and narcolepsy with sudden muscular weakness, had not been previously diagnosed nor treated.

During 2 years of monthly follow-up monitoring, those identified with specific sleep disorders revealed significantly higher incidences of:

• important administrative errors;

• falling asleep while driving and during meetings;

• fatigue-related safety errors or violations;

• uncontrolled anger toward suspects or citizens while on the job;

• citizen complaints;

• frequent absenteeism; and

• mental and physical health problems, including depression, occupational burnout or emotional exhaustion, and increased likelihood of cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal problems, anxiety disorder, and diabetes.

"Two hundred eighty-seven participants reported being in a motor vehicle crash during the follow-up period," the researchers report. Not surprisingly, crashes occurred more often among those who reported falling asleep while driving.

In some categories, cops with sleep disorders were more than twice as likely to experience negative consequences than sounder sleepers.

"We have great treatments for sleep disorders, we have great screening tools, the technology is there," said Dr. Michael Grandner of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Sleep and Circadian Neurobiology in an interview about the study by Reuters Health news service.

Sleep apnea, for example, can be treated with a breathing machine and mask used while sleeping, and insomnia, another common police complaint, often responds successfully to behavioral therapy.

But in law enforcement, as in much of society generally, there's a "cultural attitude [that] sleep is for the weak," Grandner observed. "When you're in an environment where signs of weakness are particularly discouraged, there may be a social pressure to not address sleep problems or to shrug them off."

Which, he pointed out, leaves not only sleep-impaired officers endangered but the public as a whole at risk because of the adverse effect of fatigue on tired cops' decision-making and performance.

A brief abstract of the study is available free at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/306/23/2567.abstract. The full 12-page report, "Sleep Disorders, Health, and Safety in Police Officers," which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA), can be ordered for a fee at that site.

Of the officers participating, most were male and white, averaging about 39 years of age and nearly 13 years on the job. More than two-thirds were patrol officers who worked predominately for municipal, county, and state agencies. About 25% were assigned to rotating shifts, with nearly 60% working at least some nights. Nearly a third (31.3%) worked shifts of 11-13 hours and a noticeable minority (14.5%) put in 14-16 hours per tour. Second jobs were reported by roughly 1 in 5.

The vast majority (94%) thought themselves to be in good to excellent health, although a great many (79%) were overweight. "Given that obesity is a major risk factor for OSA...the high prevalence" of that disorder among the study pool "could be anticipated," the researchers noted.

Interestingly, a block of study participants came from the Massachusetts State Police, and those subjects showed a lower prevalence of OSA and a lower mean body mass index when compared to another bloc of officers from a major U.S. metropolitan PD.

Among factors that might have caused the differences, the researchers suggest, are a departmental fitness program by the State Police that "provides fitness facilities and the opportunity to exercise at all stations during paid work time," plus an emphasis on regular physical fitness tests as a part of that agency's job performance standards and bonus system.

"It's an impressive program and perhaps a model for the nation," one of the researchers told a reporter.

In commenting on its findings, the study team offers several important observations:

• Almost 90% of North American cops "regard drowsy driving to be as dangerous as drunk driving" and vehicle accidents are known to constitute a significant percentage of line-of-duty deaths. Yet excessive sleepiness at the wheel is "common in police officers." The risk of a vehicle crash is heightened 2- to 3-fold among individuals with OSA, the most common sleep disorder discovered in the study.

• The increased frequency of "actual and near-miss administrative errors and safety violations" among officers with sleep disorders should be considered in this context: "The loss of even 2 hours of nightly sleep for 1 week is associated with decrements in performance comparable with those seen after 24 hours of continuous wakefulness.... [L]ong work hours are also associated with decrements in performance and attentional failures."

• Uncontrolled anger toward suspects and citizens, as well as increased complaints reported against officers with sleep disorders, may be tied to changes in the brain's amygdala that make sleep-deprived individuals less able to "appropriately govern behavioral responses to negative emotional stimuli."

• Otherwise healthy individuals "scheduled to eat and sleep out of phase from their habitual times," such as rotating shift workers, tend to experience higher rates of "impaired cardiometabolic responses," which may "at least in part explain the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes" among shift-work officers.

• Depression associated with OSA and insomnia may be a factor of "significant implications" in the risk of suicide among LEOs.

More research is needed to explore the subtleties of sleep deprivation in public safety workers, the study concludes. But a pertinent question right now, notes a JAMA editorial, is "what police departments will do with [the] new information" this study already conveys.

Suggestions include on-the-job screening for sleep disorders, restraints on overtime and extra-long shifts, and mandates to assure that officers with sleep problems get help. Officers would have "a much better time doing their job if we were able to take better care of them," says Dr. Grandner.

[Sound of applause rising from the ranks!]

II. AELE: Beware the legal risks of spreading gory scene photos

You wouldn't do it, but let's say an officer of your acquaintance uses his personal cellphone camera to record the gore of a fatal traffic smashup and emails the bloody photos to some buddies and from there they eventually get posted forever on the internet. Any legal problems with that?

It's a good question, given the growing profusion of electronic recording devices--and their occasional irresponsible use--among LEOs. A new report by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, the leading source of legal information and training for officers and their agencies, provides the cautionary answer.

You can read AELE's full documentation of the issue free of charge at http://www.aele.org/law/2012all02/2012-02MLJ501.pdf. The article highlights, among other things, officers' liability for privacy violations under such circumstances, administrators' obligation to prevent unauthorized file sharing, and questions about whether officers should be allowed to wear personally owned mini-cams.

Particular attention is focused on a precedent-setting civil suit brought by survivors of an 18-year-old female who was decapitated when her car crashed into a West Coast tollbooth at 100 mph. She was so gruesomely mangled that the coroner wouldn't permit her parents to see her body.

"For pure shock value," 2 officers emailed 9 "grotesque images" from the scene to friends and family members as a Halloween prank, The photos were passed around and ultimately spread across the internet "like a malignant firestorm, popping up in thousands of websites," such aswww.bestgore.com.

An appellate court panel ruled that officers involved could be sued by family members for inflicting "extreme emotional distress" by violating the "common law privacy right in the death images of a decedent." AELE notes, "Liability can attach even if [disturbing] photographs or videos are viewed only by curious coworkers." Links are provided in the article to various pertinent cases.

The report also discusses wearable video cameras and provides reasons pro and con for departments permitting such devices that are personally owned vs. those that are department-issued.

Potential language for policies pertaining to mini-cams and audio-recording devices, both personal and professional, is also discussed.

In addition to its access through AELE, the article will also appear in the Law Enforcement Executive Forum for March, 2012, and in the IACP Net database.

Note: Visit the AELE.org website to register for free monthly email journals on law enforcement and corrections legal issues and for detailed information on the organization's popular training seminars.

III. %$!# the pain: Latest research on the benefit of foul language

Swearing can help you better tolerate physical pain, provided you don't do much of it in your ordinary daily life.

That conclusion comes from a British research team reporting its latest findings on the analgesic benefit of cussing in The Journal of Pain, the official publication of the American Pain Society.

Back in 2009, Dr. Richard Stephens of the psychology school at Keele University in England experimented with volunteers whose hands were submerged in ice-cold water. He found that those who swore aloud could tolerate the painful discomfort longer than those who spoke "neutral" words.

Now with Claudia Umland he has repeated and refined that research. This time they had 71 volunteers, ranging in age from 18 to 46, fill out questionnaires on how frequently they swear in everyday life before being put through the icy-water test.

Results: Nearly 75% of participants were able to keep their hands in the water longer if they repeated a swear word. However, people who do not swear much during a typical day (not at all or "just a few times") were able to endure the water challenge for twice as long when they repeated swear words than when they shouted out neutral words. Yet those who swear frequently (up to 60 times) every day "derived no greater benefit from swearing" during the test.

"The higher was the daily swearing frequency, the less was the benefit for pain tolerance when swearing," the researchers report. "Our hypothesis is that by swearing, the speaker experiences an emotional response due to breaking a taboo, and the emotional response is sufficient to set off...an adrenaline surge...and increased pain tolerance.... Swearing seems to activate deeper parts of the brain more associated with emotions" than normal speech.

But habitual cursing tends to blunt and neutralize the pain-easing effect. Frequent swearers simply don't feel the same emotional response from cussing. "If you swear too often in everyday situations, the power of swearing won't be there when you really need it," Stephens explains. For infrequent cursers, however, "swearing can be an effective and readily available short-term pain reliever if you are in a situation where there is no access to medical care or painkillers."

Stephens and Umland offer no "recommended daily swearing allowance" and say it "remains unclear" whether certain swear words are more effective pain-relievers than others. "We are just scratching the surface" about the effects of swearing, Stephens says.

IV. Should civilian shooters get the same treatment as OIS survivors?

Ray Meyer, a retired sergeant of the California Highway Patrol, emailed this note to Force Science News:

Don't jump to conclusions on what I believe, but here's a question. We always treat the officer involved in an OIS as if it's a good shooting. Assume a citizen involved in a shooting has a concealed firearms carry permit or was acting in self-defense on his own property and based on his initial statement and initial review of the evidence the shooting appears justified.

What would you do if the citizen says he'll give you his firearm when he gets another one on and he tells you he will provide a full statement after he gets 2 sleep cycles and has his attorney present?

Do you give him a ride home to change clothes before taking him to the station for questioning and/or letting the press see him? Whatever you do for an OIS, would you do the same for a legally armed citizen? Is a team like an OIS team assigned, or are the on-call homicide detective and the standard CSI crew used? Should we care when a citizen with a concealed firearm carry permit is involved in a self-defense or threat-to-life shooting?

Retired after 32 years in law enforcement, I am authorized to carry a concealed firearm and I have a non-resident permit from the state where my daughter's family lives. So I'm curious about how I will be treated.

Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, offers this response:

A legally armed civilian and a sworn peace officer are not comparable in the context of a shooting situation.

An officer is acting under the color of law and is generally performing his assigned role as society's representative when a shooting occurs and will likely continue in that role in some format after the shooting - subsequently the replacement of a professional instrument that is a required tool of the job. Further, as part of his selection process, he has been assessed on the basis of background checks, mental health and fitness evaluations, and training. His job performance is supervised and evaluated. He has a track record that is known to his department. He operates under a special duty and special regulations.

A civilian or retired law enforcement officer, even if legally armed, is likely not acting under color of law and may be an unknown entity to the investigating agency. In both cases, the shooting must be thoroughly and fairly investigated. But where an on duty officer is involved, a more specialized investigation is likely to be appropriate.

Because of the probability that it will be involved in a civil lawsuit, the department has a particular interest in the nature of an OIS investigation, apart from concerns about criminal violations. There may be Garrity issues, union and policy matters, media and community perceptions, and training considerations that don't apply to civilian actors.

Are officers really treated with the special sensitivity that Sgt. Meyer suggests?

They should be, because of their special status. But unfortunately, they still are not in many jurisdictions, given the same level of consideration of a citizen. To get rest, shower, change clothing and legal consultation prior to giving a statement, for example, all a civilian needs to do is invoke his Miranda rights. The citizen, if they choose, could come back sometime later with their attorney and give a formal statement. For officers on many agencies who feel they are trapped in a pressurized and coercive environment after a shooting, that would be a procedural improvement!

NCPERS News Clips

2012-01-30T01:36:00.000-05:00

NCPERS News Clips

January 10, 2012

News Clips for January 10, 2012

· Why Public Pensions Are So Rich
Opinion: Shifting government workers to 401(k)-style plans would offer greater transparency and keep benefits in line with the private economy.

· Pension Reform III: Chapter 176
MA: On November 18, 2011 Governor Deval Patrick signed "Pension Reform III" into law, as Chapter 176, Acts of 2011

· Quinn signs public pension overhaul
Sweeping reforms are aimed at curbing public pension abuses by union officials revealed by a Tribune/WGN-TV investigation

· Christie calls on Democratic legislators to reduce public employee sick pay and vacation benefits
With five days left for the Democratic-controlled Legislature to change the way sick and vacation benefits are provided to public workers, Gov. Chris Christie Wednesday visited the New Brunswick home of Frank and Joan Deiner to discuss the impact what the governor describes as his "Zero Means Zero" proposal would have in delivering property tax relief to New Jerseyans.

· ACLU Sues to Stop Michigan Law That Ends Public Employer Same-Sex Partner Benefits
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of four Michigan public employees and their partners, sued Michigan Gov. Richard Snyder (R) today to stop enforcement of the state's new law that prohibits some public entities from offering health coverage to their employees' domestic partners

· State unions sue over 2% healthcare cost hike
A coalition of unions that say they represent virtually every state employee in New York is suing the Cuomo administration over its demand that retired members pay 2 percent more into their health insurance plans.

· Barker: No need to reform public pension system for teachers
The premise of the opinion piece by Crosse is that the Dec. 7 column by Timm Herdt ("Glitzy pensions? Not for teachers") did not "address the big picture."

· Kansas lawmakers face big issues, but no deficit
For the first time in nearly five years, lawmakers won't face a gaping hole in the state budget when they return to the Kansas Statehouse on Monday.

· Will Public Pensions Run Out of Money?
Combined with employee and employer contributions, and considering the many changes that have been made to benefit levels in recent years, assertions of widespread pending pension fund insolvencies are simply unfounded.

· Hatch Releases Report Detailing Threat of $4.4 Trillion Public Pension Debt
U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today released a comprehensive report , State and Local Government Defined Benefit Pension Plans: The Pension Debt Crisis that Threatens America, outlining the financial risks of the nation's $4.4 trillion public pension debt and its negative impact on the American economy.

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: 1-877-202-5706 Fax: 202-624-1439

Our role in the County Executive Search

2012-01-30T01:25:00.003-05:00

As many members are aware the current County Executive Tony Griffin is getting ready to retire this spring. The county Board of Supervisors has already begun the search and has solicited information from many of the stakeholders involved in the process.

A few weeks ago the public safety unions sat down with the Executive Recruitment firm that has been hired by the County to develop a list of potential candidates for County Executive. We provided our expectations of a County Executive as well as our friends in the Police, Fire and Public Employee groups. While the relationship with the County Executive has been interesting at time due to the recent down turn in the economy, Tony Griffin has worked to ensure that our agency has not suffered an loss of jobs through RIFs. Most importantly, he is supportive of the County's Civil Service system and working with employee groups even though Virginia Law is less than helpful or protective or worker's rights and job protections.

We are happy that our consistent work and lobbying to the Board of Supervisors has allowed us the opportunity to take part in such meetings and allow for our input into the search to ensure that we continue to have a County Executive that will not view working with employee groups in a negative light.

Off-Duty Officers and Firearms

2012-01-30T01:17:00.002-05:00

This article was sent to us from the International is a good read in reference to Firearms and being Off-Duty. Remember, at the range we are constantly told that we are more likely to be involved in a deadly force situation off-duty. It also has a section about H.R. 218 which is the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004.

By MICHAEL J. BULZOMI, J.D.

People generally recognize law enforcement officers by their marked cruisers and uniforms, which include the display of symbols of authority—a badge and a gun. The public expects officers to be comfortable carrying a sidearm and to exercise precision and sound judgment when using it. officers are responsible for ensuring the safety and protection of citizens and, thus, expected to provide a calming presence. This is true when they are on duty, but does this extend to off-duty hours when there are no outward signs of authority?

The U.S. Congress has determined that in a post-9/11 world, the public is better served when off-duty officers are in a position to effectively respond in the face of a threat. To this end, the Law Enforcement officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA) allows officers to carry concealed weapons not only in their jurisdictions but in all 50 states, and the territories of the United States, provided certain conditions are met.1 This article will explore LEOSA, address federal statutory limitations regarding firearms possession, and summarize a short legal history of the Second Amendment concerning the right to bear arms.2

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratifi ed on December 15, 1791. It reads, "(a) well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."3 History shows, however, that this simple amendment is anything but. Over the years, much debate has centered on whether the right referred to in the Second Amendment is an individual or a state right.4

In 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court offered some insight as to the context of the Second Amendment in deciding United States v. Miller.5 The case involved the interstate transportation of an unregistered shortbarreled shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.6 The Court decided that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of militia forces."7 The Court further stated that only weapons with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or effi ciency of a well regulated militia" would come under the Second Amendment defi nition of arms.8 Explaining that the militia meant "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," the Court advised that these men would commonly provide their own customary arms when called to service.9 The Court, thus, upheld the ban of weapons having no connection to the militia or to the common defense.

Special Agent Bulzomi is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.
From 1939 until recently, the Supreme Court steered clear of much of the debate regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. In 2008, the Court offered guidance as to the meaning of the Second Amendment in Heller v. District of Columbia.10 The Supreme Court held that the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and operable firearms in the home was unconstitutional. However, the Court did note that the Second Amendment does not allow an unfettered right to possess all kinds of firearms or permit all persons to possess them.

Heller, a special police officer in the District of Columbia, was denied a license to register a handgun for self-protection in his home even though he possessed one for his job. Citing the Second Amendment, Heller filed suit in federal district court challenging the city's gun laws. This challenge was rejected and Heller appealed. The D.C. Circuit Court reversed the district court's decision, holding that an individual has a right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms and that the city's gun laws infringed upon that right. The U.S. Supreme Court affi rmed the decision and discussed the extent of the right to bear arms.

The Court declared that an "inherent right to self-defense" is central to the Second Amendment and that a total ban on an entire class of firearms essentially serving as Americans' fi rst choice for self-defense of "the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" is an impermissible infringement upon one's right to keep and bear arms.11 The Court clarifi ed, however, that this right is not absolute. Further, the Court provided a nonexhaustive list of "presumptively lawful regulatory measures," including restricting felons and mentally ill persons from possessing firearms, restricting the carrying of firearms into schools and government buildings, and imposing conditions or qualifi cations concerning the sale of commercial firearms.12 The Court concluded by ordering the District of Columbia to allow Heller to register his handgun and to issue him a license to carry it in his home.

As the District of Columbia is a federal enclave and not a state, the decision only impacts the federal government. However, this past term in McDonald v. City of Chicago,13 the Supreme Court addressed the role of the Second Amendment with respect to state gun control.

In McDonald, the ban on handguns by the city of Chicago and one of its suburbs, the Village of Oak Park, Illinois, was challenged as violating the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs contended that the Court's decision in Heller14 should be applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause—interpreted by the Supreme Court as allowing the Court to incorporate provisions of the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states. According to the Court, the issue is "whether the particular Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice"15 or, in other words, "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."16 The Court stated that its decision in Heller17 was clear on this point.

Self-defense is a basic right recognized by various legal systems throughout the ages. More important, individual self-defense is a fundamental right from an American perspective, deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. As such, it is a "central component" to the Second Amendment right to bear arms to include the protection of one's home, self, family, and property, a right protected from infringement by the federal government, as well as from the states. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Today, not only police officers but virtually all Americans may possess a handgun for home protection. As noted in Heller,18 this may be limited as a result of reasonable restrictions, such as mental instability and felony convictions. In addition, local and state restrictions concerning the storage and number of handguns still may be lawful. However, any restrictions that appear so restrictive as to circumvent this individual right to bear arms likely will be deemed unconstitutional.

FEDERAL STATUTES

In 1968, Congress enacted the Federal Gun Control Act,19 prohibiting convicted felons from possessing a firearm. Since the passage of this act, Congress has enacted additional pieces of legislation to further restrict firearm possession. Two of these acts in particular—the Lautenberg Amendment20 and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—could affect law enforcement officers and their employers.21

The Lautenberg Amendment

Enacted in 1996, the Lautenberg Amendment creates a prohibited-possessor status for persons convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.22 There is a statutory stipulation that the convicted individual had legal counsel or knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived it. If the conviction is set aside, it does not automatically mean that the prohibited-possessor status also is set aside. If the judge's order contains restrictions on firearms possession, the prohibited-possessor status continues.23 The act permits an individual who is a prohibited possessor to petition to the U.S. attorney general for relief. If the relief is denied, the act allows for judicial review of the denial.24

In United States v. Hayes,25 the Supreme Court held that the statutory predicate requiring a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" does not have to include a crime establishing a specifi ed domestic relationship.26 In other words, the statutory predicate is satisfi ed as long as it involves a misdemeanor crime of violence and the victim is a person who has a qualifying domestic relationship. To require the predicate offense to be a crime that specifi cally included the domestic relationship as an element to the underlying crime would have limited the reach of the statute.

In Hayes, police officers responded to a 911 call of domestic violence. They arrived at the home of Ronald Hayes, obtained his consent to search his home, and discovered a rifle, as well as two other firearms. Hayes was indicted on three charges of possession of firearms after having been previously convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence against his wife. He contested the indictment on the basis that battery was not a predicate offense under the Lautenberg Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied the motion to dismiss the indictment. Hayes then entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the denial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court, agreeing with Hayes that the underlying charge was not a qualifying predicate offense because it did not designate a domestic relationship as an element to the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and reversed the Fourth Circuit decision.

The Supreme Court held that the government need only show beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim of domestic violence was the defendant's current or former spouse or in some way related to the defendant. The Court stated, "but that relationship, while it must be established, need not be denominated as an element of the predicate offense."27

Aside from the obvious suitability issues raised by the underlying conduct engaged in by the applicant or officer, which should be considered by the agency, Hayes may impact hiring and retaining officers by law enforcement agencies. For example, if a misdemeanor conviction pertaining to a crime of violence surfaces during the investigation, the department must determine whether the crime involved someone who had a domestic relationship with the applicant or officer.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act also creates a prohibited-possessor status upon a finding based on reasonable cause to believe, after a hearing with notice and an opportunity to participate, that an individual is a "credible threat" to the safety of an intimate partner or child.28 An exception to the act exists whereby the prohibited possessor status does not extend to the "United States or any department or agency thereof or any state or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof or for military training or competitions."29 The extent of this exception and whether it applies to individuals has yet to be fully determined. As with the prohibited-possessor status created by the Lautenberg Amendment, the provision in the Brady statute also could impact the ability of an officer to carry a firearm.

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004

On July 22, 2004, President George W. Bush signed into law H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement officers Safety Act (LEOSA),30 which created a general nationwide recognition that the public is better served by allowing law enforcement officers to carry their firearms outside of their jurisdictions whether they are on or off duty. The theory behind LEOSA already was recognized among a number of states. 31 That is, law enforcement officers retain their identity, training, experience, and dedication to the safety and welfare of the community regardless of whether they are on duty in their employer's jurisdiction, going home to another community, or merely traveling for leisure purposes. However, the act creates a limited privilege to carry concealed weapons for law enforcement officers, not a right to bear arms.

Qualification Under LEOSA

LEOSA applies to qualified active duty and retired officers.32 Qualification under LEOSA requires employment by or retirement from a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency as someone charged with the ability to investigate, prosecute, and arrest people for violations of law.33 If an agency has firearms profi ciency standards, the offi cer must meet them to qualify to carry under this act.34 The statute also prohibits carrying firearms when under the influence of alcohol or any intoxicating or hallucinatory substance. 35 If a current or retired officer is prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm, they are not qualified to carry one under this legislation.36 It also is important to note that if an officer is under a disciplinary action that may result in suspension or termination by their agency, they are not qualified to carry under this act.37

Qualified retired officers must have retired in good standing for reasons other than mental instability and served at least an aggregate of 15 years.38 However, if the retirement was due to a service-related disability, the officer need only have completed the probationary period to qualify under this act.39 Retired officers also must have a nonforfeitable right to benefits under their agency's retirement plan.40 At personal expense, the retired officer must meet the state standard for firearms qualification required for active law enforcement officers.41

Qualified active duty and retired officers must have photographic identification issued by the agency they work for or retired from.42 Retired officers' identification must have some indication that they have been tested or have otherwise been determined by the issuing agency to meet the standards active officers must meet to carry concealed weapons.43 Retired officers do have the option of possessing the photographic identification with a certification from the state, rather than their former agency, that they have met the state's requirements for active duty officers to carry concealed weapons within 12 months of the issuing date of the identification.44

LEOSA does not give qualified officers any special enforcement or arrest authority or immunity. It merely allows them to carry concealed weapons. If these weapons are used, there is no special protection from arrest. Qualified officers may fi nd themselves acting only under the authority of a citizen's arrest or self-defense claim or under authority established by the state.

Qualified officers may use LEOSA only as an affirmative defense if prosecuted. An affirmative defense requires that the finder of fact, the judge, must make a determination of whether the person raising the defense is eligible to do so. To be eligible, the judge must have determined that the person raising the defense is, in fact, a qualified officer under LEOSA and was carrying the required identification at the time of the alleged violation. This means that the act will not keep officers from being arrested. However, LEOSA will stand as a defense at a hearing as to the legality of the arrest if the arrestee is, in fact, a qualified officer with the requisite identification.

Limitations of LEOSA

Type of Firearm

LEOSA allows qualifying officers to carry concealed firearms, but, at the same time, limits what qualifi es as a firearm. The act's definition of firearms does not include machine guns, silencers, or explosive or destructive devices.45

State Limitations on Carrying in Certain Locations

Limitations also exist as to where a concealed firearm may be carried. LEOSA exempts qualified officers from state laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.46 However, LEOSA does not supersede state laws permitting private property owners from limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on their property.47 This would include public bars, private clubs, and places, such as amusement parks. Nor does the act circumvent any state laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on state or local government property.48 Possible examples would be courthouses, schools, or parks.

Federal Limitations on Carrying in Certain Locations

Federal laws or regulations are not superseded by LEOSA. Qualified officers may not carry concealed weapons onto aircraft under the act. They also cannot carry firearms into federal buildings or onto federal property. However, in February 2010, a federal statute took effect authorizing individuals to carry concealed weapons into national parks if they have complied with the carry concealed rules of the state or states in which the park is located. 49 Of course, this federal statute will not change the fact that it is unlawful to carry a firearm into federal buildings, even in a national park.50 This would include facilities, such as visitor's centers, museums, and restrooms.

Internal Policies

It is unclear whether LEOSA overrides an agency's ability to limit an officer's authority to carry a personally owned handgun off duty as part of off-duty restriction policies. Some agencies have continued to enforce such policies. Arguably, because LEOSA explicitly overrides state law provisions (except those addressing state facilities and property), and the head of an executive agency is given power by way of state law, it would appear that LEOSA would override off duty restriction policies. However, agencies with such a policy and officers working within these agencies should seek guidance and clarification in regard to the legality of such policies.

CONCLUSION

In recent opinions, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified what previously was unclear for hundreds of years, that the Second Amendment does confer a right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense in the home, subject to reasonable restrictions. LEOSA, as noted above, does not confer a right to bear arms. The act merely confers a limited immunity from state and local laws dealing with concealed firearms and does not supersede any federal laws or regulations. Some jurisdictions outlaw the open display and carrying of firearms; however, LEOSA does not allow officers to carry firearms other than concealed. The authorization to carry concealed is not accompanied by any grant of extraterritorial arrest powers. Qualified officers must be aware of the laws of the state in which they are carrying concealed weapons, satisfy qualification standards, and carry proper identification.

The world changed on September 11, 2001. Through LEOSA, Congress reacted to this new age of terrorism, accepting the fact that America never has faced a greater need to have additional watchful eyes on the streets of its cities, towns, and rural areas. These eyes possess the training, skills, and resources necessary to stop rapidly evolving situations before they become disasters. They also provide an instantaneous, no-cost benefit to the country by simply allowing trustworthy officers to carry concealed weapons while off-duty. LEOSA allows qualified officers to protect themselves, their families, and the community by being armed while off duty.

Law enforcement officers know that criminals are never off duty. LEOSA also is premised on the notion that officers are vulnerable off duty. Criminals sometimes target them, as well as their families, for harm; these individuals also know that off-duty officers may be unarmed. LEOSA allows qualified officers to protect themselves, their families, and the community by being armed while off duty.

Endnotes

1 Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 B and C.
2 U.S. Constitution, amend. II.
3Id.
4 In 1875, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, dismissed an indictment for two individuals charged with denying freemen their Second Amendment right to keep and "bear arms for a lawful purpose." The Court advised that citizens must look to the state's police power for protection against other parties infringing upon their right to bear arms as the amendment wording "shall not be infringed…means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." The Court concluded that under the laws of the United States there were no applicable federal charges in the indictment. The Court continued along this trail of precedent that the Second Amendment limits only the federal government when it upheld a state prohibition against participation in an unauthorized militia in the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois,116 U.S. 252 (1886). Presser was an unlicensed militiaman who, along with 400 others, marched through the streets of Chicago with swords and rifles in violation of Illinois state law, exercising what Presser and the others claimed was their right to bear arms. The Court decided that the states, unlike the federal government, were free to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The Court also emphasized that the Second Amendment protects only a legitimate reserve militia meant to serve the states and the federal government. The Court cautioned, however, that the states cannot disarm the people so as to deny the United States this military resource regardless of the Second Amendment.
5 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
6 Id. at 175-76, (National Firearms Act, Pub. L. No. 90-618, 48 Stat. 1236 (1934) (codifi ed as amended in scattered sections of 28 U.S.C.) was the first federal regulation of private firearms).
7Id. at 178.
8Id.
9Id. at 179-80.
10 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
11Id. at 2817-18.
12 Id. at 2816-17.
13 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010).
14 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
15 Id. at 3034.
16Id.
17 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
18Id.
19 Pub. L. No. 90-618 (1968), codified in chapter 44 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code.
20 Title 18 U.S.C. § 922.
21 The short title of the 1993 amendment, which included amendment to § 922 and 924.
22 The Lautenberg Amendment contains § 922(d)(9) and (g)(9), passed in 1996, which was part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. This act was challenged in United States v. Hayes, 129 S. Ct. 1079 (2009), without success.
23 See Title 18 § 921 (33)(B)(ii).
24 See Title 18 U.S.C. § 925 (c).
25 129 S. Ct 1079 (2009).
26Id. at 1090.
27Id. at 1088.
28 See Title 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(g).
29 See Title 18 U.S.C. § 925 (a)(1).
30 Title 18 U.S.C. § 926 (B) and (C).
31 All 50 states exempt their own on-duty police officers from statutes governing the right to carry concealed weapons. A majority of states allow within their borders other states' peace officers to carry concealed weapons if on official business. Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Vermont allow on and off-duty out-of-state officers to carry concealed weapons. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming allow carry-concealed permits or rights for retired officers.
32 Title 18 U.S.C. § 926B (qualified law enforcement officers) and § 926C (qualified retired law enforcement officers).
33Id.; and Id. at Sec. 926B(1) and 926C(1).
34Id. at § 926B (C)(4).
35 Id. at § 926B (C)(5) and 926C (C)(6).
36Id. at § 926B (C)(6) and 926C (C)(7).
37Id. at § 926B (C)(3).
38Id. at § 926C (c)(3)(A).
39 Id. at § 926C (c)(3)(B).
40Id. at § 926C (c)(4).
41Id. at § 926C (c)(5).
42 Id. at § 926B(d) and § 926C(d)(1).
43Id. at § 926C(d)(1).
44Id. at § 926C(d)(2)(A) and (B).
45Id. at § 926B(e)(1)-(3) and § 926C(e) (1)-(3).
46 Id. at § 926B(a) and § 926C(a).
47Id. at § 926B(b)(1) and § 926C(b)(1).
48Id. at § 926B(b)(2) and § 926C(b)(2).
49 See Title 36 U.S.C. § 2.4.
50 See Title 18 U.S.C. § 930, Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities.

_______________________________________________

Law enforcement officers of other than federal jurisdiction who are interested in this article should consult their legal advisors. Some police procedures ruled permissible under federal constitutional law are of questionable legality under state law or are not permitted at all.

No December General Membership Meeting

2011-12-17T20:23:00.002-05:00

There will be no General Membership Meeting for the month of December due to the holiday season. We wish everyone a happy and safe holiday season and thank every member for belonging to the Local 5016.

November General Membership Meeting

2011-11-15T03:50:00.004-05:00

The November General Membership Meeting for the Local 5016 will be held Monday November 21st, at 7:00 p.m. at the Sager Avenue office due to the Thanksgiving Holiday that week.

Preparing for the Virginia Legislative Season

2011-11-10T13:33:00.003-05:00

Now that the election season is done the Executive Board of the Coalition is going to be jumping into preparing for the Legislative Session that will begin in January in Richmond. As most members know our union, and others in Northern Virginia are very active in the political process to ensure that politicians are elected who represent the best interests of law enforcement and deputies. Our endorsement criteria is very narrow and specific to the issues relating to deputy sheriffs and law enforcement in general and labor related issues even though Virginia is a right-to-work state.

In reviewing the elections results from our most recent election we are very pleased that Coalition will have many supportive politicians returning to Richmond but also very aware of the change in balance of the Virginia Senate. The Coalition has continually fought and advocated for the inclusion of deputies sheriffs into the Law Enforcement Procedural Guarantee Act and changing the Virginia Code to include deputies having the same due process protections that their brothers and sisters in law enforcement possess. Given the recent change in the Virginia Senate to Republican Control and an even more overwhelming Republican majority in the House believe that that goal is even more unrealistic.

That does not mean will will work with politicians from both sides, to include those who are not supportive of our cause by hoping to continually educating them about the importance of giving equal procedural protections for all law enforcement no matter what agency they are employed with. In the near future after we sit down with many politicians from the Northern Virginia area we are going to be asking for the help from the membership in contacting your representatives to encourage them to support legislation that will give deputies procedural protections in the course of their duties. Fortunately, Fairfax County is one of only two Sheriffs Offices in the Commonwealth that allows their deputies Civil Service Protections and that is not right.

If anyone has any thoughts or questions about this again please don't hesitate to contact any of the executive board members!

Force Science News: Transmission #190 After the Shooting

2011-11-10T13:16:00.001-05:00

In this issue:

I. What's next after a shooting? Force Science-based trio share their recommendations
II. Valuable legal resources available free via AELE website.
III. Memorable moments with a critical-incident message

I. What's next after a shooting? Force Science-based trio share their recommendations

After an OIS:

• What 12 questions should an officer answer at the scene?

• Besides wound treatment, what critical benefits does he or she gain from prompt transport to a medical facility?

• What does an agency gain by encouraging an officer to have independent legal counsel before a detailed statement is taken?

• What question do cops most want answered when the smoke clears?

These are just a few of the procedural issues addressed late last month at the annual IACP conference in Chicago during a fast-paced, 2-hour presentation called "Chief, I've Been in a Shooting: What Happens Next?"

The panelists who spoke to the standing room only crowd all have Force Science credentials. John Bostain, a program specialist with the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and prominent police attorney Laura Scarry are certified Force Science Analysts, and Dr. Edward Geiselman, a psychology professor at UCLA, is a faculty member for the certification course.

Their goal: to illuminate from their unique perspectives how an agency can best assure a thorough, competent investigation of an officer-involved shooting.

Unfortunately, said Bostain, "Many OIS investigations tend to be adversarial from the beginning. When detectives talk to the involved officer, it's too often like the interrogation of a suspect, focused on trying to detect deception and get a confession."

With the wrong tone and approach, he said, "things done in the aftermath of a shooting can cause more trauma than the shooting itself."

As an example, he cited the shattering experience of New Mexico officer Shannon Brady, whose deplorable treatment after fatally shooting a knife-wielding attacker was first detailed in Force Science News [Click here to read the FS News article.]

"We have tons of training on how to shoot a gun, but we don't have training on what agencies should do after an OIS," Scarry observed. "This is an area we need to spend more attention to. If we don't, we're going to have jury verdicts in favor of bad guys and more criminal indictments of officers."

The panel's recommendations for a humane and productive "best practices" protocol included these highlights:

ON-SCENE COMMENTS. Bostain maintained that an involved officer's comments at the scene should be strictly limited to a "very brief public safety statement." One sample he likes was drafted by the Mount Prospect (IL) PD and requires that an officer answer only these questions:

1. Are you injured?
2. If you know of anyone who was injured, what is his or her location?
3. In what direction did you fire your weapon(s)?
4. If any suspects are at large, what are their descriptions?
5. What was their direction of travel?
6. How long ago did they flee?
7. For what crimes are they wanted?
8. With what weapons are they armed?
9. Does any evidence need to be preserved?
10. Where is it located?
11. Did you observe any witness(es)?
12. Where are they?

"Questions that have nothing to do with public safety should not be asked at that time," Bostain said. Initial information about the shooting circumstances likely can be gathered from video recordings, witness statements, dispatch exchanges, and similar sources to get the investigation started.

"Due to the immediate need to take action," Mount Prospect requires that officers answer these questions without waiting for legal or union representation. "This is not a formal interview," Scarry explained. "But officers need to be trained on these questions so they understand their importance and necessary limitations."

Once the inquiries are answered, the officer should be cautioned not to discuss the incident further, except with legal counsel, before giving a formal statement. Under Mount Prospect's policy, a thorough interview is not conducted until the officer has experienced a minimum of 2 sleep cycles, unless the officer and his attorney agree otherwise.

Rest is important, because stress and fatigue negatively impact memory, Geiselman pointed out. "You may feel like you are ready to be interviewed but your memory really isn't," he said.

Scarry noted, "There is no statutory requirement anywhere mandating that a statement must be given within a certain time frame. Any deadline is arbitrarily set by the agency itself."

Bostain added that "investigators may also benefit from rest before going into an officer interview," particularly if they have been working long hours on the investigation up to that point.

HOSPITAL TRANSPORT. After the public safety statement, Scarry favors immediate transport of the involved officer(s) to a medical facility, "even though some cops don't think they need to go there after a shooting." There may be injuries--even gunshot wounds--or disturbances in vitals that they're not aware of because of "masking from the adrenalin rush."

There are other benefits besides treatment. "This is a controlled, secure environment where an officer can get away from news and cell phone cameras" that might otherwise feed intrusive footage of him from the scene to TV and YouTube, Scarry said.

Also, she pointed out, officers on some departments may be pressured inappropriately by supervisors "to give a statement before the end of shift or write a report about the shooting before they go home." At a hospital, she said, an officer can explain to a doctor that he's keyed up from the stress of the incident and request a Valium. "If he's sedated, he can't be required to give an immediate statement," she said.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION. An agency has a stake in whether an involved officer gets independent legal counsel after a shooting, Scarry stressed. "With good legal representation, the officer may be able to avoid civil liability in litigation resulting from the shooting," she said. "In a vast majority of cases, if an officer is not liable, the chief and the city are not likely to be liable either. By looking out for the best interests of the officer, the agency benefits itself as well."

For an officer to have access to an attorney experienced in shooting investigations immediately after an OIS should not be viewed as a "conspiracy to cover up bad actions," she said. "As an officer's attorney, I start with the premise that I am searching for the truth, which should be the same goal of administrators and investigators.

"By the same token, I'll be looking at everything with an eye toward what will eventually be up on a big screen in a federal courtroom. A judge or jury is going to be judging every piece of information put down on paper during the investigation, and an attorney can help assure that what's collected from the involved officer is fair and reasonable."

Her greatest concern as a police lawyer, she said, is "an officer talking too much" about the shooting. "What's shared with fellow officers, supervisors, administrators, investigators, and most others is legally discoverable," she explained. "An officer can be deposed on each conversation and so can the other individuals involved. There will inevitably be contradictions and inconsistencies that plaintiffs' attorneys can thrive on."

Because of attorney-client privilege, an officer can share or ask anything he wants in conversations with his lawyer without that dialog being subject to unwanted disclosure. "The attorney becomes an important filtering agent," Scarry said.

She emphasized that it's important for officers to arrange for competent on-call legal representationbefore it's needed. A lawyer automatically provided by a police union may not necessarily be best suited to handle the challenges of an OIS investigation, she warned. "Union attorneys typically know about contracts, disciplinary hearings, and labor negotiations, but the vast majority do not have experience with shooting cases where complex constitutional issues may be involved."

Before a formal statement or interview, Bostain recommended that an officer walk through the shooting scene with only his attorney present. Research has shown that "this will improve recall by 50% to 70%," he said.

Don't video this event, he advised. "You don't know what reaction an officer is going to have the first time he returns to the scene. You may not want that caught on tape."

INTERVIEW STRATEGY. FSN readers and certification class graduates are familiar with the cognitive interviewing technique developed by Dr. Geiselman and his research partner, Dr. Ron Fisher. Their method is "ideally suited" as a research-based replacement for the adversarial interrogation-type approach in OIS investigations, Geiselman told the audience. "Easy to train and understand, it produces the most complete read-out of the memory record and reveals the involved officer's state of mind, which is important to investigators."

In contrast to standard interrogation, cognitive interviewing stresses rapport building and a cordial, conversational collaboration in mining memory. Once the officer is comfortable with the interviewer, the process usually begins with having the officer mentally go back to the shooting scene beforethe event started to unfold.

"This is a potent element," Geiselman said. "When you experience something, it unavoidably becomes associated with context, so to best retrieve what happened the officer needs to put himself back in that context."

Then he is encouraged to give a free-flowing narrative of events. In the usual suspect interrogations, Geiselman said, investigators interrupt the subject about every sentence and a half. But in cognitive interviewing, an officer's narration is initially uninterrupted. Later on, the interviewer may seek elaboration or clarification, employing to the fullest extent possible open-ended questions and various proven memory-jogging techniques.

Overall, the interviewee does about 80% of the talking, the reverse of the usual suspect interrogation, Geiselman said. "Done well, the cognitive approach can expect to elicit 50-55% more information than a typical interrogation, without compromising accuracy."

Although the shooting encounter may have lasted only seconds, a successful interview may take up to 3 hours, he explained. He recommended that the officer's attorney be present and that the session be conducted in a setting of the officer's choosing, "not in the traditional suspect interrogation room."

Bostain added that many investigators "falsely believe that an officer will remember everything that happened" regarding a shooting. In reality, "unexpected events may produce a greater deficiency of memory than those that are anticipated. An officer's answer to a lot of questions may be, 'I don't know,' and that is not necessarily a sign of deception.

"If we ignore the way science says the brain works," he said, "we are not getting closer to a fair and competent investigation."

CALL TO ACTION. Quoting Atty. John Hoag, a Force Science certification instructor, Bostain reported that the most important thing officers want to know after an OIS is "What's going to happen now?"

"Are you ready to answer that question?" he asked the audience. "There is a difference between a post-shooting policy and a scene-management policy, which is what most agencies have. If you don't have a comprehensive post-shooting policy in place, for the benefit of your agency, your officers, and your community please do something about it."

NOTE: An excellent bound handout, created by Bostain, accompanied this IACP session. Titled "Officer-Involved Shooting Workshop," it includes a 2-part PoliceOne report on post-shooting "legal first aid," IACP's OIS guidelines, recommendations on officer statements and use-of-force reports from Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Mount Prospect's post-shooting policy, and articles on memory and investigative "best practices."

For a free copy, contact: john.bostain@dhs.gov .

Laura Scarry, who frequently speaks to law enforcement groups on police legal defense tactics and deadly force issues, can be reached at: lscarry@deanoandscarry.com.

For information on Dr. Edward Geiselman's training on cognitive interviewing, contact him at:geiselma@psych.ucla.edu.

II. Valuable legal resources available free via AELE website

Outlines and visual presentations of all law-related sessions at the recent annual IACP conference in Chicago are available free of charge on a website hosted by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, the nonprofit organization that provides police training seminars and closely monitors court cases on law enforcement issues.

Just click on www.aele.org/los2011.html and you'll get a vast array of valuable information, ranging from legal developments affecting police psychologists to a force update on electronic control devices.

Also included are all legal-related articles from this year's editions of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, from IACP publications, and from other resources.

"This is a 1-stop site for important legal information affecting fire, police, sheriff, and legal personnel," says AELE's executive director Wayne Schmidt. "Bookmark the page, which will updated again in December."

III. Memorable moments with a critical-incident message

For 4 minutes of sight and sound that can deliver an emotional impact related to critical incident recovery, CLICK HERE to check out a special posting on YouTube. What you'll hear is the singing voice of Kurt Van Meter, a gifted country artist/guitarist and police officer with the Hillsborough (OR) PD, who assisted several months ago with Force Science research into the attack capabilities of prone suspects.

"Behind" the music, you'll see video of LCpl. Daniel Riley, a young Marine learning to walk again on 2 prosthetic legs at a Naval hospital. Riley lost his legs and several fingers to an IED in Afghanistan last year.

Van Meter learned of Riley's situation through retired officer Scott Jones of the Newberg (OR) PD, whose son lost a leg in Iraq to another IED and shared a therapist with Dan Riley.

Van Meter thought the song he matched to the video fit the soldier's determination to survive and thrive. It's called "That's Life" and it's also available on iTunes. It's refrain, penned by lyricist Brian Futch, delivers a key recovery message:

"It's not what you're dealt, but how you deal with it,

Not what you get but what you give it...."

Thanks, Kurt and Dan, for some powerful moments.

Election Tuesday

2011-11-06T20:32:00.003-05:00

The FDSC 5016 has again endorsed numerous candidates during this election cycle in Fairfax County. The process is based on a process that involves questions relating to the issue most related to deputy sheriffs in both Fairfax County and throughout Virginia. If anyone wishes to see the submitted surveys of the candidates we endorsed please let us know. As you know the only race that did not include a survey was the Sheriff's endorsement which was based on a membership vote.

Fairfax County Sheriff: Stan Barry

Board of Supervisors

Chairman: Sharon Bulova

Drainesville: John Foust

Lee: Jeff McKay

Hunter Mill: Cathy Huggins

Mason: Penny Gross

Braddock: John Cook

House of Delegates

HD-34: Pamela Danner

HD-41: Eileen Filler-Corn

HD-42: Jack Dobbyn

HD-44: Scott Surovell

HD-45: David Englin

HD-67: Eric Clingan

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #189

2011-10-26T11:06:00.001-04:00

Training note: Congratulations to the 54 newly minted Certified Force Science Analysts who graduated from our recent Certification Course in Ontario, Canada! We were honored to have worked with such a bright, dedicated and enthusiastic group of professionals. Well done!

The new 2012 Force Science Certification Course schedule has now been released. CLICK HERE to download the full schedule or you can visit:www.forcescience.org/2012certification.pdf. If you need hotel information for use in submitting a request to your department, please e-mail our staff attraining@forcescience.org and let us know the location you're interested in. We'll get our hotel recommendation for that location off to you immediately.

In this issue:

I. 5 tips for officers in use-of-force interviews, Part 2
II. 1 step closer to understanding post-traumatic stress disorder
III. Quotable quotes on training
IV. Bath salt chemicals now banned

I. 5 tips for officers in use-of-force interviews
Part 2 of a 2-part series

In Force Science News #188 [Click here to read it], Dr. Ed Geiselman, an internationally recognized authority on interviewing techniques, offered 5 critical reminders for investigators on how to elicit accurate and comprehensive statements from involved officers and eyewitnesses in OISs and other use-of-force cases.

But what it you're an involved officer being questioned by an investigator who doesn't understand or adhere to these "best practices" for fair and impartial interviewing? What can you do to protect yourself from bias or ineptitude on the part of your questioner?

First, of course, you need to be knowledgeable about the methods of properinterviewing. So take time to review Geiselman's pointers in Part 1 of this series before heading into the interview room. Then you'll be better equipped to recognize if and when your interviewer employs undesirable tactics--and prevent yourself from inadvertently cooperating in sabotaging your own statement.

Beyond that, Geiselman offers the following advice. These are lessons the UCLA psychology professor has drawn first-hand from analyzing officer interviews as an expert witness in disciplinary hearings and as a faculty member of the certification course in Force Science Analysis. They represent his observations from a behavioral science perspective but you should check with your attorney for his guidance from a legal-strategy standpoint.

TIPS FOR INVOLVED OFFICERS

1. Request a delay. As explained in Part 1, fatigue can contribute significantly to memory "failures," including incomplete and disorganized recall, inconsistencies, delayed recollections, and the inability to adequately articulate your thoughts. "If you're tired and overly stressed, you'll also be more susceptible to suggestion, intimidation, and biased questioning by the interviewer, Geiselman says.

"Yet many departments still require that officers submit to detailed questioning immediately after a shooting or other critical incident, even though in some cases the involved officer has been awake for 36 hours or more." In contrast, the Force Science Institute recommends a delay of 24-48 hours, including at least one good sleep cycle, before a detailed statement is required from an involved officer after a major force event.

"If you believe that you are not in a frame of mind to perform adequately in a full investigative interview because of lingering stress and/or sleep deprivation, request a delay," Geiselman counsels. "Don't ignore or minimize your mental and physiological state in an effort to appear strong in the face of potentially negative factors.

"If the request is denied because of department policy, you can then state at the outset of the questioning that you have asked for a postponement and why. Having that in the record may prove valuable later in helping to explain shortcomings in your memory."

(For a report on the connection between rest and memory, based on a research study Geiselman conducted, see Force Science News #156. Click here to read it.)

2. "Interview" yourself, using cognitive techniques. "Become familiar with the memory-enhancement elements of cognitive-style interviewing and use them to help recollect what happened during the force incident," Geiselman suggests. "You can 'interrogate' your own memory both before and during the interview itself."

Some of these techniques were described in Part 1. They include a full-sensory reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the incident...thinking about it in detail "frame by frame"...trying to remember what happened in reverse order as well as forward order...looking at the scenario from the different perspectives of people at the scene, etc.

"All these can often surface details that may elude you if you try just to verbally recite the bare basics of what you think happened in sequence," Geiselman says.

"It's good to start by getting a picture in your head of what was going on before the incident erupted. Mentally and emotionally put yourself back there in the moment. Slow down your thinking and take time to remember as much about the experience as you can. Concentrate on being as complete as possible, rather than just hitting highlights.

"Ideally, you want to give as thorough a report as possible in your the first session with an interviewer so you don't have to make corrections later, and this approach can help."

3. Communicate your concentration. "Let the interviewer know when you are taking time to concentrate on responding to his or her questions," Geiselman advises. "This will free you from feeling pressure to give immediate answers in order to appear truthful.

"Sometimes memories are difficult to retrieve, and the mannerisms and body language of concentration, such as long pauses, deep breaths, and breaking eye contact, may look like the classic indications of deception if the interviewer doesn't realize you are focusing intently on recollecting.

"If you consciously struggle to avoid these natural reactions to deep concentration in order to maintain an artificial appearance of truthfulness, you're devoting your energy to the wrong priority and you may be bypassing opportunities to surface important buried memories."

4. Take the initiative to make the record complete. "Be sure to address critical issues in your statement if the interviewer fails to do so," Geiselman says. "Your initial feeling may be to shut down and say little beyond what you're asked, but in some cases it maybe to your advantage to get information that's neglected into the record.

"In particular, comment spontaneously on your state of mind throughout the incident. This would include your understanding of any advance information you were given by dispatch or other sources.

"Also comment on your threat assessment throughout the encounter. Include elements of your training and experience which were triggered in your mind by the circumstances as they unfolded."

5. Above all: Don't speculate. "Understand the strengths and weaknesses of your own perceptual and memory systems," Geiselman urges. "Inevitably there will be aspects of the event that you didn't see or hear, and your memory will be imperfect. No one can remember everything or recall all that they do 'remember' accurately. That's a human reality.

"Don't hesitate to state, 'I don't know,' and then maintain that you do not know throughout the interview if that is the truth. However, it's important to spontaneously correct inconsistencies and offer additional recollections as they come to mind without delay. The sooner errors are corrected or missing elements legitimately supplied, the less likely these alterations will be viewed with suspicion.

"Above all, do not speculate, guess, or fill in gaps of memory with what you think 'might' or 'must' have happened, even if pressed implicitly or openly by the interviewer to do so. This is quicksand too dangerous to venture into."

[For information on instruction and consultation about interviewing techniques, Dr. Geiselman can be reached at: geiselma@psych.ucla.edu. Also see the authoritative text, Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview, by Geiselman and Dr. Ronald Fisher.]

II. 1 step closer to understanding post-traumatic stress disorder

New research that analyzed the genetics of students on a college campus where an active shooter killed 5 people (plus himself) and injured 21 may help in eventually predicting which individuals are most susceptible to Acute Stress Disorder, which is a precursor to PTSD.

The subjects studied were 204 young female undergraduates (mean age 20 years), most of them white and about half of them freshmen, at Northern Illinois University where a lone gunman went on a lecture hall shooting rampage on Valentine's Day 2008. Their exposure to the incident ranged from merely being on campus that day to seeing the gunman firsthand, although none was actually targeted by him. Conveniently for the researchers, the women were already participating in an ongoing trauma study at the time of the sudden shared event.

The researchers report a couple of interesting secondary findings:

Not surprisingly, proximity mattered. Those who were in the building where the shootings occurred or were close enough to hear gunfire and see the attacker firing were "significantly associated" with severe stress symptoms.

But the predominant difference between those who suffered persistent serious stress effects and those who did not was genetic. DNA testing revealed that the students with particular variants related to the regulation of serotonin, a neurotransmitter that affects mood and mental function, may be predisposed to developing Acute Stress Disorder and then PTSD symptoms after a traumatic experience.

Specifically, these variants are referred to as "the 5-HTTLPR multimarker and rs25531 genotypes of the serotonin transporter gene." Interestingly, another genetic variant that has been linked with psychosis and suicide did not appear to be associated with PTSD symptoms.

Only a minority of people exposed to traumatic or life-threatening incidents develop PTSD. "One of the critical questions surrounding PTSD is why some individuals are at risk for developing the disorder...while others appear to be relatively resilient," the researchers write in a report of the study.

The new findings, they say, will help unravel the exact mechanism involved in the genetic association and may eventually help in predicting the individual risk for PTSD symptoms in the weeks and months after a traumatic event.

More work with the study group is anticipated.

III. Quotable quotes on training

From a recent officer-safety seminar co-produced by the Below 100 Initiative and Lifeline Training at the Suburban Law Enforcement Academy in Glen Ellyn, IL:

"Unrealistic training leads to unrealistic expectations, and unrealistic expectations are deadly on the street."
Chief Jeff Chudwin
Pres., Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.

"If you were going to be in a fight for your life tomorrow, how would you train today?"
Sgt. Keith Wenzel
Dallas (TX) PD

"There's plenty of intelligence in the world but the courage to do things differently is in short supply."
Marilyn vos Savant
Author and Guinness Hall of Fame inductee

"Complacency is the most dangerous and insidious threat we face because it makes us open to all the others."
Chief Chudwin

[For more information on Below 100 training to reduce officer fatalities, go to:www.lawofficer.com/below100. For information on Lifeline's traveling seminar on "Ultimate Survival Instincts," go to: www.lifelinetraining.com.]

IV. Bath salt chemicals now banned

In FSN #175, transmitted 04/08/11, we featured an interview with Chris Lawrence, an instructor for the Ontario, Canada Police College as well as the Force Science Certification Course, focused on the disturbing phenomenon of bath salt abuse that results in dangerous and unpredictable subject behavior. [Click here to read the entire article.] It has now been reported that the DEA has declared a temporary 12-month ban on three of the drugs commonly sold under a "bath salt" label in retail stores. The ban will expire early October 2012 with the possibility for a six-month extension while plans to impose a permanent ban are finalized. The three chemicals, which are now considered highly restricted Schedule I substances, are Mephedrone, Methylone and Methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV, also known as NRG-1). FSN will report on additional developments as they surface.

National Council on Public Employee Retirement Systems--News Clips

2011-10-23T23:26:00.004-04:00

There is an article in these clips talking specifically about Virginia and the effects lack of collective bargaining has on all public employees!!

NCPERS News Clips

October 18, 2011

News Clips for October 18th, 2011

· Defending the Secure Choice Pension
The National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems defends their proposal for a new type of retirement plan.

· Hopes rest on supercommittee's odd couple
Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Jeb Hensarling seem to have nothing in common she's a low-key liberal from the Pacific Northwest tasked with heading the reelection efforts of Senate Democrats, he's the tough-talking conservative from Texas who's climbing the ranks of Republican leadership.

· Montana's public employee pension problem worsens
The pension system for public employees in Montana is facing a larger shortfall due to market losses and other factors, according to a new report that will be presented to the Montana Public Employees' Retirement Board later this week.

· Calpers Plans Front-Running, Personal Stock-Trading Restrictions
The California Public Employees' Retirement System, the largest U.S. public pension fund, is considering a proposal to restrict personal stock trades by employees as a way to avoid conflicts of interest.

· Public pension assets plunged in 2009, Census Bureau says
Assets of state and local government pension systems declined 23% in 2009 to $2.46 trillion, down from $3.2 trillion in 2008, according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics released Friday.

· Virginia's public workers can't negotiate labor contracts, pay and benefits depend on decisions made by politicians
People in Virginia have a name for public workers' attempts to get higher pay. Begging. The state is one of about a dozen that prevent governments and their employees from negotiating labor contracts.

· Pending pension overhaul could stymie Sarasota Police
If city commissioners approve controversial changes to once-attractive police pensions today, Sarasota would become the first Florida city to move its younger officers under a 401(k)-like plan.

October General Membership Meeting

2011-10-16T03:43:00.000-04:00

The October General Membership meeting will be held on October 27th, at 7:00 p.m. at the Sager Avenue, Suite C Office. (10500 Sager Ave, Suite C. Fairfax, VA 22030)

Union Plus--Collective Bargains

2011-10-13T23:28:00.002-04:00

Support fellow workers—buy your new iPhone 4S from AT&T

The new iPhone 4S is out and available from three wireless providers, but only one is nationally unionized. Here are three reasons why you should buy your iPhone from AT&T.

3 REASONS TO BUY FROM AT&T

Finishing your degree may be easier than you think

Whether you need just one class or you’re halfway to earning your degree, theNational Labor College’s online degree program can help you earn the credits you need while balancing work and family responsibilities. It’s fully accredited, convenient, and offers union members tuition discounts. Register now for Fall Term B online classes.

Need financial help? Union Plus scholarships, including the new Building Trades President's Award scholarships, are available.

So far in 2011, Union Plus has provided 91 scholarships totalling $70,000,including four IBEW members who each received $1,500 from the Union Plus National Labor College Scholarships Program.

LEARN MORE ABOUT NLC SCHOLARSHIPS

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #188

2011-10-10T12:38:00.001-04:00

Overcoming the "Achilles heel" of use-of-force investigations
Part 1 of a 2-part series

As an expert in interviewing skills, Dr. Ed Geiselman has seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to officers being questioned by investigators after use-of-force events.

Recently he was asked to review transcripts and audio recordings of interviews in cases where LEOs' jobs were on the line because of allegedly inappropriate force. In each he concluded that poor interviewing techniques had hampered the officers in their efforts to explain their actions adequately. One interview, he told Force Science News, was the worst he'd come across in his 28 years of working with law enforcement.

"In many cases," Geiselman says, "interviewing involved officers remains the Achilles heel of otherwise good investigations. When an interviewer fails to thoroughly and accurately mine an officer's memory, everyone loses."

With his recent reviews still fresh in his mind, we asked Geiselman, a UCLA psychology professor and a faculty member of the Force Science Analysis certification course, what lessons he'd offer investigators for conducting fair, impartial, and comprehensive interviews in OISs and other critical-incident cases.

And we asked also what he'd advise involved officers to do when they're in the hot seat and potentially subject to poorly conducted questioning. The result is this 2-part series.

We begin with those asking the questions.

TIPS FOR INVESTIGATORS

1. Don't make special assumptions about police memories. "Investigators don't want to hear 'I don't know' from people they're interviewing," Geiselman notes. "Some make unreasonable assumptions, especially of police officers, about what can be legitimately remembered, and by insistently pressing for information, whether interviewees can actually give it or not, investigators may in fact elicit inaccurate 'recollections.'

"Officers have the same perceptual and memory systems as other human beings. Research shows they tend to be affected by the same situational factors, such as stress and selective attentional focus, and experience the same memory failures, such as inconsistencies, gaps, and delayed recollections.

"For example, when a deadly weapon is pointed at an officer, threatening his life, there is an instinctive propensity to stare at the weapon instead of the offender holding it, just as a civilian does. Thus memories of other details about the scene or of actions taken may be hazy or nonexistent.

"But interviewers often believe that an officer should remember an emotionally charged event completely. In an effort to stretch an officer's memory, they may ask leading questions or encourage him to recall what would have been 'logical' under the circumstances or suggest that he speculate about what he 'likely' would have done in a given situation.

"Sometimes investigators state what they would have done in similar circumstances or chidingly remark that if they had been there they would remember 'that,' as if establishing an expected norm.

"Eventually through these persuasion techniques, the officer may come to believe that he or she actually does remember things that they don't, and then you have a fiction disguised as a memory in the record. It's really quite easy for an interviewer to modify an officer's memory, even without intending to do so.

"There are legitimate means of helping an officer to recall, but he or she should not be pressured to reach beyond his or her limitations. At the beginning of the interview, the officer should be advised to state candidly when he does not remember something and to avoid imagining or guessing. Periodically the interviewer should thank him for his ongoing concentration and effort at accurate recollection."

2. Use a style that encourages free-flowing information. Unless there's good reason to suspect wrongdoing, an involved officer should not be interviewed with the intimidating "confrontational, interrogation-type approach" that's often used successfully with offenders, Geiselman stresses. "With an officer who has experienced a critical incident, this often proves counter-productive."

Rather than opening up memories, he explains, confrontational or adversarial questioning is more likely to limit responses or to encourage answers that the officer feels the interviewer wants to hear, "especially if the officer is worried about losing his job or receiving other punitive action."

Equally undesirable, is what Geiselman calls "confirmation bias" questioning. Here "an investigator goes into to the interview with a concept in mind of what happened and why. Then he tends to concentrate only on questions--and recollections--that support his theory." In addition to stifling broader-based communication, like the confrontational approach, this "may cause an officer to second-guess and otherwise question his own memories."

Yet in reviewing transcripts, Geiselman notes, he finds that use-of-force investigators often "go into an accusatory mode right from the start. It's as if they already know in their head that the involved officer has done something wrong. They bring to the interview the belief that the officer is guilty."

Instead, Geiselman favors an impartial information-gathering approach, specifically so-called "cognitive interviewing," which he and Dr. Ronald Fisher of Florida International University have spent years developing for law enforcement.

As explained in a variety of previous Force Science News reports [see the FSN archive at:www.forcescience.org/fsinews/archive], cognitive interviewing emphasizes cordial rapport-building, open-ended questions that encourage uninterrupted narrative responses, and proven memory-prompts to enhance recall. The latter may include having an officer employ all his senses to help reconstruct the event, recall what happened "frame by frame," relate the account in reverse order, and so on.

"Not only does this approach produce a far greater volume of accurate information," Geiselman says, "but research has established that in emotionally charged situations it also tends to convey a therapeutic benefit to the person being interviewed." That is explained in a detailed article on cognitive interviewing that Geiselman and Fisher wrote for the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, available free of charge. Click here to download a complimentary copy.

Inconsistencies, gaps, and any suspicions regarding an officer's account are best addressed "during the later phases of the interview," after his memory has been thoroughly tapped for "the totality of the circumstances surrounding the moment of the use-of-force decision."

"Anything an interviewer does early on to give the impression he's skeptical "encourages the person being questioned to shut down," Geiselman says. "In conducting the interview, it's important to come off as being nonjudgmental and interested in everything the subject has to say, encouraging them to talk more."

3. Understand the limitations of "deception cues." Even when dealing with fellow officers, investigators are always on the alert for deceptive answers, as their job demands. Many have specific training in detecting deception, based on body language and response cues. But Geiselman cautions not to "overly apply" that training during involved-officer interviews.

"Keep in mind," he advises, "that some classic 'signs' of lying can also be indicators of intense concentration, such as long pauses, deep breaths, and gaze aversion. So an officer trying hard to remember things may unwittingly mirror behavior presumed to indicate deviousness.

"Remember that all signs that may indicate deception should be regarded only as red flags or 'hot spots' that require clarification or further exploration before the interview is over, not as absolute lie exposers. Rather than interrupt an officer's narrative flow with challenges as he tries to relate his version of events, keep an open mind throughout the interview. Pinning down loose ends should wait until a time when it is less likely to disrupt recall.

"Until you can determine otherwise in the later phases when you address confusing or suspicious statements, the default assumption about delayed recollections, inconsistencies, and other possible deception cues should be that they reflect natural memory phenomena."

4. Consider delaying the interview. "An officer's state of mind at the time of the interview can be as relevant and as important as his state of mind at the time of the shooting or other force encounter," Geiselman says. "Fatigue is the natural enemy of a sharp memory and lucid articulation."

Thus he suggests, "For best results, consider delaying a full investigative interview for 24 to 48 hours after the incident in question, so the officer has a chance to benefit from at least one sleep cycle before giving a detailed statement.

"Remember that the officer not only is coping with lingering stress from the incident itself but may be burdened with added stress from concerns about possible consequences of discipline, criminal prosecution, and lawsuits. Sleep can help relieve some of this anxiety as well as consolidate memories.

"If the goal is to minimize inconsistencies and maximize comprehensive recall, then delaying the interview until the incident has been well thought out by the involved officer could be a wise choice. If the interview is not delayed and the officer is highly stressed and sleep-deprived, his recollections may well be incomplete, disorganized, and more open to suggestion from the interviewer.

"Under those conditions, expect inconsistencies and delayed recollections, and do not automatically label these memory failures as indications of deceit and dishonesty."

5. Handle eyewitnesses with care. Any eyewitnesses to an OIS or other force incident, including civilians, should be given the same consideration shown the involved officer, including a non-leading, cognitive approach to interviewing, Geiselman believes. "They, of course, are subject to the same perception and memory issues," he says.

One common mistake he sees among investigators is "joining the prosecution team." Instead of impartially eliciting whatever the witness has to say, "the interviewer conveys the impression through his questions, tone, and comments that the involved officer acted inappropriately and the investigator, with the witness's help, is going to see that 'justice' is served.

"Do not comment on evidence in the case or on the possible or alleged actions of the involved officer. This can contaminate a witness's recollections going forward. The manner in which you frame the incident during the interview can cause an eyewitness to artificially conform his or her thinking to fit your hunch.

"Don't, for example, make observations such as, 'I think there is some truth in what I'm hearing about all this. If someone has abused their authority, then this has to be dealt with, maybe even from a criminal standpoint. What the officer did is wrong.' Unfortunately, I see that sort of thing done in transcripts I review.

"Instead, remain strictly in the impartial information-gathering mode. Conclusions about what you found out can come later and should not be shared with the interviewee during the questioning."

NEXT: Tips for protecting yourself from an interviewer who doesn't understand the principles of human memory.

For information on instruction and consultation about interviewing techniques, Dr. Geiselman can be reached at: geiselma@psych.ucla.edu. Also see the authoritative text by Geiselman and Fisher, Memory-Enhancing Techniques for Investigative Interviewing: The Cognitive Interview.

II. "Weapons confusion": A case to watch

In a case with important training implications, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the West Coast has ruled that a municipal patrol officer who killed a suspect when she confused her M26 Taser with her Glock pistol was not entitled to a summary judgment in her favor on the basis of qualified immunity.

A jury should have been allowed to decide if her mistake was reasonable, the 9th circuit appellate judges said in overturning a district judge's decision and remanding the case for fresh action.

"Whatever the ultimate outcome, this case bears watching and studying because of the critical issues it raises regarding training, weapons placement, personal responsibility, and decision-making," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. As we have reported previously, Lewinski was involved as an expert witness in the BART incident, a widely publicized mistaken-weapon shooting by a transit officer in the San Francisco area.

The current case, Torres v. City of Madera (CA), is a 1983 civil action brought by parents of a suspect who was fatally shot in the chest while handcuffed in the backseat of a patrol car. The involved officer intended to Tase him because he was kicking the rear door and she feared he would cut himself if he broke the window. Unwittingly, she grabbed and fired her sidearm instead of her Taser.

Among other things, these factors emerged as evidence at trial:

• As instructed when it was issued, the officer carried her Taser "in a thigh holster immediately below her holstered Glock on her dominant right side." Earlier on the night of the shooting, she had turned off the safety on her Taser, to enable its quicker deployment.

• Reaching down, she unsnapped the holster holding her Glock, removed the gun, aimed its laser at the suspect's center mass, put her left hand under the gun for support, and pulled the trigger, "all without looking at the weapon in her hand." Both weapons had laser components.

• Twice previously the officer had confused the 2 weapons, once when trying to reholster her gun and her Taser after a jail visit and again when trying to drive-stun a combative suspect during a field encounter. The latter time she ended up pointing her mistakenly drawn pistol at her partner's head.

• Frightened by that potentially tragic error, she told her sergeant, who advised her to "keep practicing" in drawing her Taser and in distinguishing between the 2 weapons. She informally "practiced" daily on her own for 9 months leading up to the shooting, but underwent no "formal" retraining.

• Her initial training had consisted of a single 3-hour class, during which she fired the weapon only once. There was no discussion during that session of the weapon-confusion risk nor of weapon-confusion incidents that had occurred on other departments.

The district court found that the officer's mistake in drawing her gun was "reasonable" and granted summary judgment in favor of her and the city. But the appeals court declared that the district judge had over-reached with that decision. "While a jury might ultimately find [the officer's] mistake of weapon to have been reasonable, it was inappropriate for the [lower] court to reach this conclusion," the appellate decision states.

Further action by the district court is now pending. To read the appellate decision in full, with more details of this case, click here.

For an article about the case from the Legal & Liability Risk Management Institute, click here

Our thanks to Wayne Schmidt, executive director of Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, for bringing this case to our attention in his monthly legal newsletter. Access to more than 30,000 digests of cases pertinent to law enforcement is available free of charge through AELE's website:www.aele.org

Force Science News: Transmission #187

2011-09-30T00:46:00.001-04:00

Just a few seats remain in the Force Science Certification Course scheduled for Oct. 17-21, 2011 in the greater Toronto area. To register, e-mail your contact information to: training@forcescience.org and someone from our staff will get back to you to complete your registration.

In this issue:

I. Case studies: How Force Science Analysts helped accused officers
II. Free officer-safety training workshop coming up

I. Case studies: How Force Science Analysts helped accused officers

Time-and-motion concepts researched and taught by the Force Science Institute are most often used to unravel the complexities of officer-involved shootings. But 2 recent cases demonstrate the value of these principles in assessing other types of law enforcement encounters as well.

In Nevada and British Columbia this summer, graduates of the certification course in Force Science Analysis, where human behavior studies are explored in depth, have used that training to help officers accused of wrongdoing in pursuit and physical control situations.

In one case an officer was saved from a possible prison term on felony charges. In the other, an officer's controversial pre-emptive actions in stopping an attack before it started were vindicated, clearing him and 2 backups in a citizen's "excessive force" complaint case.

FATAL PURSUIT. The chase case, which eventually involved Force Science Analyst Jeff Martin as an expert witness, began about 2220 hours on a Wednesday in May, 2010, in a commercial/industrial section of northeast Las Vegas.

Behind the wheel of an old black Honda Civic, a suspect later identified as 26-year-old meth abuser Ivan Carrillo was driving so erratically--creeping along at 12-15 mph, swerving across lanes, stopping suddenly in front of another motorist--that a citizen phoned 911 to report him. Among responding officers were Andrew Ubbens, 26, and Aron Carpenter, 29, in marked units of the Las Vegas Metropolitan PD.

Earlier in the day, investigation would show, Carrillo had been involved in a domestic dispute with his girlfriend and mother of his daughter, who told him he "scared her" and said she didn't want to see him anymore. He argued that life would not be worth living without her. In an interview with Force Science News, Martin speculated that Carrillo, high on drugs, may have deliberately sought to attract police with his bad driving, with a suicide-by-cop-type plan to make it look like they caused his death during a pursuit.

With Ubbens and Carpenter behind him, Carrillo now took off, cranking the aged Honda up to 60 mph while weaving through traffic. The officers gave chase, but a sergeant heading toward the area quickly called off the pursuit. The officers maintained later that they eased off active pursuit but "continued to follow" at normal speeds without emergency lights or sirens, anticipating an inevitable accident and thinking they should be close by to help anyone injured.

After Carrillo locked brakes and skidded sideways through an intersection, after he drove north in southbound lanes, after he successfully drove out of a PIT maneuver by Ubbens, after he slowed as if to stop then speeded up again, the accident occurred in a matter of mere minutes.

As Carrillo's path crossed into the city of North Las Vegas, Carpenter was "allowing him to drive away," the officer later testified. Suddenly Carrillo, driving in an adjacent lane, decelerated and cut sharply in front of him. The officer said he stomped on his brake pedal and jerked the steering wheel, trying to avoid him. He felt a bumping sensation and heard a grinding sound that seemed to indicate he'd struck the left rear of the suspect's Honda.

Carrillo steered back into his own lane, then accelerated and spun the Honda across multiple traffic lanes and into oncoming traffic. The resulting pileup wrecked 4 vehicles and left a woman motorist seriously injured. Carrillo was killed.

During a departmental investigation, the sergeant averred that he had 3 times ordered "all units" to discontinue pursuing and that Ubbens and Carpenter had consistently defied him. The theory developed that Carpenter, while traveling at high speed in continued pursuit, was driving too close to the suspect and that contact between the cars caused Carrillo to lose control and veer to his death. Carpenter insisted that he was driving at legal speed, that he made no intentional collision with the suspect's vehicle, and that he was not in active pursuit at the time of the fatal crash.

Nonetheless, the PD recommended to the county District Attorney's Office that both officers be charged criminally. In September 2010, Ubbens was charged with misdemeanor reckless driving. For Carpenter, more serious charges resulted: 2 counts of felony reckless driving. Found guilty, he could face 6 years' incarceration and $5,000 in fines on each count.

Last January, Ubbens pleaded no contest to failure to use due care, a misdemeanor. He was ordered to pay a $500 fine and perform 50 hours of community service.

Carpenter refused to cop a plea. He was fired and went to trial.

Martin was the final witness called in his defense during a week-long jury trial in Clark County District Court last July. An expert in pursuit policy and tactics, Martin is himself a police attorney in California and a former municipal officer there with 28 years' LE experience. He received his Force Science Analysis certification in 2008.

Much of Martin's expert witness testimony under questioning by defense attorney Bret Whipple concerned the "fluid and dynamic" situation Carpenter faced during the final 10 seconds leading up to the crash.

While the prosecution claimed that reckless driving by Carpenter had contributed to the fatal accident, the defense raised doubts that contact between the cars had even happened, let alone been the cause of Carrillo veering to his death. What Carpenter interpreted initially as an impact could have been the sensation and sound generated by the thumping effect of the officer's anti-lock braking system forcefully engaging. Indeed, there was no forensic evidence that conclusively established that collision actually occurred.

Be that as it may, Martin testified that perception and reaction time, not recklessness, was a key factor in this rapidly evolving and unusual event. Even traveling at or near legal speed, as Carpenter claimed he was, he would have been thrown severely behind the reactionary curve by Carrillo's sudden swerve in front of him, Martin explained.

Drawing on a classic model used in the certification course, he described for the jury the 3 steps of reaction:

1) Identification of the stimulus. If you're primed to see something, you can react faster, Martin explained. But something unexpected--Carrillo's abruptly decelerating and swerving into Carpenter's path, in this case--delays recognition. Carpenter's attentional focus at the time this happened--had he been glancing down at his dashboard, for example--could have delayed awareness of the problem even more.

2) Selection of a response. Force Science has measured lag time incurred even by having to make simple "go/no go" decisions. But that time is extended, Martin explained, when more options are available and you have to decide among several which to choose, the situation Carpenter faced in trying to determine the best defensive driving maneuver for avoiding Carrillo's car.

3) Initiation of response. Executing the physical maneuvers to follow through on the choice that's made adds yet more time.

Martin says, "What I hoped to convey to the jury was that any contact between the squad car and the suspect's Honda was the result of an inevitable lag in stopping time rather than a deliberate or reckless impact. And at worst, any contact was no more than an insignificant glancing brush. It was not decisive in Carrillo's controlling his vehicle and was not Carpenter's fault."

In his opinion, Martin testified, Carpenter had acted reasonably throughout the engagement and was "driving with due regard," in compliance with the department's pursuit policy and not in rogue defiance of the sergeant's orders.

As Whipple put it in his summation, Carpenter "was an officer trying to do his job to the best of his ability. He wasn't trying to hurt anyone."

The jurors were out for less than an hour. Their verdict: not guilty by a vote of 12-0.

Tears welled up in Carpenter's eyes after the verdict was read. "The nightmare I've had to live for the last year and 2 months has finally come to an end," he told a reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. "I stood up for the truth. I had no intention of being that close to him."

Through arbitration, he now hopes to get his job back.

PRE-EMPTIVE TAKEDOWN. The Canadian case, in which Force Science Analyst Steven Ing played a key role, also started with what appeared to be an impaired driver.

After midnight one morning, about 2 months before the Las Vegas pursuit, an officer on patrol in Victoria, BC, pulled over a van whose male driver appeared to be steering erratically, weaving and making wide turns. The neighborhood being "rather rough," 2 backup officers quickly responded.

As the primary and 1 backup approached the vehicle toward the passenger side, they heard "a weird banging noise from inside." Then the van's panel door slammed open and the driver leaped out, highly agitated.

They ordered him back inside, but he refused to cooperate. He continued his resistance despite repeated commands and seemed to be moving toward what the officers thought would be physical aggression.

The primary officer went hands-on and with the help of the backups and well-placed knee strikes, took the subject down and handcuffed him. The driver suffered some abrasions in the process.

As it turned out, he wasn't drunk or high, just a mental patient off his meds. His van had some mechanical problems that affected the steering. After he passed roadside sobriety tests, the officers dusted him off and sent him home.

The subject waited nearly 9 months before filing a citizen's complaint. Besides challenging the legality of the stop, he claimed the officers had no grounds for taking him to the ground and used excessive force in the process, causing his injury.

The flow chart for complaints "looks something like a nuclear science diagram," Ing says, but eventually the matter landed on his desk. With a law degree and 23 years' LE experience, much of it in uniform assignments, Ing is now an inspector who heads the department's Executive Services & Professional Standards section. Among his responsibilities is assessing evidence gathered during internal investigations and rendering decisions on the merits of public complaints.

In this case, the primary officer stated that he initiated the takedown on the basis of certain "pre-assaultive cues" that convinced him that the complainant was preparing to physically attack him. These included, in addition to verbal hostility, the driver "squaring off in a combat stance," clenching his hands into fists, exhibiting a "1,000-yard stare," and displaying "resistive tension" during their dialogue beside the van. The backup officers confirmed that such indicators had been present.

"It was a good list," Ing says, and from his own street experience and martial arts background, he agreed that such cues can be valid predictors of pending aggression. He believed the officers' force was justified.

The problem was that his decision was subject to review by an external independent civilian oversight body. If that group disagreed with his finding, the case would then go before a retired judge for further assessment.

In British Columbia, Ing explains, civilian overseers (as well as the media and activist lawyers) had previously "expressed concerns over the use of 'pre-assaultive signs' to justify use of force by police." Questions had been raised about "how you can predict what someone is going to do," and the sentiment among some reviewers ("official and unofficial") seemed to be that "an officer had to take a punch first" before reacting.

"I needed to explain to people who had never been in physical combat why officers sometimes need to use pre-emptive force and why it can be justified at times when a subject technically hasn't 'done anything' yet," he says.

Shortly before becoming involved in the case, Ing had graduated from the Force Science certification course. He decided to frame the "cues" issue in the context of "a concept spelled out in scientific detail" in that training.

As part of a 12-page report he submitted to the civilian reviewers, he explained "the principle that action will always be faster than reaction." That means, he wrote, that in a force confrontation an attacker who acts spontaneously "will always be able to initiate an attack before an officer can react to it."

Police officers "in the lawful execution of their duties are not expected to suffer a physical assault before exercising their authority to arrest or to use force to defend against an assault," Ing maintained. Consequently, an officer observing and then reasonably "using 'pre-assaultive' cues to help determine whether or not an assault is imminent...is a valid practice that does not undermine the officer's credibility."

"Force Science helped me understand the scientific basis behind this and helped me learn how to frame the concept in language ordinary people could understand," Ing says.

In July, he learned that this training paid off. "The civilian oversight body held that my findings were reasonable," he reports, "and no further action was taken against the involved officers."

II. Free officer-safety training workshop coming up

Two certified Force Science Analysts will conduct a tuition-free officer-safety training workshop Dec. 19-20 in Eden Prairie, MN, a suburb of Minneapolis, under the auspices of the Dept. of Homeland Security and FLETC's Rural Policing Institute.

Brian Willis of Winning Mind Training will instruct an 8-hr. block on "Harnessing the Winning Mind and Warrior Spirit," focused on the 4 components of the Warrior Pyramid for peak performance and personal excellence.

He will also join FLETC trainer John Bostain in team-teaching blocks on analyzing and preventing officer line-of-duty fatalities, including officer-involved shootings. Together they will explore decision-making by officers and supervisors that can significantly enhance personal safety and affect the annual toll of law enforcement casualties.

In addition to smaller-agency representatives, officers and trainers from larger departments are also invited on a space-available basis. For more information, email: FLETC-RuralPolicingInstitute@dhs.gov or phone: 800-743-5382.

Union Plus Benefits

2011-09-30T00:44:00.000-04:00

Curtis Markley & family, IUOE Local 18,
Auto Insurance participants

Save an average of $483 on car insurance -- carry auto insurance with union advantages

Shopping for car insurance? Union Plus Auto Insurance offers union members money-saving discounts and special benefits:

An average savings of $483, thanks to competitive group auto insurance rates
$250 in grant money to help cover the cost of driver’s education
Deferred premiums during prolonged strike or lockout
As much as 15% off insurance for motorcycles, motor homes, ATVs, or boats
The option to purchase homeowner's insurance

GET A FREE AUTO INSURANCE QUOTE

FEATURED STORY

Union welder cuts the cost of keeping his
family healthy

As a 10-year member of the International Association of Machinists (IAM) Local 1297, Melvin Reese knew he had good medical benefits from his union. But when his wife’s monthly prescriptions started adding up, Reese went online and got a no-cost Union Plus Prescription Card. “The discounts of 15% to 40% are automatic. You see the savings immediately when you check out.” Reese adds, “I recommend this card to any union member who wants to save on prescriptions.”

Find a participating pharmacy near you. If you don't have insurance that covers prescriptions, this prescription card could help you.

MORE HEADLINES

Uniquely union mortgages

Tips for winterizing your home

Tell us what you think

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #185

2011-08-29T15:51:00.000-04:00

Interested in earning Force Science Certification? Additional seating is available in the Force Science Certification Course scheduled for OCT. 17-21, 2011 in the greater Toronto area. To register now, send us an e-mail at: training@forcescience.org expressing your interest in the course and someone from our staff will get back to you promptly to complete your registration and get you information on the training site and a recommended hotel.

In this edition:

I. Cops not guilty of unreasonable force in mistaken killing of child hostage: Appeals Court
II. Scan patterns, OIS investigations & the Lizard Brain...

I. Cops not guilty of unreasonable force in mistaken killing of child hostage: Appeals Court

An internationally publicized case of a tragic shooting in which Force Science testimony was given has been decided by a California appellate court in favor of the involved officers.

Controversial from the beginning, the headline-grabbing case concerned a tense standoff between LAPD SWAT and a drug-deranged father who was holding his 19-month-old daughter in his arm as a hostage and human shield. In a desperate showdown, officers killed the offender in a fusillade of bullets--but also, inadvertently, killed the child.

The girl's mother filed suit, claiming the operators' reckless and unreasonable use of force and negligent disregard of proper police tactics caused her daughter's wrongful death. At trial, Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, testified on the officers' behalf, describing in realistic terms the death scene's chaotic climax.

A Superior Court judge ruled that the plaintiff's arguments had no documented merit and tossed the case. Now the California Court of Appeal has upheld that decision, in an opinion written by Justice Madeleine Flier. Click here to read it in full.

THE THREAT. On a balmy Sunday in July, 2005, 34-year-old Jose Raul Pena, drunk, coked up and meth-addled, depressed over financial problems, and "emotionally unstable," turned deadly. After threatening to kill himself and members of his family, he grabbed his baby daughter Suzie and stormed off to the garage/shop of a small used car lot he owned around the corner from his home in Watts, where a standoff with responding police officers shortly ensued. Pena claimed to have access to 2 handguns, a 12 ga. shotgun, and extra ammunition.

"Four times, Pena stood outside the auto shop and shot at officers [with a 9mm Beretta] as he held Suzie in his right arm as a shield," the appellate decision recounted. Raving that he was Tony Montana from the movie Scarface, he yelled "over 10 times" that he was going to "kill Suzie" and take her "to hell with me," a phrase from the film. According to an investigative report later, he "told the officers to go ahead and shoot him."

"I'm going to kill my baby before I leave my baby to my wife, that whore," the appellate decision quoted him as threatening. He said he'd been in the "Salvadoran military" and knew "how to kill." He also said he'd been in jail and "wasn't going back." Extensive attempts across nearly 3 hours that late afternoon to negotiate a surrender of the child, of Pena or of his weapons were unsuccessful because the hostage-taker "was not being rational and was making constant threats."

SHOTS FIRED. Five minutes after breaking off communication by disconnecting his phone, Pena again "exited the auto shop, holding Suzie in his right arm." A SWAT sniper tracked him via rifle scope from inside a Bear Cat parked outside.

"[H]e saw Pena move his hand as if he were about to remove his gun from his waistband," the appellate decision stated. "[H]e believed Pena was going to shoot Suzie." The sniper fired; Pena flinched "as if struck" and stumbled back inside.

Immediately, the SWAT team leader ordered 4 operators, specially trained in hostage rescue, to enter the building as a rapid-deployment Emergency Assault Element under his direction and bring the baby to safety.

"When they entered the auto shop, the officers expected Pena to be on the floor as a result of [the sniper's] shot," Justice Flier wrote. "[I]nstead he was positioned in an interior office," still alarmingly alive and alarmingly deadly. Quickly he fired "at least six shots through the drywall" in the officers' direction. One round hit one of the rescue team in the shoulder.

The operators said later they did not retreat because their "mission was to separate Suzie from Pena" and they considered her to be in "imminent peril." Retreating, their commander said, "would have been a dereliction" of their duty. Instead, the wounded oprator tossed in a flashbang and the stack surged in.

Consider the pandemonium. The office was a tight 8 X 12 feet, filled with smoke and the echoing boom of the grenade. Pena, moving rapidly, continued shooting at officers while still holding his infant daughter as a shield. All 4 officers simultaneously fired back, defending their own lives and, they thought, saving Suzie.

At least 1 of the officers said he was "blinded by muzzle flashes from Pena's weapon" a few feet from his face, so he could not actually see the child. All concentrated their fire on their assailant's left side, aware he had consistently held the baby on his right throughout the standoff. "Together the officers fired 50-55 shots inside the office within 3.5 to 6 seconds," the appellate decision said. In all that fateful Sunday, Pena had himself fired at least 39 rounds before his fatal takedown.

When the smoke cleared, the officers discovered that the baby had been killed, along with her father. Just who fired the fatal round to her head was never determined, although the court said the shooter was 1 of 3 members of the entry team. All carried Colt M4 carbines, according to an investigative report.

"NONSUIT." The sole basis for the mother's inevitable lawsuit claiming "negligence and wrongful death" was her allegation that "the officers used unreasonable force" in confronting Pena's deadly threats, the appellate decision noted. Her only expert witness--a retired LAPD commander who admitted to having no experience, training, or familiarity in SWAT tactics and protocol--opined that retreat and more negotiation would have been preferable to lethal assault.

During the initial 2-week trial in the Superior Court of Judge Rolf Treu in 2009, Bill Lewinski was asked to explain, among other things, how multiple rounds could have missed the suspect in such tight quarters, including the one that struck and killed the child. (An autopsy revealed that Pena had been hit just 6 times.)

That was not a matter of recklessness, Lewinski told the jury, but instead a common dynamic of sudden, life-threatening confrontations of high stress, rapid dynamic movement, and short duration.

Drawing on studies by the Force Science Institute and other research groups, for instance, he documented the typical time required for officers in a shooting to perceive a given threat, interpret its meaning, decide on a response, and perform a reaction. That all can occur within mere micro-seconds, he explained. Yet within that brief timeframe, the scenario they're confronting can change radically because of split-second movements by the targeted suspect. Officers might not be able to detect the change in enough time to alter the rapid-fire action they've initiated.

Unexpected movement by Pena, who was highly agitated and animated, would account for the failure of the highly trained sniper to deliver an effective head shot outside the shop and of the operators who stormed the inner office to put all rounds on their target, despite the close distances. Pena shifting the little girl from one arm to the other could have brought her into the line of fire unexpectedly and unavoidably.

"These were elite officers," Lewinski told Force Science News. "If LAPD had a Delta team, it would be these guys. Yet they still couldn't shoot with total accuracy in that difficult situation, not because they were recklessly out of control but because of immutable human limitations.

"Force Science has measured what an 'instant' is in a high-stress encounter and what people can and can't do in that time. My job was to help clarify for the jury how our research on human behavior related to what happened in the confrontations with Pena."

After attorneys for both sides had rested their case and minutes before closing arguments were to start, Judge Treu abruptly called a halt to the trial. In response to a defense motion, he found that "reasonable jurors here could only draw one conclusion from the evidence presented, and that was that the officers' use of force was reasonable." In short, the matter was a "nonsuit," and he issued a directed verdict aborting the case.

It was this ruling, challenged by the plaintiff, that the appellate court upheld.

APPELLATE REASONING. In the appeal, the plaintiff's attorneys argued that Treu's nonsuit ruling was improper because no probable cause had existed either for the sniper's initial use of deadly force against Pena or for the rescue team's use of lethal force during its final assault.

The appellate decision characterized this claim as a "nonsensical interpretation of the evidence."

The evidence was "overwhelming," Justice Flier wrote, "that Pena posed a danger to Suzie," even though he did not point his gun directly at her. He had made numerous verbal threats to kill her, and the sniper was "not required to wait" until Pena pointed his gun at her and actually "pulled the trigger to conclude that [the] threats were real and exposed Suzie to great risk."

As for the final shootout, the appellate panel agreed with the trial court that the operators "had probable cause and rights within their discretion to go in after Pena, particularly since there were shots fired from inside the room out and the officers could reasonably have believed [these] may involve Suzie."

Addressing the multitude of rounds fired, the officers' "concurrent shooting multiple times at Pena cannot constitute excessive force under an objective standard," the appellate decision stated. Case law has established that the "number of shots by itself cannot be determinative as to whether the force used was reasonable. That multiple shots were fired does not suggest the officers shot mindlessly as much as it indicates that they sought to ensure the elimination of a deadly threat."

Any belief by the plaintiff "that the officers should have stopped after each shot and assessed its effect" when Pena was shooting directly at them was unrealistic from "the perspective of [a] reasonable officer at the scene," the court declared.

Tragic as the unintended death of the child was, the decision concluded, "retreating when Suzie remained in danger would have been a dereliction of duty.... [C]onsidering the exigency of the circumstances," the officers acted properly in pursuing the father who threatened her life and "used reasonable care in employing deadly force."

II. Scan patterns, OIS investigations & the Lizard Brain...

Two new publications and a creative YouTube video of interest to law enforcement trainers and other Force Science aficionados:

• First, a full report on the groundbreaking Force Science study of scan patterns in potential threat situations is now in print in the professional journal Human Movement Science.

This study, conducted by Dr. Joan Vickers of the University of Calgary and Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Institute, used sophisticated technology to track the respective gazes of elite SWAT team members and rookie officers as they watched a role-playing scenario gradually evolve into a deadly force encounter. Because of their distinctive scanning patterns, the highly experienced subjects proved much faster and more accurate in anticipating and responding to threats than those new to the street.

Ultimately, this information is expected to prove valuable in recruit and in-service firearms training, hopefully hastening the speed with which officers can develop optimum scanning habits.

Force Science News reported on these findings in Transmission #104, sent 8/22/08. For complete details, the Human Movement report is available at: by clicking here. The journal requires a fee for access beyond the article's brief abstract.

Vickers also presents findings from this study and her other eye-movement research during a presentation at the certification course for Force Science Analysis.

• Certified Force Science analyst Kris Pitcher writes in Law and Order magazine on "Maintaining Investigative Credibility" in critical use-of-force cases. Pitcher draws on his first-hand experience as commanding officer of the LAPD's Force Investigation Division to offer practical tips to agencies on assuring public confidence as they search for the truth in controversial force events. You can access the article free of charge by clicking here

Pitcher, incidentally, was involved in the investigation of the Pena shooting described above. He is also scheduled as a faculty member for the Lethal and Less-lethal Force seminar, presented Oct. 10-12 in Las Vegas by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, along with other certified Force Science Analysts Dr. Alexis Artwohl and Greg Meyer. More details on that seminar are at www.aele.org/menu-lethal.html.

• Finally, check out this clever video on YouTube at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImMBiqM62jk

Using a cartoon format, it's an easy-to-follow description of the human amygdala (the so-called "Lizard Brain"), which "regulates emotions and activates the body's earliest warning system for danger so survival actions can follow."

In particular, the narration explains how hypervigilance fostered by the impact of police training and working conditions on the amygdala can affect officer interactions on the street both positively and negatively.

"Our hope is that this video will help the public and officers alike better understand some of the police behavior they may see on TV or encounter first-hand," says Jack Colwell who, with his long-time training partner Charles "Chip" Huth, was the creative force behind the production. Huth is a certified Force Science Analyst and together they've also written the book Unleashing the Power of Unconditional Respect: Transforming Law Enforcement and Police Training.

At the moment, the video is available only on YouTube but can be downloaded for roll call training, Colwell says. Eventually he and Huth hope to have a system in place that will allow them to search Twitter and other social media for people who are expressing concerns about law enforcement experiences.

"About every 30 seconds somewhere in the U.S. someone is Tweeting about frustrations or criticism involving the police," Colwell says. "Our goal is to be able to 'capture' these individuals online and refer them to the video as a means of broadening their understanding and hopefully easing or eliminating anti-cop sentiments."

Force Science board member Dr. Alexis Artwohl, internationally recognized for her research into the psychological effects of police shootings, was a key consultant on the video project. Dr. Kevin Gilmartin, also an FSI board member, is quoted in the narration. More productions in a similar format are planned, Colwell says.

For more information on the Lizard Brain production and Colwell's and Huth's other projects, contact them at: unleashingrespect@gmail.com

Living Labor Daily Coupons

2011-08-29T15:47:00.002-04:00

In celebration of Labor Day this week – starting Monday, August 29 through

Labor Day, September 5 – visit the Collective Bargains blog for daily Union Plus coupons for union families. Check back every day to see what the new deal is!

Please share these LivingLabor deals with your fellow union

members and family members.

TODAY'S UNION PLUS DEAL: 15% off AT&T Wireless – the ONLY national

unionized wireless provider.

And if you support American workers, don't forget to be counted on the

Solidarity Map at UnionPlus.org/Solidarity!

In solidarity,

Union Plus Benefits
Brought to you by Union Privilege
www.UnionPlus.org

Union Privilege - Provider of Union Plus Benefits
1125 15th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005
enews@unionprivilege.org

August General Membership Meeting

2011-08-18T22:45:00.003-04:00

The August General Membership Meeting will be held on August 25th, 2011 at the Sager Avenue office. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. (1900 hours) Hope to see as many members as possible. Refreshments will be served.

Official Endorsement Statement for Sheriff Stan Barry

2011-08-10T23:25:00.004-04:00

August 8, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Fairfax Deputy Sheriff’s Coalition IUPA Local 5016 is pleased to announce the endorsement of Sheriff Stan Barry in his bid for re-election for Fairfax County Sheriff. After careful consideration and an extensive voting process, the membership of the FDSC agreed that Sheriff Barry has done a remarkable job over the past twelve years of balancing fiscal responsibility with the needs of Deputy Sheriffs.

President Kevin Pittman stated “Sheriff Barry has proven himself time and again to be a strong advocate for the taxpayers of Fairfax County by running one of the most cost efficient law enforcement organizations in the country while, at the same time ensuring Deputy Sheriffs are trained and equipped to the highest possible standards. What he has managed to accomplish during his 12 years tenure as Sheriff is nothing short of remarkable and he certainly deserves our endorsement for another term”.

The Fairfax Deputy Sheriff’s Coalition is an affiliated local of the International Union of Police Associations AFL-CIO and a member of the Northern Virginia Central Labor Council representing nearly 200 Deputy Sheriffs in Fairfax County Virginia.

POC : Kevin Pittman, President FDSC 5016
Tel (571)-238-2393
Email: kpittman5016@gmail.com

Sheriffs Election Endorsement

2011-08-07T16:24:00.004-04:00

Recently the Local 5016 held a general membership vote regarding the endorsement of the upcoming election for Fairfax County Sheriff that will be held in November. The membership had a choice of three candidates who all came to our candidate's forum to explain their platform, views and positions.

After the election was held at the end of July, based on the vote the Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition voted to endorsed Stan Barry in his campaign for reelection. In the coming days we will be putting out our official press release for his endorsement as well as various information about his campaign for any members who wish to help on his campaign as part of the Coalition's efforts!

Force Science News: Transmission #183

2011-08-03T17:14:00.003-04:00

Recent developments in post-OIS procedures: Tales of 3 cities

Force Science® News

Chuck Remsberg
Editor-in-Chief

1. Chicago officers win right to 24-hr. "grace period"

An arbitrator has ruled that Chicago officers involved in shootings can wait at least 24 hours before having to give a recorded statement to investigators from the municipal agency that reviews police shootings.

The decision resulted from a grievance filed by Chicago Lodge 7 of the Fraternal Order of Police against the city's Independent Police Review Authority. That civilian agency investigates all Chicago PD shootings, as well as complaints of officer misconduct, and makes recommendations for "appropriate disciplinary action" to the police superintendent if violations of departmental rules and regulations are found.

Late last year the IPRA asserted that under the city's contract with the FOP it had the right to compel an involved officer to give an official recorded interview within 2 hours of a shooting, regardless of the officer's level of stress or sleep deprivation. FOP president Mike Shields characterized this as a "uniquely incorrect position" and pushed the matter to arbitration.

Recently arbitrator Peter Feuille ruled that unless an officer wants to talk sooner the IPRA must wait at least 24 hours after a shooting before its investigators can conduct a detailed interview and that the questioning can occur only between 0600 and 1800. If a shooting occurred at 7 pm, for example, at least 35 hours would then elapse before the interview is required .

FOP attorney Paul Geiger told Force Science News: "This gives the officer a chance to rest through 1 sleep cycle, collect himself, and consult with an attorney during reasonable hours in order to give an accurate account of what happened.

"We are not against an officer talking to the IPRA under Garrity protection. We just want him to be able to give an informed, thoughtful statement. Given how hectic and emotional a shooting situation is, we think the rest period is important."

Chicago is on track to nearly double the number of OISs in 2011 if the current rate continues. As of July 21 police have shot 40 suspects this year, nearly as many as in all of 2010. This is a mid-year high compared to the last 4 years. Aggravated assaults and batteries of officers by the end of June had already exceeded the year's total for 2000.

One OIS survivor, Ofcr. Danny O'Toole, who experienced 2 shootings in 2 weeks, told the Chicago Sun-Times: "The younger generation is brazen. They just don't care." FOP spokesman Pat Camden agreed. "There's no fear of the police," he said.

The newspaper noted: "No Chicago police officers have been charged with criminal wrongdoing involving shootings in recent memory."

2. OIS hearings in Jacksonville will no longer be public

In Jacksonville, FL, OIS hearing procedures will be changing somewhat because of a recent state Supreme Court ruling.

Police shootings are not uncommon for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, which provides protective services for the city and its surrounding county with a sworn force of some 1,700 officers. Across the last decade, OISs there have ranged from 6 to 28 annually.

Investigations are conducted by detectives from the agency's homicide unit. Evidence, including in-person Q & A with involved officers, is heard and assessed for administrative purposes by a 5-person departmental Response to Resistance Board (Jacksonville's term for a use-of-force review body).

Reflecting Sheriff John Rutherford's devotion to transparency and community trust-building, the RTRB hearings have been open affairs. Interested members of the public, the media, and even relatives and supporters of suspects have been welcome to attend.

Undersheriff Dwain Senterfitt, who formerly chaired Board hearings when he was director of investigations, explains that in questioning the involved officer, "the Board gets into the nitty-gritty: what was he thinking, what was he doing, and why. The lead investigator presents witness statements, the medical examiner's findings, and other evidence. The involved officer can sit through the entire hearing, with his attorney present.

"In the end, the Board's recommendation is for no further action, more training, or referral to IA. Ultimately, the sheriff decides what action is then taken."

Senterfitt feels that having the hearings open has been "absolutely satisfactory" in assuring civilians that "we look at officers' actions and hold them accountable." But the officers' bargaining agent, FOP Lodge 5-30, took issue with the custom.

In a lawsuit, the FOP argued that the RTRB hearings were, in fact, internal investigations and as such should be confidential under Florida law until concluded. The case worked its way to a panel of the state Supreme Court, which agreed. The Sheriff's Office asked for a review by the full court, which was declined last month (June).

Thus, "future Board hearings will still be held but will be closed to the media and the public at the time they occur," Senterfitt told Force Science News. After the case is fully concluded, the SO will make a video disk of the Board hearing available to the media and interested public parties.

Except for limited sensitive information--an officer's home address, for example--the disk will contain the full, unedited Board proceeding. This conforms to Florida's open records law, Senterfitt says.

Meanwhile, Jacksonville's other post-shooting practices will remain in place as they have been, Senterfitt says. For example:

• At the scene, the involved officer is expected to supply only "a few basic generalities" to the lead investigator, such as: Are there suspects at large? What evidence needs to be gathered and where should it be sought? What's the scope of the scene? What witnesses should be questioned? The officer meets promptly with an FOP attorney, who decides what additional information, if any, is shared with investigators initially. "The attorney does the talking," Senterfitt says.

• A "buddy officer" is assigned to provide companionship and help tend to personal needs of the involved officer. Personnel trained in critical incident stress management confer with the officer on what potentially to expect physiologically and emotionally in the next 24-48 hours, and an assistant chief briefs the officer on what lies ahead administratively.

• Jacksonville patrol officers work a rotation cycle of 5 days on, 5 days off. After a shooting, the involved officer goes on administrative leave for his next time-off period, plus whatever time is left of his current work period. Besides a mandatory visit with a psychologist during this time, he meets with the FOP attorney and prepares a brief (usually about 1 page, Senterfitt says) written statement about the shooting, which goes to the SO and the state's attorney's office.

• Once the prosecutor decides whether the shooting was legally justified (usually 2-3 months after the event, Senterfitt says), the department then schedules the RTRB hearing. Chaired by the agency's investigations director, the Board includes the director of the training academy, 2 assistant chiefs, and a lieutenant.

"We've had this procedure in place for several years now," Senterfitt says, "and we like what we do. We like to conduct the process so that anyone who looks at it can see that we did things right. But we're not above changing it or stealing good ideas from someone else to improve it."

"Jacksonville has made a commendable effort to maintain continued transparency for the community and still protect the rights and well-being of officers after major force events," says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute. "Whenever significant force is used, a delicate balance is required between officer support, accountability, and openness. If any element ultimately is lost, the integrity of the system is damaged."

[For more information on Jacksonville's post-OIS practices, the undersheriff can be reached at: dwain.senterfitt@jaxsheriff.org.]

3. New day in Santa Fe for OIS survivors

It's been a long climb to enlightenment for the Santa Fe (NM) PD since the dark night 5 years ago when officers were left, literally, out in the cold after a shooting.

In FSN Transmission #94 [Click here to read it] we detailed the sorry fate of Ofcr. Shannon Brady, who in 2006 shot and killed a coked-up domestic batterer when he lunged at her and her sergeant with a folding knife.

The officers were kept at the scene for 5 hours, with Brady much of that time sitting "alone on an ice-cold curb" and with even her request for a jacket having to be cleared through the chain of command. Her gun surrendered, she was left with an empty holster in a neighborhood known to be dangerous. When she and the sergeant needed a bathroom break, they were transported, like suspects, in the cage of a marked unit. Except for a catnap, Brady had been awake for more than 46 hours when she faced 2 hours of interrogation for her formal statement. Roughly a year passed then before she was officially exonerated.

"The easiest part was the shooting itself," she says. "The worst was what happened afterward. This department had lost sight of what human beings need. I made a vow to myself that I would do everything in my power to see that no other officer ever had to go through an ordeal like that in the future."

Through several changes of command staff, she and allies she's won along the way have doggedly kept to that promise, researching potential new procedures, drafting proposals, meeting with and lobbying shot-callers, and so on. Over time, they've prompted a myriad of new departmental practices that provide immediate and long-term support for critical-incident survivors and help prepare other officers for crises yet to come.

After shootings, involved officers are now "removed from the scene as soon as realistically possible," says Brady, who became a detective last winter. They're transported to a comfortable site for administrative processing, allowed to call family immediately, and can have an officer of their choice at their side for companionship and emotional support. "Formal interviewing is delayed at least 48 hours to permit the officers to get some rest," Brady says, and officers have access to a psychologist for dealing with post-shooting issues. Internal Affairs is said to be "working on expediting" its investigative process.

The core achievement in Santa Fe's reform package, however, extends beyond shooting encounters. It's the establishment of a broad-ranged Peer Support Team, designed to help any officer weather and thrive after "any personal or professional crisis" that adversely affects the officer or his/her family or "any event during which the sights, smells, or sounds are so vivid as to cause an immediate or delayed increase of stress or stress reactions."

Such incidents may include not only shootings and other deadly force attacks, but also serious injuries to an officer or loved one, "an accumulation of stressful calls in a short period of time," "unusual or gruesome injury or death of a child," divorce or child-custody disputes, lawsuits and IA investigations, the death of another officer, thoughts of self-destruction, and "any incident outside our normal range of experience," Brady says.

Family members as well as officers are eligible for the Team's services, which are also available to other law enforcement agencies and fire departments that request help.

Headed by Brady, the Team consists of 12 volunteers with 2 to 22 years on the job and ranks from police officer to captain. All have been trained by the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation and can handle 1-on-1 consultations as well as after-action group "defusings and emotional debriefings."

An on-scene supervisor is expected to notify the Team leader whenever a shooting, line-of-duty death, serious-injury event, or other potentially traumatic happenstance occurs, and the leader then promptly initiates the support actions deemed appropriate. For crisis situations beyond the Team volunteers' expertise (alcohol and substance abuse treatment, for example), they can research and refer officers to outside resources.

After the Team coalesced last year after months of planning, it got its baptism by fire when 2 teenagers were killed in a major DUI pileup. "It was an ugly mess, and several rookies were on the scene," Brady recalls. "We did a group debrief afterward and that went very smoothly. A deputy chief commented that in over 20 years of police work, he'd never attended a debrief for a fatal crash and didn't realize how necessary it was."

Brady, whose husband Sgt. Mark Kmatz is a certified Force Science Analyst with the Bernalillo County (NM) SD, plans to keep expanding the Team's reach. She envisions creating a "comprehensive wellness program" for PD and FD personnel, retirement coaching and financial planning projects, more extensive stress resilience training for recruits, guidance for supervisors on how to identify officers in need of help, annual sessions on emotional survival conducted by Force Science board member Dr. Kevin Gilmartin, and much more.

Having reviewed the practices of dozens of other agencies, she says she's "shocked" to find how little attention most departments are paying to such issues. Too often, she laments, "the law enforcement culture tends to dismiss what ongoing exposure to stress and trauma can do to its people. So few agencies seem to be thinking ahead."

What's been accomplished in Santa Fe "has been a huge, huge thing for me personally," she says. "It has provided a sense of closure on my incident." In the time since her shooting she has also completed most of the requirements for a master's degree in psychology, which she believes will help her achieve the goals that lie ahead.

"Helping other cops is my baby, my pet professional project," she says. "Let's face it--I'm still a squeaky wheel."

Says Dr. Lewinski: "The Santa Fe experience is a striking example of how determined and persistent officers can take misfortune and transform it into profound changes that make a difference not only to themselves but to an entire department. Congratulations on hard work well done!"

[Brady welcomes inquiries from officers interested in establishing Peer Support Teams in their own agencies. She says she can share her research on the subject and help strategize an action plan. She can be reached at: slbradykmatz@santafenm.gov.]

NCPERS News Clips

2011-08-03T17:07:00.001-04:00

NCPERS News Clips

August 2, 2011

News Clips for August 2nd, 2011

· State pension fund gains 22.3%
(Massachusetts) Assets nearly back to pre crisis level

· In Tough Times, Philadelphia Bucks The Trend
More than two years after the recession officially ended, mayors across the country are still struggling to balance their budgets.

· DPS's Roberts overrides contract, imposes cuts; union pres. vows fight
Wielding power under a new state law to modify union contracts, Detroit Public Schools emergency manager Roy Roberts this morning imposed a 10 percent wage cut on all employees and moved the district to a less costly benefits plan.

· Federal pay, benefits cuts left out of debt deal, sources say
The deal to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for massive spending cuts will not now hit federal employees' pay and benefits but it could in a few short months.

· How to cut costs in running pensions
The fund management industry is mostly run for profit for the owners rather than the investors. The owners of fund groups are virtually guaranteed a profit; the investors with them enjoy no such guarantee. (subscription required)

· Study: No place DROPs like Philly
Nonuniformed city workers in nearby states and some other major cities can't cash in on a DROP-style pension bonus like they can in Philadelphia, according to a new study of the city's pension benefits.

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20001

National Council on Public Employee Retirement Systems New Clips

2011-07-29T12:39:00.001-04:00

NCPERS News Clips

July 26, 2011

News Clips for July 25th, 2011

Double-digit percentage returns for 5 pension funds
Strong equity gains helped boost investment returns for pension plans in Louisiana, California, Oklahoma and Canada in fiscal year 2011, while some experienced additional returns through private equity and real estate positions, according to information released by the plans on Friday
"Unsustainable" Florida Retirement System (Says Gov. Scott) Has Best Gains in 25 Years
Lifted by gains in the stock market, the Florida Retirement System pension plan gained $19 billion in the fiscal year that ended on June 30. The 22 percent gain is the biggest in 25 years, reports the State Board of Administration, and larger than the 14 percent gain from last year. The total value of the pension plan has soared to $128.4 billion.
CalPERS, CalSTRS report big gains in investment returns
California's two statewide retirement systems earned a combined $66 billion on their investments in the past year – but still can't shake criticism that public pensions are a black hole for taxpayers.
21 endangered workplace benefits
Employers are cutting many benefits and perks, from the traditional pension plan to the company picnic
Nevada Public Employee Pension Plan Sees Record Investment Return In 2011
Nevada's public employee retirement system saw a whopping 21 percent return on its investments in the fiscal year ending June 30, the executive officer of the agency said today.
Florida State Board of Administration Posts Performance for 2010-2011
The Florida State Board of Administration released preliminary figures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011 showing the FRS Pension Plan posting a return of 22.0 percent, beating its benchmark by 30 basis points and ending the fiscal year with a market value of $128.42 billion.
Laying off public employees harms the private sector, too
Late last week — in response to public sector layoffs driving our unemployment rate near 10 percent — NC GOP Chairman Robin Hayes said he hoped more layoffs were coming for state workers.
Pension system reports big gain
(Arizona) Fund's surge of 24% is largest since 1986

Sheriff Candidate Endorsement Vote

2011-07-23T02:44:00.003-04:00

The open forum that was held for the candidates for Sheriff is complete and allowed the membership to come and listen to each candidate. We are now moving to the final endorsement vote by the Coalition membership. This is an extremely important opportunity to be a part of the final selection of who the Coalition will endorse during this upcoming election through casting your vote on who you believe is the best choice. The vote will be held over two days to allow for both confinement rotations an opportunity to come to the union office and vote either before or after their shift and day work deputies a choice between two days to come by the office to vote. There will be prepared ballots and a ballot box. The whole process should take no more than two minutes to complete at maximum. Our final endorsement announcement will be made on Monday August 1st, 2011!

Dates: July 26th and July 27th, 2011

Time: 1700-2100

Location:

10500 Sager Avenue Suite C
Fairfax, VA 22030

Candidate Forum for Sheriff Candidates

2011-07-15T19:34:00.000-04:00

The Coalition has set up a candidates forum for all three candidates running for Sheriff. The dates and times were agreed upon by all three candidates to offer an opportunity for the general membership to listen to each candidate and all for questions to be asked about their candidacy and what they would do if they are elected Sheriff this November. The dates were arranged to allow for deputies on both confinement scheduled to attend at least one forum. The forum will be held at the Sager Avenue office starting at 7:00 p.m. each night. We will send out a follow up e-mail with how the forum will be run in the next few days.

Dates for Candidates Forum

July 21st: Starting at 7:00 p.m.

July 22nd: Starting at 7:00 p.m.

Union Plus Benefits

2011-07-14T14:06:00.000-04:00

LEGAL SERVICES

FREE 30-min. legal consultation

Find a union-friendly lawyer in your area and get a free 30-minute consultation with 30% off additional services.

LEARN MORE

HEALTH SAVINGS

Sign up and save

Sign up at UnionPlus.org and customize the site to stay informed about your Union Plus benefits! When you sign up, you can also download a no-cost prescription savings card. If you don’t have insurance that covers prescription drugs, this card can help you save an average of 15% off brand-name drugs and 40% off generics.

SIGN UP

FEATURED STORY

IUOE family saves $650 with Union Plus
Auto Insurance

Curtis Markley, Operating Engineers Local 18 member, knew with three sons he had to plan ahead for the increased cost of having new drivers in the family. Markley is glad he got a quote from Union Plus. It saved him $400 a year on auto insurance, plus his son got a Union Plus grant to pay for driver’s education.

READ FULL STORY

MORE HEADLINES

Do you have a bad boss?

10 ways to boost your smartphone's battery life

Stand United: Don't stay at these hotels

NCPERS News Clips

2011-07-13T13:21:00.002-04:00

NCPERS News Clips

July 12, 2011

News Clips for July 12th, 2011

· Contrary to What the NYT Asserts, Not All Economists Believe that Pension Funds Assume Too High a Rate of Return
The NYT, which has repeatedly printed news stories implying that public pensions are hugely underfunded, wrongly implied that economists all agree that public pensions have overly optimistic return assumptions for their pension funds. This is not true.

· Federal worker coalition: Don't damage our pensions to cut debt
The Federal-Postal Coalition, representing about two dozen organizations of federal employees, is urging President Obama and congressional leaders "to reject proposals that will prove damaging to federal employees in any final agreement over raising our nation's debt ceiling."

· 100 largest public pension plans' assets reach $2.7 trillion in Q1
The 100 largest public retirement systems in the U.S. had a combined $2.7 trillion in the first quarter of 2011, an increase of 3.6% from the start of 2011 and 10.2% above the first quarter last year, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report.

· A Proposal for Drawing a Clearer Picture of Public Pension Finances
The board that writes accounting rules for states and cities plans to issue a proposed solution Friday to one of the hottest disputes in public finance, whether governments are truthfully disclosing the size and condition of their pension funds, and how to fix any deficiencies.

· Memphis' public employee unions sue city to block pay cuts
Thirteen public employee unions, representing upwards of 5,000 city of Memphis workers, filed a federal lawsuit this morning to stop the city from implementing a cost-cutting measure that would equal a 4.6 percent pay cut for their members.

GASB unveils public pension plan accounting proposals
Public plans will be required to highlight net unfunded liabilities on their balance sheets and will have less time to expense them under a draft of new GASB rules unveiled Friday.

News from the Public Retirement Front

2011-07-11T23:17:00.001-04:00

NCPERS News Clips

July 5, 2011

News Clips for July 5th, 2011

NJ gov signs bill reining in employee benefits
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Tuesday signed landmark legislation that increases pension and health contributions paid by a half-million teachers, police and other public workers and removes the issue from collective bargaining for four years.
Tax hikes needed for pension funding: study
U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.
Firefighters local agrees to pension contributions
Fire captains, engineers, firefighters and paramedics with the Folsom Fire Department began contributing 5 percent of their salary this month toward their retirement under the terms of a new labor contract.
Massachusetts Curbs Bargaining
Heavily Democratic Massachusetts on Friday became the latest state to curtail public workers' collective-bargaining rights, as lawmakers approved a $30.6 billion budget that gives cities and towns greater leeway to force employees to pay more for their health care.
Study finds common traits of solid public pension plans
The most important trait that allowed some public pension plans to weather the financial crisis better than others was full employer contributions made consistently over time, according to a study to be released Wednesday by the National Institute on Retirement Security.
Unions will continue public fight against collective bargaining changes
Many of Wisconsin's public employee groups promise to take their cases to the public instead of the negotiating table, now that they can no longer bargain for anything but wages. The state's limits on collective bargaining took effect yesterday for all state employees, plus local-and-school workers without contract extensions.

National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
444 N. Capitol St., NW Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: 1-877-202-5706 Fax: 202-624-1439

Force Science News: #181

2011-07-11T23:11:00.000-04:00

As police deaths mount, what can you do now to stay safe?

It's a bloody year for cops so far.

At the end of June, total duty-related fatalities in the U.S. are up 8% compared to the same time last year, according to preliminary figures from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Officer murders from gunfire are spiking an alarming 38% increase. If trends hold through the second half of the year, we could see the worst annual toll in a decade.

What behavioral factors may be influencing this disturbing surge--and, specifically, what can you do right now to best avoid becoming one of the grim statistics?

We consulted 3 prominent trainers with Force Science credentials for their recommendations. Here's their compendium of proactive safety measures you can follow immediately, at no cost, and with no complicated training to protect yourself and fellow officers. It's a no-excuses list, highly appropriate for roll-call reinforcement.

What do you think? If you have additional points from your own experience or observation you'd like to share, we'd like to hear them at: editor@forcescience.org.

1. DR. BILL LEWINSKI, executive director of the Force Science Institute and the foremost researcher of the human dynamics involved in deadly encounters.

"From an overview of shootings this year, it's possible to identify at least some fundamental elements of officer safety that officers have disregarded, resulting in their being caught by surprise in untenable positions by offenders who wanted to kill them," Lewinski notes.

"You don't need to be paranoid to survive on the street, but you do need to build certain critical basics of caution into your repertoire that you simply do not deviate from in any of your contacts." Among them:

• Respect the speed of attack. "The average suspect can present a gun--from a pocket, from a waistband, from a vehicle console, from his side, from under his body--and fire in any direction in just one-quarter of a second. That's faster than the average officer can shoot, even if his weapon is on target, his finger is on the trigger, and he has already decided to fire. That's because of the time it takes to mentally process and impel a reaction to the suspect's action."

He cites cases earlier this year in which suspects in less than a second were able to gun officers down, and in one confrontation 2 officers standing in close proximity apparently were shot in that brief flicker of time before either could respond.

"Remembering the potential lightning speed of an attack will affect all your behavior in approaching and conducting a suspect contact, from your use of cover to your tactical positioning to your verbal commands to your state of alertness," Lewinski says.

"It doesn't matter on a vehicle stop whether you approach from the driver's side or the passenger side if you position yourself directly in front of the driver's or passenger's window and make yourself an easy target. You can be shot there before you can blink.

"Likewise, if you don't monitor and control a suspect's hands from the outset, you're only worsening your reactive disadvantage."

• 'Read' to live. Force Science experiments in Northern Ireland have shown that officers who are best able to defend themselves generally are those who can accurately "read" suspect behavior that preshadows an attack. [Click here to read a Force Science News report on this study.] "The most skilled officers, using their training and experience, tend to know where, when, and how a threat situation is going to unfold," Lewinski says.

"If you're attentive to physical movements and verbal cues, which are sometimes subtle, you often can detect and then defuse or suppress potential threats before you get caught behind the reactionary curve," Lewinski says. "This requires continual assessment of your subjects and your surroundings, evaluating what they're doing, what they're saying, where and how they're moving, and what's going on around you.

"Before you can assert or maintain control, you have to be aware and not in a state of denial or inattention. Some officers, unfortunately, do not even acknowledge that something as blatant as an armed subject refusing to comply with commands is a strong threat cue."

• Avoid verbal traps. "We've all seen dash-cam videos of officers standing in the open and repeatedly yelling commands to 'Drop the gun!' at noncompliant, threatening offenders," Lewinski says. "The officers are not using the deadly force that they're legally justified in using, and they're not doing anything else--like moving to cover or withdrawing--to gain a tactical advantage.

"These officers get caught in a repetitive verbal loop because they perceive they are losing control of the situation and they can't figure a way out. They are tactically frozen.

"You can't think creatively at the moment you're confronted with the possibility of your own death, especially if you've never been in a similar situation before. Your preparation must come before the event. And that means experiencing an abundance of realistic, force-on-force scenarios, performed at gunfight speed, even if this training has to be done on your personal time. This will embed options you can call forth when you need them so you don't just keep yelling at an offender who isn't listening."

• Train your mind. One low-cost, easily conducted training technique for overcoming tactical freezing that Lewinski likes is hooded drills--if they're done correctly. "The idea isn't to immediately bombard you with such intense and challenging stimuli that you're overwhelmed with fear, and then call it 'stress inoculation.'

"The most productive approach is to start with scenarios that are less urgent, where there's some time for you to practice reading a situation, evaluating suspect behavior, and then making tactical decisions. As you get more skilled, your training partners can push the urgency, gradually introducing more intensity.

"The focus should not be merely inflicting stress. It should be on your mind, on getting you adept at quickly evaluating situations, detecting potential threats or not, and employing appropriate options. This takes many exposures on a continuing basis, not just 1 or 2 exercises in the course of a year."

2. BRIAN WILLIS, a former Calgary (Alberta) officer and trainer, president of Winning Mind Training, and a certified Force Science Analyst. Willis is a leader in the campaign initiated by Law Officer Magazine to reduce the yearly toll of LEO deaths in this country to below 100, a goal that has not been achieved since 1944.

The Below 100 drive focuses on 5 basic tenets, simple concepts that Willis refers to as the "low-hanging fruit" of law enforcement behavior modification--"things any officer can easily make a part of his or her daily performance that will have a profound cumulative effect."

• Wear your seat belt. "Over the years, we've used officer safety as an excuse not to strap in for fear of being trapped in an ambush," Willis says. "In reality, very few if any officers have been murdered because they couldn't release their seat belt quickly.

"Yet it's confirmed that nearly 40% of officers killed in vehicle collisions were not wearing their belts, and many of those lost lives undoubtedly could have been saved. Risk manager Gordon Graham, formerly of the California Highway Patrol, estimates that faithful seat belt use could cut line of duty deaths by at least 30 immediately."

• Wear your vest. "More than 3,500 officers' lives have been saved by soft body armor," Willis says, "yet about half of all active officers don't consistently wear their vests. Even in agencies with mandatory-wear policies, the policy is often ignored and unenforced." One study reports that the vast majority of agencies--90%--do not regularly inspect officers' vests to ensure that they fit and are properly maintained, conveying an attitude of indifference.

"We need to start calling out officers who show up at roll call without their vests and insist that they get them on before they go out on the street," Willis believes.

• Watch your speed. Officer fatalities from traffic mishaps are actually down this year compared to last, but many cops still are "driving way too fast to calls that are minor in nature," Willis says. "Four in 10 fatal crashes of law enforcement vehicles involve a single vehicle striking a fixed object off the roadway, usually an indication of driving too fast or too fast for conditions and losing control."

Sometimes it's not the driver who's the victim. He cites one case in which an officer was driving 100 mph in a 45-mph zone in response to a shoplifting call. He struck a fellow officer who was on foot picking up flares from a previous collision and killed him, before slamming into a telephone pole. That driver officer is now serving a 17-year term in prison.

• Decide 'What's Important Now'. This is Willis's signature concept. "It involves continually weighing your options and determining what best advances your goals," he explains.

"Do you rush in to make an arrest, or wait until you have backup? Do you end a pursuit when the risk is too great, or stay in it regardless? Do you engage in a foot chase or a foot-surveillance? Do you talk or do you fight? Do you close the gap and use empty-hand control, or maintain distance and use an intermediate weapon. Do you shoot or not shoot?

"Deciding what's most important right now, given the circumstances you're facing, allows you to prioritize your behavior. It affects every aspect of your life, on duty or off."

• Remember: Complacency kills. "Reflect on the way you're doing the job," Willis suggests. "What has become 'routine' in your practices? What does complacency look like in your life, and how can you change your mind-set so you can be on active patrol at all times? This is vital self-assessment that needs to occur on a regular basis."

Also, he urges, "watch for signs of complacency in other officers and bring it to their attention. We need to care enough about each other to challenge dangerous behavior rather than let it pass. Ignored behavior becomes condoned behavior, and the cost too often is tallied in officers' lives."

[Willis, Law Officer editor Dale Stockton, and Capt. Travis Yates of the Tulsa (OK) PD will present a 4-hour train-the-trainer program on the Below 100 initiative on July 14 at the Charlotte (NC) Police & Fire Training Academy. The instruction, with abundant take-home training materials, is free of charge. Phone (704) 432-1603 for information.]

3. BOB "COACH" LINDSEY, a certified Force Science Analyst, retired colonel from the Jefferson Parish (LA) SO, and creator of the popular training course, "Mental Preparation for Winning & Surviving on Duty and Off-Duty."

In Lindsey's view, reducing officer fatalities boils down to 1 simple question: Are you willing?

"Today," he says, "we have the best trained, best equipped officers in history. Every one of them can keep a seat belt buckled while their car is in motion, can wear a protective vest even if it's uncomfortable, can be alert for pre-attack cues that usually precede violent acts, can intervene to correct a fellow officer's dangerous tactical errors...but there's a critical difference between ability and willingness.

"We have a professional obligation to be willing, a personal responsibility to be our own best bodyguard. We are compelled to have better training and stronger conviction than the armed adversary we confront. If that adversary finds us unsure, not prepared to react, hesitant but he is willing to kill without hesitation, who's going to win?

"You won't have time in a life-threatening situation to decide if you are willing. You must do that beforehand and repeatedly confirm your determination through self-talk, visualization, pre-planning, and the mastery of tactical options as part of your preparation for combat."

"Most officers, God willing, will never meet lethal competition. But we all must stand ready and willing when that moment does come to address and stop the threat and to return home safely to our loved ones at the end of shift."

General Membership Meeting--June 2nd, 7:00 p.m.

2011-05-30T12:44:00.001-04:00

There will be a General Membership Meeting on Thursday June 2nd at 7:00 p.m. at the Sager Avenue office. The main focus of the meeting will be outlining the upcoming Sheriff's election and how we will organize future meetings for the general membership with all the candidates to ensure that all coalition members on all shifts have an opportunity to meet and question the candidates when they come to address the membership.

Department of Justice Meeting

2011-04-10T20:39:00.002-04:00

There has been a lot of talk and news covering the extremely violent year the law enforcement officers throughout the United States have suffered. Just like the I.U.P.A. notes, we are simply letting the membership review the notes from the meeting with Attorney General Holder.

Meeting, DOJ re:

Officers Killed, 2011

On March 22, 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder convened a meeting in his offices concerning the alarming increase of officers killed, wounded and assaulted by firearms in the first three months of 2011. Attendees included Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs, representatives of rank and file and Attorney General Staff.

The Attorney General opened the meeting noting his personal concern about the increase of officers assaulted with firearms thus far this year. He asked for input, recommendations, and any shared knowledge about why these attacks are occurring and what might be collectively done to decrease them. He also announced that every Assistant Attorney General around the country would be tasked with meeting with local law enforcement representatives to consider and to address this issue.

A myriad of suggestions and observations were offered and I will recount some of them, not in any order of importance, but in order to share them with you and solicit your ideas for meetings of this type in the future. These ideas or not necessarily those of the I.U.P.A. and I am not advocating or defending any of them. The following is not an all-inclusive list of ideas, but rather the high points of the issues discussed.

Repeat Offenders:

In most areas, those arrested for killing or attempting to kill law enforcement officers have lengthy records of violent crimes, and yet they are still loose in our communities. It was suggested that prosecutors have tools at their disposal to lock these offenders up for substantial lengths of time, but that their workload caused them to accept a plea bargain down to a lesser included offense so that the offender received little time in jail for gun related crimes short of murder. In Washington, D.C., the Top Fifty offenders average 15 prior arrests.

Training Issues:

In many locales, there is insufficient money and manpower to do adequate training, so that the training that is provided does not properly address the issues the officer might confront in the field. “Target shooting does not prepare one for a gunfight.”
Some officers involved in these scenarios have been hesitant to use deadly force in a timely manner.
OIS details should be widely disseminated for review by training staffs and field officers to discuss.
Statistical data should be analyzed for trends, training, equipment or tactical issues they may reveal.

Mental Health Issues

Budget reductions have closed or truncated many mental health facilities and their staff. This has brought law enforcement officers into conflict with mental health patients who have been released into their community. Many officers have insufficient training in mental health crises intervention. Additionally, there are not enough infrastructures in the mental health system to allow the officers a place to take mentally ill patients whose behavior does not rise to the level which allows for immediate incarceration.
There is not an adequate data base which allows police officers or investigators to identify persons who have been treated for mental illness which might impact public safety. This may be a civil rights issue.

Guns

While there are generally strict laws concerning the unauthorized possession of firearms or their concealed carrying, persons arrested for these crimes seldom receive much jail time, so that it becomes more advantageous for a criminal to be caught by the police with a firearm than by his fellow criminals without one.
Some individual gun stores have been repeatedly identified as the source of those guns used in assaults or other firearm related crimes. Straw purchasers of these guns, likewise receive minimal sentences. ATF does not have sufficient resources to adequately address these issues.

Statement on the Events from Wisconsin

2011-03-01T16:03:00.005-05:00

The Fairfax Deputy Sheriffs Coalition, Local 5016 of the International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, CLC has watched very closely the evens that have been occurring in Wisconsin in their Governor's attempts to turn their state into what we have in Virginia, a right-to-work state. As an organized labor union we stand one hundred percent behind the efforts of our brothers and sisters in the labor community in their efforts to fight this political stunt made by Governor Walker. The official position of the Local 5016 is to completely support collective bargaining for employees, to include those in the non-public safety community for all issues that relate to the workplace. Many of the difficulties we and many others in the labor community experience in Virginia are the result of restrictive collective bargaining laws that are attempting to be introduced in Wisconsin.

As a public safety labor union we are disappointed that during these tough budget times nationally that a Governor would proposed curbing collective bargaining rights for public employees and flat out refuse to even sit down with them after unions have openly and repeatedly said that they are willing to sit down and accept concessions to help deal with the economic difficulties faced in their state. During these tough times we need an open and honest dialogue between leaders and workers and not politicians who have said they will use deception, trickery and bullying to meet their political objectives. We call on Governor Walker and those who politicians both nationally and in Wisconsin who are supportive of his efforts to call on him to do the right thing for Wisconsin and sit down with the the men and women in the labor community and work together in solving the budget problems faced in their state.

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #172

2011-03-01T15:57:00.002-05:00

Training note: Congratulations to the 58 graduates of the most recent Force Science Certification Course held in San Jose, CA! We're proud to welcome this outstanding group, representing 36 agencies from 13 states and 3 provinces, to the growing ranks of Certified Force Science Analysts worldwide. It's comments like those shared after the class by Det. Kelly Rizzo with the Niagara Falls (NY) PD that continue to motivate and inspire us. "In 16 years of attending law enforcement training courses, including the FBI National Academy, the Force Science Certification Course has been by far the best training I have had the privilege of receiving," he wrote. "The pedigree of the instructors is outstanding. These aren't just individuals teaching about someone else's information and findings. They're the experts who are actually the source of the information! It's like taking a course on World War II and having Winston Churchill teach it!" Humbling praise that's not taken lightly. Click here for FSI Certification Course information and dates.

Anti-fatigue measures could cut cop deaths 15%, researcher claims

A leading sleep researcher argues that officer deaths from vehicle accidents and violent attacks could be cut by at least 15%--"a pretty darned conservative estimate"--if the problem of police fatigue was seriously addressed.

As it is, he claims, a toxic mix of poor personal habits and arbitrary agency policies is creating a "large pool of officers at risk."

These assertions come from Dr. Bryan Vila, a former 17-year veteran street cop in Los Angeles who now directs the Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks laboratory in Washington State University's Sleep & Performance Research Center in Spokane. Author of the landmark book Tired Cops, Vila spoke at the latest IACP annual conference as a panelist discussing "Strategies for Promoting Officer Safety by Managing Fatigue and Work Hours."

He expanded on his remarks in a recent interview with Force Science News about the impact of long shifts, rotating schedules, and insufficient sleep on police reaction time and threat decision-making.

SOBERING STATS. First, some sobering statistics Vila shared with his IACP audience. According to a survey by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, among officers in the US and Canada:

• 53% get less than 6.5 hours of sleep daily (compared to 30% of the general population)

• 91% report feeling fatigued "routinely"

• 14% are tired when they start their work shift

• 85% drive while "drowsy"

• 39% have fallen asleep at the wheel.

Vila identified some of the many unwelcome consequences. "Fatigue decreases attentiveness, impairs physical and cognitive functioning, diminishes the ability to deal with challenges, and sets up a vicious cycle: fatigue decreases your ability to deal with stress and stress decreases your ability to deal with fatigue.

"So far as health and wellness are concerned, chronic sleep deprivation is associated with cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal disorders, sleep apnea and other sleep disorders, and metabolic syndrome--the group of risk factors that increase your chances of coronary artery disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes."

And, he estimates, fatigue is likely to be responsible for at least 15% of officer deaths and career-ending injuries from vehicle crashes and felonious assaults.

FLAWED DRIVING. The greatest risk from drowsy driving seems to come from cops heading home fatigued after shift. Before the obvious hazard of falling asleep at the wheel occurs, there's the issue of momentary inattentiveness.

"A drowsy driver does not experience a steady decrease in driving ability," Vila explains. "You get random, but increasingly frequent, lapses of attention. You space out for a few seconds.

"Most of the time, you get away with it. If you're on a straight, flat road with no other traffic, it can be no harm, no foul. But if the road turns while you're inattentive, you've got a problem." He cites the case of a California officer driving home up a winding canyon on a bright Sunday morning. "During an attention lapse, the road curved and he kept going straight--out of lane and into a swarm of bicycles coming downhill. He killed 2 riders, a horrible tragedy."

During their work shift, periodic shots of adrenalin may help officers stave off drowsiness until they're off-duty, Vila speculates. "But then when the adrenalin wears off, the payback comes." More research is needed, he says, to clarify the adrenalin-fatigue interaction and its effect on performance.

COMBAT LIMITATIONS. Fatigue is also "a prime candidate for affecting how well you do in a combat situation," Vila says. Again, specific research findings are sparse, but "the best information so far strongly suggests that long work hours and erratic, insufficient sleep put officers more at threat in confrontations, as well as driving," he says.

Among other things, as you get more and more tired, you experience a "cognitive narrowing" that can cause you to miss important elements in your surrounding environment, Vila explains. This is similar to the so-called "tunnel vision" stress reaction that is common in a threat situation and indeed may accentuate that phenomenon, Vila says. "You're not able to shift focus readily with a lot of competing demands on your attention."

Moreover, the fatigue-related narrowing can also impede your decision-making. "Your judgment is likely to be compromised," he says, "and the risk increases that you won't make as good decisions as you otherwise would. When you're tired, you tend to latch onto a 'solution' for challenges that confront you and stick with it even when objective information suggests it is wrong.

"Parts of the brain that we know are especially vulnerable to fatigue are those that help you control emotion and arousal and those that direct the executive functions, such as making and realizing the consequences of decisions.

"These elements obviously affect your ability to survive life-threatening challenges. Being tired puts you at a substantial disadvantage, compared to being fully alert and having your best faculties for detecting and addressing the threat."

SELF-MONITORING. What's also certain from studies of astronauts, fighter pilots, and other subjects is that "human beings are lousy judges of how impaired they are from fatigue," Vila says.

"One of the first parts of your brain negatively affected by lack of sleep is the part that looks in on yourself and reports how you're doing. That means that one of the first pieces of safety equipment to go down as you get more tired is your tiredness monitor.

"Your cognitive ability can be affected by fatigue, without your realizing it, to the same degree as someone who's drunk. In tests even of elite professionals, people's reports of how tired they are don't relate accurately to how tired they really are. In short, you just can't self-monitor fatigue worth a damn."

AGENCY ADAPTATIONS. Protecting officers from fatigue disasters requires a collaborative effort between agencies and personnel, Vila advises.

He believes agencies can help by scheduling shifts to more closely mirror natural body rhythms. "We don't have full information yet on what's the perfect shift or at least the least harmful shift," he says. "But the officers most at risk seem to be those who work through the night, because the body's natural circadian rhythm is to be awake and working in daylight.

"In most people, there tends to be a gradual decrease in alertness after 10 or 11 o'clock at night, hitting bottom between 3 and 6 a.m. From about 6 a.m. onward light rays from the sun trigger cells in your brain that promote a renewed cycle of alertness.

"The longer your shift is in darkness, the more at risk of fatigue you are. If you've been up for 12 hours, you're more at risk at 4 a.m. than if you've been up for 12 hours and it's 4 p.m.

"Departments often just arbitrarily pick the times for shifts to begin and end, but with a little flexibility they could favor the night-shift officers, who are most at risk. Get them started earlier and off the job and in bed earlier, even if it means the day shift has to start earlier."

Also, he points out, "departments don't have to have the same length of shifts all around the clock. They could have 12-hour shifts during the day and 8-hour shifts at night. And they could sharply limit the number of night shifts an officer works consecutively. The more night shifts you work in a row, the less and less resilient you become to being tired. After about 3 consecutive night shifts, you'll start to see a substantial problem and you need time off so you can catch up on your sleep."

For more than a decade, Vila has advocated that agencies provide a "napping room" where officers can take 20- to 40-minute restorative breaks during duty hours. "Even if you don't fall sound asleep, just lying down with your eyes closed for 30 minutes in an absolutely dark and safe room can have a major refreshing effect," he says.

"All this may be a bit of a pain for administrators," Vila acknowledges, "but it's smart in terms of risk management. Departments will end up getting better work out of their people while keeping them safer."

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. "You need to be your own first line of defense in combating fatigue," Vila emphasizes

Among the personal issues that affect whether you get the recommended 7-8 hours of quality sleep per 24 hours are these:

• What's your sleep environment? "Are you sacking out in the La-Z-Boy with the game on and getting up every hour or so to do things?" he asks.

• How much caffeine are you taking in?

• What's your overall level of health and fitness?

• Are you working a 12-hour shift and then tacking on overtime or a second job?

• If you work nights, are you scheduling sleep appropriately? "The farther into the day that you first try to sleep, the fewer consecutive hours of sleep you're likely to get," Vila explains. "If you can go to bed at 5 to 7 a.m., good. But if you wait 'til noon, sleep is harder to sustain."

Dealing effectively with the fatigue issue in law enforcement is really "a tightrope walk," Vila says. "Agencies have to back the demands for service in their community with concern for the needs of the officers they put on the street to meet those demands. But by the same token, if officers are not making rest and resilience priorities for themselves, whatever departments do may not be enough."

NEW RESEARCH AHEAD. During the next 2 years, Vila and his research team plan to conduct controlled laboratory experiments that he hopes will provide a scientific basis for managing police fatigue. Supported by joint funding from California POST and the federal DoD, they will study the cumulative impact of work-related fatigue on the performance of experienced patrol officers in 3 critical operational tasks: vehicle driving, deadly force encounters, and reporting.

Vila says: "Even though research involving other professionals makes clear that fatigue from sleep loss degrades human performance while driving, making decisions, collecting information, communicating, and reporting, little is known about the magnitude of those effects in police work. That is important knowledge we need in order to manage police fatigue in a cost-effective manner."

The study will involve 80 officers, half of whom work night shifts and half who work days. Each officer will take a battery of tests twice, once while highly fatigued, and another time when rested. Their sleep will be tracked using wrist actigraphs and their performance will be measured in the WSU Sleep & Performance Research Center, using MPRI PatrolSimIV driving simulators, AIS PRISim L1000 deadly force judgment and decision-making simulators, and in a computerized field report writing simulation as well as a set of vigilance and fatigue assessments.

Force Science News will keep you posted as this project progresses. [Dr. Vila can be contacted at: vila@wsu.edu. His book, Tired Cops: The Importance of Managing Police Fatigue, is available from the Police Executive Research Forum at www.policeforum.org/bookstore]

Extra: FSN articles to get special postings on department networks

We have recently been upgrading our intranet so that members of our Police Service (officers and civilians) can directly access information about keeping healthy, both physically and emotionally. We hope to use our site as a source of up-to-date and timely information on a range of health topics. It will be will be accessible to Toronto Police Service members only, and will be password protected.

I have been very impressed by many of the articles in Force Science News, and from time to time see a particular health-related report that would be appropriate to a wide range of our members, and therefore a great resource for posting on our wellness website. Would you be comfortable with your articles being posted there on an occasional basis?

We currently have about 5,650 police officers in the Service, 2,500 civilian staff, and an additional 1,700 auxiliary/other affiliated staff members.

Dr. Cathy Martin-Doto
Corporate Psychologist
Toronto Police Service

I find your articles to be extremely educational and timely. I am requesting permission to post Force Science Institute reports on the Sheriff's Office internal online training program disseminated to our personnel.

Sgt. Leland Butcher, Training Coordinator
Santa Rosa County (FL) SO

EDITOR'S NOTE: Permissions granted! We are generally cooperative with the reprinting of our transmissions for appropriate audiences, free of charge. Part of the mission of the Force Science Institute is to spread the word as widely as possible regarding scientific research related to law enforcement performance. For reprint permission and proper credit designation, contact Scott Buhrmaster, VP of operations, at: scott.buhrmaster@forcescience.org

Union Plus Benefits

2011-02-25T04:28:00.001-05:00

**As a proud Union Member, you're entitled to special savings.**

You're entitled to save up to $473.86* off your car insurance. This offer for current and retired Union Members is not available to the general public.

Start Saving Now http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17X

To find out more, get a quote and start saving

Visit our website : http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17 or call 1-800-246-0825.

**Big savings, just for Union Members**

http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17

Union Members who switch to Union Plus Auto Insurance through 21st Century Insurance save an average of $473.86* a year compared to policyholders at Allstate, GEICO, Progressive and other companies.

**Generous benefits for Union Members**

http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17

As a Union Member, you are entitled to great coverage features, including: evening and weekend policy service hours, quick claims settlement and guaranteed repairs.*

Peace of mind comes with every policy

As a 21st Century Insurance policyholder, you'll enjoy 24-hour Roadside Assistance at no additional charge.

**Get a personalized quote**

Visit our website : http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17 or call 1-800-246-0825to find out how much you could save as a Union Member.

*National average of annual savings developed from information provided by new policyholders from 8/15/09 - 8/15/10 that shows they saved by switching to Union Plus Sponsored Auto Insurance through 21st Century Insurance and may not be inclusive of variances in coverage or benefits.

* For collision repairs made at a certified repair facility; coverage features and availability may vary by state.
24-Hour Roadside Assistance service is provided by and/or through Cross Country Motor Club, Inc., except in AK, CA, HI, OR, WI and WY where services are provided by and/or through Cross Country Motor Club of California, Inc.

Insurance provided through 21st Century Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. (or in Michigan through 21st Century Insurance Agency), Wilmington, DE, agent for its affiliated personal lines insurance companies.
Copyright © Farmers® Insurance http://lp.21st.com/sp/?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17 2010. All rights reserved.

To see a list of the 21st Century Insurance and Financial Services, Inc. affiliated companies, please click here : http://21st.custhelp.com?pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17 .

Privacy is important to us. Click here : https://auto.21st.com/insurance-information/commomInfo.do?Page=Privacy_Security&pid=091362ZAXXX&Medium=email&Dept=Marketing&CommType=Acquisition&CampName=Union_Plus_Affinity&Creative=Essentia_Affinity&LaunchDate=2010_02_17 to review our privacy policy.

This is a paid advertisement from 21st Century Insurance. If you do not wish to receive messages like this one in the future, please click here : http://email.unionplus.org/p/salsa/supporter/unsubscribe/public/index.sjs?unsubscribe_page_KEY=41 .

21st Century Insurance, 3 Beaver Valley Road, Wilmington, DE 19803

February General Membership Meeting

2011-02-23T15:24:00.003-05:00

The February General Membership meeting for the Coalition will be held on February 24th, 2011 at 7:00 at the Sager Avenue Office. The main topics of discussion will be the recently proposed budget by the County Executive as well as an update on the Coalition's work with the SAFE Committee (Standing Altogether for Fairfax Employees) which is a joint venture between all the public employee unions in Fairfax County.

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #17

2011-02-15T16:37:00.004-05:00

Force Science® News

Chuck Remsberg
Editor-in-Chief

Next Force Science Certification Course: April 18-22, 2011, Milwaukee, WI. Click here for details. Questions? E-mail training@forcescience.org

In this edition:
I. First results from ongoing survey of officers who survive wounds
II. San Francisco trainers bring Force Science to "skeptical" media
III. Mailbag: Our readers write...

I. First results from ongoing survey of officers who survive wounds

The first small sample of "near-miss" reports about officers who survived potentially fatal injuries has been reviewed by the VALOR Project--with some surprises emerging.

VALOR (Violence Against Law Officer Research) is the umbrella name for a variety of ongoing studies by Dr. Matt Sztajnkrycer, seeking to improve on-scene casualty care for wounded LEOs. Sztajnkrycer is chairman of emergency medicine research for the Mayo Clinic, a SWAT doc and police medical advisor in Minnesota, and a faculty member for the certification course in Force Science Analysis.

Last October, he launched a website (www.valorproject.org) where law enforcement professionals can confidentially report details of street encounters that could have resulted in officer mortalities but did not. By studying injuries that were survived, his intention is to gather important information that will ultimately be helpful in determining the best crisis medical interventions for wounded personnel. [See Force Science News Transmission #161, sent 10/22/10, for full details.]

Recently, Sztajnkrycer reported on the first 37 responses he has received--34 from 17 U.S. states and 3 from 2 Canadian provinces. A "broad spectrum" of federal, state, county, and municipal agencies are represented. There is a relatively even distribution between wounds considered slight, severe, and critical.

"Although we need many more contributions before solid conclusions can be drawn, I wanted at least to start getting information out to people who can use it. The responses already are showing some interesting preliminaries relevant to everyone," Sztajnkrycer told FSN.

For instance:

Nearly 40% of the injury cases involved officers working alone, with no immediate backup available. "This has a major implication for departmental medical training," Sztajnkrycer says. "Without buddy-aid capability, a wounded officer not only has to manage whatever tactical threat exists but also be able to take care of treating himself until backup or medical professionals arrive."
Injuries most often occurred (10 cases out of the 37) on "suspicious person" calls--more than twice as often as on domestics, which often get featured treatment in news reports. "This may change as we get more data," Sztajnkrycer explains, "but right now a suspicious-person assignment seems to be a particular red flag." The second most common circumstance for injury (16%): vehicle stops for traffic violations.
Wounding by gunshot was the cause of more than two-thirds of the injuries reported, with only one case of MVA injury reported. This surprises Sztajnkrycer and he suspects "hindsight bias" is involved. "Looking back, officers are probably more likely to remember and report a tactical situation gone bad than a driving mishap which may be dismissed as 'just one of those things' without any particular lessons to be learned. Given the rate that officers are killed in MVAs, however, near-miss injuries in that category are undoubtedly important to know more about."
Also surprising--and also possibly influenced by hindsight bias--was the frequency of wounded officers needing to be rescued under conditions of an active continuing threat. "This occurred in one-quarter of the sample--a lot," Sztajnkrycer says. "If this is truly reflective of field circumstances it shows the importance of knowing how to evaluate the condition of downed officers and to rehearse and perform safe extractions."
The most common medical attention provided in the field by LEOs to themselves or other officers was the control of bleeding. Mostly this was done by bandage and manual pressure. But in 2 cases, tourniquets were used. This is important information, Sztajnkrycer points out, because some question has been raised about the value of tourniquets in treating injured cops, given that wounds fatal to officers tend to be in the chest or head where tourniquets can't help. The VALOR findings, however, show that some survivable wounds are indeed tourniquet-responsive.
Verbal reassurance was offered to injured officers by other LEOs in a majority of cases. Even if no medical aid can be provided, verbal encouragement is "very important psychologically," Sztajnkrycer says. "There's a huge amount of comfort in being in the presence of friends telling you everything's going to be okay. That can be a vital factor in maintaining the will to live."
More injured officers (about 25%) were transported to a medical facility by police car than Sztajnkrycer expected. "Except in cases where there's concern about moving a patient because of neck injuries, this is probably desirable, given the wait time for ambulance or helicopter response, especially in rural areas," he says. "Even if you start moving toward a hospital and intercept EMS along the way, you can cut down on wasted time. There is some recently published data from Philadelphia suggesting that police transport of patients with penetrating (stab or gunshot) trauma is safe. But if you're going to transport people by car, you need to practice. It's not easy to get a big officer wearing a vest, duty belt, and so on into the back of a squad car with a cage."

In addition to compiling statistical tallies, Sztajnkrycer will be analyzing narratives that accompanied the submitted cases for additional data, especially information that might be helpful in shaping training recommendations.

A detailed summary of the initial near-miss findings appears on the VALOR Project website and also on a new VALOR Project Facebook page. New reports of injury cases can be submitted at the Project website, and Sztajnkrycer strongly urges that you send him information whenever you have knowledge of officer injuries.

"I'm dedicated to analyzing all the data I can get," he says. "The more we can learn about what works in the field and what doesn't, the faster training can be designed and shared to help keep officers alive."

He intends to continue gathering near-miss reports indefinitely. Please remember to help as you experience or learn about such cases.

II. San Francisco trainers bring Force Science to "skeptical" media

It's not unusual for progressive agencies to expose news reporters to use-of-force simulators. But San Francisco PD has added a unique Force Science twist.

After a recent spate of officer-involved shootings that attracted considerable public controversy, the department invited representatives from mainstream and alternative Bay-area media to the training academy for an afternoon's immersion in force decision-making from a cop's point of view.

Among the instructors who addressed the crowd of about 30 reporters and photographers before introducing them to the Meggitt simulator was Sgt. Michael Nevin, an OIS investigator, force options trainer, and certified Force Science Analyst.

As a group, the journalists "seemed skeptical when they came in," Nevin told Force Science News. But seizing the "opportunity to speak directly to the public through them," he drew on his Force Science training to paint a vivid picture of what an officer typically goes through during a life-threatening confrontation. Ofcr. Ryan Seto, a fellow Analyst and the academy's force options coordinator, also joined in the presentation.

They talked about such things as the impact of high stress on the human brain and body, research into action and reaction times, concepts like inattentional blindness and perceptual narrowing, the effects of critical incidents on memory--"a lot of Dr. Bill stuff," Nevin says, referring to Dr. Bill Lewinski, the faculty anchor in the week-long Force Science certification course.

After showing a couple of dash-cam videos that are analyzed during the course, Nevin sensed "a detectable attitude shift" in the media audience. Both videos capture a real-world, real-time police shooting, but from different angles.

After the first, a brief, limited view of the nighttime action, there was consensus that the encounter looked like an unjustified "execution" of a non-threatening suspect, Nevin recalls. But then the second recording, longer and broader in perspective, revealed more of what happened. The belligerent suspect was seen actively resisting an officer's physical attempt to control him, assuming a shooter's stance, and repeatedly pointing what appears to be a weapon at another officer before he is brought down with multiple police rounds.

"Did everyone see the suspect's gun this time?" Nevin asked the crowd. All agreed that they had and that the officers "did what they had to do to defend themselves."

Only then did Nevin reveal that what the suspect had been pointing at police was actually a cell phone.

The news people "were really thrown back," he says. "They began to see that police shooting are not always as simple as they may appear and that video is merely one 2-dimensional resource in understanding a shooting, not the whole story." After that, those who volunteered were equipped with training guns, OC, and batons and run through force-option scenarios with the simulator. As expected, they experienced many of the physiological challenges Nevin and Seto had described: strong stress reactions (sweating, heavy breathing, racing heart rates), mistakes in perception and judgment, and shortcomings in memory afterward when they were asked to relate what happened.

"We paired them up for the simulator exercises so they could see how different officers legitimately come up with different descriptions of the same incident," Nevin explains. "And we replayed each scenario so they could see that there were things they missed when they were actively in the exercise. Even those who didn't participate got a lot out of just watching what happened.

Nevin strongly recommends that other departments stage similar media days. "A lot of the information we were able to get across was brand new to most of these people," he says. "Their reporting of what they experienced was very positive. The TV stations had satellite trucks there and gave live news feeds from the scene.

"Long term, I think that when these reporters cover an officer-involved shooting in the future, they'll pause and think about their story line and remember the hours they spent at the academy.

"OIS stories capture the attention of the public and they are going to be reported on whether you want them to be or not. If you're not able to get your side out there, the narrative will be defined for you."

[For one of the reports that emerged from the SFPD event, see "Humans and stress: the science of police shootings." This account, which you can click here to read, appeared in The Informant, an online publication of the public radio station KALW News.]

III. Mailbag: Our readers write...

When reporters seek comment on another agency's tragedy
Regarding efforts by the news media to draw comments from private-sector professionals and trainers from other agencies when a department suffers a line-of-duty fatality:

It is seldom in the best interest of the law enforcement community to offer any opinion to the media regarding policies and procedures prior to a formal investigation and before the department whose officers have been lost has had the opportunity to make an official statement.

Most savvy reporters are trained to keep you on the phone, regardless of whether your initial intention is to refrain from commenting on the situation. The longer you stay on the phone, the greater the chance that you will inadvertently say something that could give them exactly what they are looking for, a juicy story that sells.

Whenever a blanket statement is made that insinuates any deviation from policy or good procedures, the media translates that into an open invitation to ask the WHY question. The WHY question is impossible to adequately address without FULLY understanding the totality of circumstances, which may take weeks or months to truly define. An immediate over-generalization can seriously mislead readers or viewers and unjustly discredit the agency and officer(s) involved.

If you are asked to comment on another agency's tragedy, our recommended response is along these lines:

"Police officers work to preserve the safety and security of their communities. Today, a community hero paid the ultimate sacrifice. We offer our thoughts and prayers for all who have lost their loved ones. At this time of great sorrow, patience and understanding are needed until a thorough investigation has been completed and the cause of this horrific tragedy has been determined."

Make no further comment. We as trainers must be cautious and understand the limitations of our expertise and our knowledge of events that may have occurred far from home. Effective communication is an art best left to those who specialize in this critical, yet often overlooked, discipline.

Chris Ghannam
President, training coordinator
SARK Securities Inc.
Tampa, FL

Is it time to require "cognitive" recertification?
Regarding current shortcomings in officer qualification standards:

Law enforcement requires officers to qualify regularly with their firearms, but not their brains. There is really no effort made to determine if an officer possesses a sound mind.

I have noticed in a lot of the recertifications I teach, there is "slippage" of cognitive and motor skills with some officers due to age, unknown cognitive degeneration, deteriorating physical skills, or just plain laziness. An annual "sound mind" qualification could focus not just on overall psychological health, but things like reaction times and eye-hand coordination as well.

Also statistically, it is much more likely an officer will lay his hands on someone vs. pulling his gun, much less pulling the trigger. Officers train and practice control tactics and self-defense tactics, but are they required to qualify at least as often as they are with their handguns? Cops would be much better off keeping their cardiovascular system in shape if they had some qualification incentive.

If we really want to get radical, we should be suggesting career paths for aging officers within law enforcement based on these qualification outcomes--places where their wisdom and talents can and should be utilized, instead of allowing them to cling to positions they are no longer well-suited to be in.

Terry Hipp
CEO, Sr. Dir. of Research & Education
Assault Prevention LLC
Minneapolis, MN

Union Plus E-News February 2011

2011-02-08T21:17:00.000-05:00

In This Issue: Tips and tools to stretch tight budgets

BUYING VALENTINE CANDY? BUY UNION-MADE.
http://www.unionplus.org/union-made/valentines-day-treats?email-index

CHOOSE YOUR SAVINGS ON VALENTINE FLOWERS

UNION RESOURCES FOR COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS
http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing?email-index

TOP 3 REASONS TO GET YOUR iPHONE FROM AT&T
http://www.unionplus.org/cell-phone-wireless/3-reasons-iphone-att?email-index

LEARN ABOUT A UNIQUE CREDIT CARD DESIGNED FOR UNION FAMILIES
http://www.unionplus.org/union-plus-credit-clinic/why-credit-card-better?email-index

$1,000 GRANTS HELP PAY HOSPITAL BILLS
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-hospital-bills-grant?email-index

------------------------------

--

FOLLOW US ON:

Facebook [ http://www.facebook.com/unionplus ]
Twitter [ http://twitter.com/unionplus ]
MySpace [ http://www.myspace.com/unionplus ]
YouTube [ http://www.youtube.com/unionplusbenefits ]

LATEST UNION PLUS UPDATES

FEATURED TESTIMONIAL: NLC Scholarship Helps Injured IFF Member

After suffering a serious spinal injury, former Local 1563 President Keith Wright had to make an abrupt career change from fire fighter to stay-at-home dad. Thanks to a National Labor College (NLC) Scholarship from Union Plus, Keith is now preparing for a new career in the labor movement. Read his story [ http://www.unionplus.org/union-member-stories/nlc/keith-wright?email-feature ]

FEATURED COUPON: Save 15%-60% and Get Fit

Keep your New Year's resolution to get healthy and save. Get 15%-60% off initiation and monthly fees at 10,000 GlobalFit health clubs including Curves, Gold's Gym, Bally's, and more. Get the coupon [ http://www.unionplus.org/coupon-center/health-clubs?email-coupon ]

UNION PLUS INTERACTIVE: Featured Facebook Post

The National Labor College has launched 3 new online degree programs – including Construction Management, Business Administration, and Emergency Readiness & Response. Union Plus scholarships are available for the Digital Learning class. Learn more at NLC.edu -- [ http://bit.ly/eLZ5Hu ]

--------------------------------

BUYING VALENTINE CANDY? BUY UNION-MADE.
http://www.unionplus.org/union-made/valentines-day-treats?email1

Support fellow union members as you share sweet Valentine treats. Buy union-made-in-America candy including favorites like Hershey Kisses®, NECCO Sweethearts® Conversation Hearts, Jelly Belly Jelly Beans, See's chocolates, and more.

See a list of union-made candy [http://www.unionplus.org/union-made/valentines-day-treats?email2 ].

TIP: With many union-made products now being cross-produced (union-non-union; U.S.-Mexico), make sure to read the labels carefully to ensure products are union-made in the U.S.

--------------------------------

CHOOSE TO SAVE $15 OR 25% ON VALENTINE'S DAY FLOWERS

It's not too late! You still have time to send your Valentine a beautiful floral arrangement. Just shop online or by phone and choose to save 25% or $15 off any Teleflora bouquet. Same-day delivery available by local florists.

Save $15 off Valentine's Day flowers [ http://www.teleflora.com/?partner=unionplus&promotion=HEART15 ].

Save 25% off Valentine's Day flowers [ http://www.teleflora.com/?partner=unionplus&promotion=CUPID25 ].

TIP: Shop for Valentine's Day flowers online and you can add a mylar balloon, stuffed animal, or box of chocolates to any arrangement at checkout for an extra-thoughtful Valentine's gift.

--------------------------------

UNION RESOURCES FOR COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS
http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing?email1 ]

Even before you pick a college there are things you need to know about financing a college education. Union Plus resources like these help [ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing?email2 ].

* Learn about the 4 major sources of cash for college [ http://www.unionplus.org/finding-college-cash?email ].

* Get help calculating your Expected Family Contribution (EFC) [ http://www.unionplus.org/expected-family-contribution?email ].

* Find out where to get a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) [ http://www.unionplus.org/FAFSA?email ].

* What are the top 4 myths about college financial aid [ http://www.unionplus.org/college-financial-aid-myths?email ]? You may be surprised.

* Get 6 tips for negotiating more financial aid [ http://www.unionplus.org/more-college-financial-aid?email ].

Learn more about paying for college at UnionPlus.org/Education [ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing?email3 ].

TIP: Don't worry if you're not a straight-A student. At private colleges and universities 85% of all students receive some type of financial award. And Pell Grants from the federal government help students based on need versus grades. Get more tips [ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing?email-tip ].

--------------------------------

TOP 3 REASONS TO GET YOUR iPHONE FROM AT&T
http://www.unionplus.org/cell-phone-wireless/3-reasons-iphone-att?email1 ]

Here are 3 big reasons to buy your iPhone -- or any smart phone -- from AT&T:

* AT&T is the only national wireless company that's union.

* Union members save 15% off individual and family wireless plans. That adds up to $116.98 savings annually for an iPhone.

* PCWorld reports AT&T's 3G network is 67% faster than Sprint, T-Mobile, or Verizon.

Save 15% on AT&T wireless service at UnionPlus.org/ATT [ http://www.unionplus.org/cell-phone-wireless/att-wireless?email1 ].

--------------------------------

LEARN ABOUT A UNIQUE CREDIT CARD DESIGNED FOR UNION FAMILIES
http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing/union-plus-scholarship?email1

Looking for a consumer-friendly credit card? Look into Union Plus Credit Card's advantages:

* Rates are competitive, and customer service gets rave reviews.

* Union members get extra help if there is a problem through our dedicated union member advocates who are members of OPEIU Local 2.

* All calls are answered in the United States, not sent offshore.

* Cardholder-only benefits include unique grants to help in case of job loss, hospital care, disability, strike, and more.

* Learn more about what makes the Union Plus Credit Card a good choice [ http://www.unionplus.org/union-plus-credit-clinic/why-credit-card-better?email2 ].

Apply now at UnionPlus.org/CreditCard [ http://www.unionplus.org/money-credit/credit-card?email1 ].

TIP: What's the one important word to look for when choosing a credit card? Find out when you watch "How to Choose a Credit Card [ http://www.unionplus.org/money-credit/credit-education/union-credit-doctor/tip-3?email-tip ]," a 2-min. video featuring Gerri Detweiler, the Union Plus Credit Doctor.

--------------------------------

$1,000 GRANTS HELP PAY HOSPITAL BILLS
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-hospital-bills-grant?email1

Union SAFE Hospital Care Grants provide a $1,000 safety net for union families facing financial catastrophe due to hospital bills. Read how Shirley and Harold Jackson, retired United Auto Worker (UAW) Local 1183, learned they qualified for a Hospital Care Grant [ http://www.unionplus.org/union-member-stories/hospital-care-grants/shirley-jackson?email ]. Within a month of applying, they received $1,000 to help cover Shirley's hospitalization.

Apply for a Hospital Care Grant at UnionPlus.org/HospitalGrant [ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-hospital-bills-grant?email2 ].

TIP: Do you know a union member facing financial hardship? Tell him or her about Union SAFE grants and the other types of assistance available for union families at risk [ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-money-hardship-program?email-tip ].

UNION PLUS

Union Privilege - Provider of Union Plus Benefits
1125 15th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005
enews@unionprivilege.org [ mailto:enews@unionprivilege.org ] | www.unionplus.org [ http://www.unionplus.org ]

County employees might see cost-of-living adjustments

2011-02-02T21:09:00.002-05:00

We wanted to the membership to see this article concerning the work all the local unions (public safety and public employee) have been doing in the last few months. We started the SAFE (Standing Altogether for Fairfax Employees) Committee which meets regularly and works to educate the Board of Supervisors and even the general public about these issues most important to us. It is important to note that any increases would not take affect until Fiscal Year 2013 but it is a good sign that our work has been noted by members of the board.

Officials consider altering pay system in absence of salary increases

by Kali Schumitz | Staff Writer

Atlhough pay raises are not in the cards for Fairfax County employees in the upcoming budget cycle, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is considering changes to the pay-for-performance system as a different way to show support for government workers.

County employees have been asking for revisions to the pay-for-performance system for more than five years, and their salaries have been frozen for the past two fiscal years.

Under the current system, county pay scales are adjusted annually to the market, but those adjustments are not applied to current employee pay rates. Employees can receive an annual boost in pay of 0 percent to 6 percent, depending on performance.

Because the so-called "market rate adjustment" was not applied to current salaries, employees complained before the Great Recession that a new hire could, in effect, be paid the same or more as an employee who had been working for the county for several years.

Public safety personnel and Fairfax County Public Schools employees have a more traditional government employee system, with annual cost-of-living increases, as well as regular pay hikes based on the number of years in a given position.

County Executive Anthony Griffin now is proposing an annual market rate adjustment of 1 percent to 3 percent that would act more like a cost-of-living increase: All employees would receive it, regardless of performance, and it also would be used to move pay scales upward. In addition, there would be a pay-for-performance component that could give employees as much as an additional 3 percent boost in pay every year.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Personnel Committee briefly reviewed the proposal last week and is planning an in-depth review of Griffin's plan as part of this year's budget process.

Union members are in favor of having a market rate adjustment, but they are concerned capping it at 3 percent will make Fairfax County salaries less competitive within the region, said Karen Conchar, president of the Fairfax County Government Employees Union. They also don't like the idea of reducing the maximum award for performance, she said.

"We feel that the cap would not serve the citizens of this county well, as the best talents would be moving on," she said.

Union members also are concerned about Griffin's proposal to move all employees to a single anniversary date for performance evaluations, rather than having them spread out through the year. County supervisors are performing tasks, not just supervising employees, Conchar said.

"For them to drop all of their work for two to three months to do massive amounts of evaluations would not serve the citizens of the county well," she said.

Although there is not likely to be funding for employee raises this year, Supervisor Penelope Gross (D-Mason), who is the chairwoman of the Personnel Committee, indicated last week she hopes to include a revised salary system in the upcoming budget so it is on the books for future years when there is money for employee raises.

What Retirees Should Watch for in 2011

2011-02-01T20:27:00.000-05:00

Barbara J. Easterling is president of the Alliance for Retired Americans. She was previously the secretary-treasurer of the Communications Workers of America. For more information, visit www.retiredamericans.org or call 1-800-333-7212.

I believe there are two issues retirees should pay attention to in 2011.

First, Social Security. Last year it celebrated 75 years of keeping seniors out of poverty, but some in Congress see it differently. John Boehner, the new House Speaker, wants us to raise the retirement age to 70. The new Budget Committee chair, Rep. Paul Ryan, wants to cut benefits and turn a privatized system over to Wall Street. Rep. Michele Bachmann, the tea party leader, says Social Security is a “tremendous fraud” and thinks we should “wean” current workers away from it. Even though Social Security has not added a penny to our budget deficit, many on Capitol Hill want to balance the budget on the backs of seniors.

Second, we must protect Medicare. The 2010 health care reform law will help 46 million seniors better afford to see a doctor and fill a prescription. Despite that, there will be a number of efforts in Congress to repeal the new law. Please urge your elected officials to not raise prescription drug costs, take away free preventive screenings for life-threatening diseases or stop a plan to help families with the costs of long-term care. In my opinion, not enough people know how health reform helps them, and this lack of awareness fuels the repeal movement. If we want to keep these new benefits, we must do more to educate our friends and neighbors.

Seniors are increasingly the target of scare tactics and misinformation about these issues, and many retirees tell me how confused they are. In 2011, the Alliance for Retired Americans will do everything we can to help seniors separate fact from fiction.

January General Membership Meeting

2011-01-24T15:15:00.003-05:00

A General Membership meeting will be held on 7:00 p.m. on January 27th, 2011 at the Sager Avenue Office. The main topic of the meeting will be discussion on the meetings with the Board of Supervisors regarding retirement and budget issues that will be on the horizon in the coming months.

Law Enforcement United

2011-01-21T23:24:00.002-05:00

The Local 5016 is again happy to be able to provide financial support to coalition members who are participating in the Law Enforcement United bike ride from Chesapeake, Virginia to Washington, DC during the National Police Week. This is the second year that LEU has been in existence after they split from the Police Unity Tour and their impact has been felt with supporting the Officer Down Memorial Page and the Concern's of Police Survivors, Inc. Kid's Summer Camp.

This year the Coalition again donated to each of the individual participants with a total donation of $4,020.00. This provided each participant with $670.00 to put towards their fund raising goals. Riders who are participating in this need to raise a total of $1,250 and support staff $625. We are proud to say that we are in a position to provide our members who participate in this worthy cause nearly half of their fund raising responsibilities.

The Coalition members who are participating are:

Riders- Robbie Embry, Dwight Greear, Daniel Kalbacher, Robert Knapp and Nick Barb

Support-Donald Fuller

December Union Plus Benefits

2010-12-09T03:56:00.000-05:00

SAVE $15 ON HOLIDAY FLOWERS WHEN YOU ORDER NOW THROUGH 12/31/2010

Union Plus Flower Service flowers are always hand-arranged and hand-delivered, never in a box. Choose from hundreds of arrangements to brighten someone's day this holiday season.

Maximize your savings by choosing one of the following offers:

* Take $15 off any order up to $75 during the month of December when you use promo code UPDE11
[ http://www.teleflora.com/?partner=UnionPlus&promotioncode=UPDE11&srccode=PP_Union_EMAIL ]

* Take 20% of any order over $75 when you use your Union Plus everyday savings discount
[ http://www.teleflora.com/?partner=UnionPlus&promotioncode=UPDE20&srccode=PP_Union_EMAIL_20 ]

------------------------------

---------------------
HOLIDAY BESTSELLERS:

Teleflora's Mercury Glass Bowl Bouquet
Regular Price: $59.95
Union Member Price: $44.95

Teleflora's Christmas Present Perfect
Regular Price: $39.95
Union Member Price: $24.95

Teleflora's Merry and Bright
Regular Price: $54.95
Union Member Price: $39.95

Teleflora's Winter Glow
Regular Price: $44.95
Union Member Price: $29.95

---------------------------------------------------

Terms and Conditions:
* There is an additional $13.99 service fee on each item. Arrangement prices do not include service fee or tax. $15 discount applies to product only. Prices subject to change without notice. Due to the perishable nature of our products, please make any customer service inquiries within 48 hours of delivery. The Flower Club urges you to order at least 5 days prior to any holiday. This offer/promotion is made by The Flower Club, which assumes all responsibility for the offer/promotion. Union Plus is a registered trademark of Union Privilege. Offer available to union members and retirees, members of AFL-CIO affiliated organizations and their households. Teleflora is a registered trademark of Teleflora. © 2010 Teleflora.

Union Privilege - Provider of Union Plus Benefits
1125 15th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005
enews@unionprivilege.org [ mailto:enews@unionprivilege.org ] | www.UnionPlusLeaders.org [ http://www.unionplus.org ]

Copyright © 2010 Union Privilege. All rights reserved.

Law Enforcement United Raffle

2010-10-04T21:13:00.002-04:00

As everyone knows the Local 5016 has historically been a strong and ardent supporter of the riders in the Law Enforcement United organization and recently this last year when they left the Police Unity Tour. We've provide a great deal of financial support to the organization and riders and will continue that this year.

There is currently a raffle going on to help benefit the riders in next year's ride. Tickets are $10 each or you can buy 3 tickets for $25. The first prize is a Daniel Defense M4 Carbine, XV with Optic and will be donated by the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Chantilly. There will also be second, third and fourth prizes as well but most importantly it goes to support the great cause that Law Enforcement United works towards!

If you need any further information contact any rider you know in the agency who participates in it or Dwight Greear at (703) 380-0817 or e-mail the organization directly at novaunitedriders@gmail.com

IUPA Discusses Immigration Reform

2010-09-17T23:01:00.002-04:00

The Local 5016 supports efforts to strengthen the state/local-federal partnership in immigration enforcement. The agency and state's involvement in the Secure Communities Program shows how a partnership can be smart and effective in identifying and deporting criminal illegal aliens. We support this statement from the international regarding immigration and what the federal government has done thus far.

There have been a myriad of opinions regarding Arizona’s SB1070 and its impact on everyone involved. Clearly, the majority of Americans agree with the concept of deporting illegal entrants, particularly those who have brought attention to themselves by their criminal conduct. It does not seem that any of our government’s leaders want to do anything but talk about addressing the issue. Businesses and agriculture benefit from the inexpensive labor while the liberals see immigration only in terms of human rights. Both ignore the fundamental underlying factor that some of the persons in the country illegally are causing problems beyond their mere presence.

Law enforcement is on the tip of the spear in this philosophical battle. They are required to enforce the laws of the land, but accused of racism, profiling and insensitivity when that enforcement involves the arrest of people who are in the country illegally.

There are hundreds of reported incidents involving criminality where the perpetrator was in the country illegally. Recently, a nun was killed in Virginia by a drunk driver who was here without papers and is now being charged with his THIRD drunk driving arrest. It is shameful that the man had to kill someone before the ICE folks took notice. These stories are repeated across the nation daily. For example, the ICE policy in Harris County, Texas, states that non-violent crimes, such as drunk driving will not prompt deportation until after multiple offences.

It is little wonder that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its affiliated locals made a unanimous vote of “No Confidence” in the leadership of their agency. In their letter announcing their vote, they accused ICE Director John Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven of “misguided and reckless initiatives,” which they claim provides “amnesty through policy.” Most ICE agents are now allowed only to take custody of illegal immigrants who are already in the custody of another agency for other crimes. If those crimes are non violent in nature, such as drunk driving, these aliens are generally not detained further nor deported by ICE officers.

It is apparent to the public that the Federal Government has abandoned its responsibility to enforce immigration laws. What is hard to grasp is this administration’s refusal to allow those states most impacted by this national neglect, to take it upon themselves to conduct such enforcement. There are, by conservative estimates, more than 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. There are 7,000 ICE enforcement agents. If there is to be any meaningful enforcement of immigration statutes, a cooperative effort with state and local law enforcement is the only viable alternative. To judicially bar such efforts is clear testimony to the opposition of the Department of Homeland Security to any consistent and meaningful enforcement of federal laws regarding immigration.

Emergency rooms in Border States are usually packed with illegal immigrants who, through no fault of their own, are forced to use the facilities as their primary medical care. Schools are over crowded, many of the seats being occupied by children who are either in the country illegally or are the offspring of those who are. People who live in the areas impacted by these realities are understandably both frustrated and angry.

We recognize that law enforcement personnel have been reduced by the fiscal challenges faced by states, cities and counties. Likewise, we know that police officers are busier now than ever before and have little free time to take over the responsibility of the federal government. But when they have already identified someone involved in a criminal act, even a minor one, as an unlawful immigrant, that person should be dealt with effectively and immediately by those who are constitutionally tasked with such efforts.

We completely and wholeheartedly support our brothers and sisters in the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and will work cooperatively with them to bring change and public awareness to policies and protocols, which we believe are counterproductive to the public’s safety and to any meaningful dialog geared towards finding a remedy to the dilemma of illegal immigration. We believe we must get beyond the sloganeered, bumper sticker rhetoric and name calling, which is corrosive to any meaningful debate and dialog.

We do not believe that the wholesale deportation of all persons in the nation illegally is even logistically practical. We do believe, however, that those who come into contact with the law enforcement community due to their criminal behavior and are found to be in the country unlawfully should be deported after a due process hearing confirms their illegal presence here – the first time. We further believe that the resources required to achieve that goal must be put into place. To have a law in place that is ignored, even by those tasked to enforce that statute is inane. It is past time to either enact meaningful reform, or make the existing law work. Either would take political courage and bi-partisan pragmatism and sadly there is not a lot of either to be found floating around Washington, D.C. on the eve of an election.

Union Plus Blast Savings for Members

2010-08-29T04:28:00.003-04:00

In This Issue

* NEW: SAVE 15%-60% ON COLLEGE TEST PREP COURSES
[ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing/princeton-review-test-prep-courses?email-index ]

* $500 COLLEGE GRANTS AVAILABLE
[ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-education-savings-grant?email-index ]

* SAVE ON UNION-FRIENDLY LEGAL SERVICES
[ http://www.unionplus.org/legal-aid-services?email-index ]

* HELP WITH ELDER CARE
[ http://www.unionplus.org/elder-care?email-index ]

* HOME IMPROVEMENTS SAVE MONEY
[ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-heating-oil?email-index ]

* SING OUT IN THE UNION PLUS SONG CONTEST BY LABOR DAY
[ http://unionsongcontest.org/?email-index ]

------------------------------

---

FOLLOW US ON:

Facebook [ http://www.facebook.com/unionplus ]
Twitter [ http://twitter.com/unionplus ]
MySpace [ http://www.myspace.com/unionplus ]
YouTube [ http://www.youtube.com/unionplusbenefits ]

Your Benefits [ http://www.unionplus.org/union-member-benefits ] | Archives [ http://www.unionplus.org/enews-archive ]

FEATURED TWEET:

New Program: Union members save up to 60% on college test prep courses (SAT/ACT) w/your exclusive Union Plus Discounts -- [ http://ow.ly/2olKJ ]
August 16 via HootSuite

---------------------------------

NEW: SAVE 15%-60% ON COLLEGE TEST PREP COURSES
[ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing/princeton-review-test-prep-courses?email1 ]

Union families can now save 15%-60% on college test prep courses from The Princeton Review! Test scores are a pivotal component of college or graduate school applications, and the widely respected Princeton Review guarantees your members' satisfaction.

Plus, your members can take FREE online practice tests [ http://www.princetonreview.com/free-online-practice-tests.aspx ] for GMAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, USMLE, SAT, or ACT.

Find courses and enroll at UnionPlus.org/CollegePrep [ http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing/princeton-review-test-prep-courses?email2 ] | 1-888-243-7377

---------------------------------

$500 COLLEGE GRANTS AVAILABLE
[ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-education-savings-grant?email1 ]

A higher education is more important than ever in today's economy, but the cost of a college education has risen an average of 6% each year. If your members open a new 529 plan -- one of the most popular ways to save for college -- and contribute at least $1,000, they may be eligible for a $500 Union Plus College Savings Grant [ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-education-savings-grant?email2 ].

Apply online at UnionPlus.org/CollegeSavingsGrant [ http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-education-savings-grant?email2 ]

---------------------------------

SAVE ON UNION-FRIENDLY LEGAL SERVICES
[ http://www.unionplus.org/legal-aid-services?email1 ]

Legal advice can be expensive and confusing. But not with the Union Plus Legal Service [ http://www.unionplus.org/legal-aid-services?email2 ], which offers:

* No enrollment requirements and no annual fee

* A free initial consultation

* The largest attorney panel

* 30% savings off most legal fees

Lawyers are carefully screened and have an average of 14 years of experience.

Find a lawyer at UnionPlus.org/Legal [ http://www.unionplus.org/legal-aid-services/find-a-lawyer?email3 ] | 1-888-993-8886

---------------------------------

HELP WITH ELDER CARE
[ http://www.unionplus.org/elder-care?email1 ]

Coping with aging parents can leave your members feeling isolated and frustrated. The Union Plus Eldercare Service [ http://www.unionplus.org/elder-care?email2 ] can be a lifeline. Services include:

* Eldercare services and referrals

* Online access to resource information

* Caregiver support and links to preferred providers

* Online member caregiver support group

PLUS: Your members who are Veterans can get special benefits for medical costs. See details here [ http://www.unionplus.org/elder-care?email3 ].

Find elder care options at UnionPlus.org/Eldercare [ http://www.unionplus.org/elder-care?email2 ] | 1-866-570-8588

ACTION CORNER:

Highlight this program at your next union meeting and order free bulk materials online [ http://www.unionplus.org/union-leader-toolkit/order-form?email4 ] or call the Union Plus Leader Line at 1-800-472-2005 or 202-293-5330 (M-F, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm ET) in the Washington, D.C., metro area.

---------------------------------

HOME IMPROVEMENTS SAVE MONEY
[ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-heating-oil?email1 ]

Union Plus energy discounts [ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-heating-oil?email1 ]Fall is just around the corner; you can help your members plan home improvement projects that'll save them money this winter! And Union Plus has lots of ways to help:

* Discounts on home heating oil [ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-heating-oil-rebate?email ]

* Home Energy Savings Rebate [ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-energy-audit-rebate?email ]

* Unionized HVAC service [ http://www.hvacexpertise.com/residential/AM/Template.cfm?Search=2&section=login&Template=Directory/ProductSearch.cfm&TERMS=StateCountry ]

Find out home improvement tips at UnionPlus.org/Home [ http://www.unionplus.org/home/home-improvement?email ]

IUPA FEATURE: The Truth about Public Safety Collective Bargaining

2010-08-24T21:10:00.002-04:00

This is a very informative article from the IUPA headquarters regarding public safety collective bargaining. It also has some very good information about Virginia and the efforts we as a local make in order to bring collective bargaining to Virginia.

As you know, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009 is finally moving forward. This bill provides threshold collective bargaining for public safety employees. We have written exhaustively about what this bill does and does not do. Last Congress, the bill passed the House with a bi-partisan vote of 314-97. This Congress, the "Right to Work" folks are ginning up for a big push to defeat this legislation. They cannot rely on the truth to accomplish this, but their recently distributed tirade and scare document indicates the lengths they will go to see that public safety employees are denied any voice in determining their wages, hours and working conditions. All of us have to unite and get the truth out to those who will be voting for this critical legislation. Please don't think if you have it, you will always have it. Virginia had collective bargaining up until the 1970's, when it became unlawful to collectively bargain with public safety employees. We do need a federal mandate to establish and keep our right to elect our leadership and have them recognized as our spokespersons for the purposes of determining our wages, hours and working conditions.

Let's look at what our opponents are saying. These are excerpts from Steve Forbes, one time presidential candidate and the Right to Work coalition.

"What Big Labor wants is simple but frightening: monopoly control over every public safety worker in the country. And now, with control of the White House to go along with large majorities in Congress, the union bosses believe their time has come. It's up to you and me to make sure they don't get their way. That's why it's vital you sign the petition below to Congressional Leadership IMMEDIATELY. I'll give you the link in just a moment, but first I want you to fully understand what is at stake.

You see, Big Labor's politicians in Washington are primed and ready to ram the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill (H.R. 413/S.1611) through Congress NOW. In fact, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill has already been introduced, and could come up for a vote within weeks.

As you know, the Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill is designed to FORCE every firefighter and police officer in the country under union boss control -- and is just the first step toward forcing ALL state and local public employees under Big Labor's thumb."

The "union bosses" they refer to are our/your elected local leaders. Active duty law enforcement officers elected by their peers, most of whom work their regular shift and then, on their own time, deal with the business of their members.

"The Police and Firefighter Monopoly Bargaining Bill will do nothing to stop crime or make our communities safer. On the contrary, forcing police and firefighters under the control of power-mad union bosses tends to drive many of the best men and women out of their jobs.

Big Labor's dangerous scheme is designed to impose union monopoly bargaining on all state, county and local public safety workers. That means that no matter what your state and local officials say, every police officer and firefighter in every town and city in the whole country will ultimately be handed over to union boss control."

The Act WILL enhance public safety by giving the men and women on the front lines of their states, cities and counties a voice in determining the best practices and procedures to deter crime and maintain the safety of their communities especially during troubled financial times.

The Act does NOT compel any law enforcement officer to join a union or police association. It, quite simply, does not.

The "power mad" union bosses, once again are elected law enforcement officers, selected by their own members to provide voice and leadership. The authors of this drivel are certainly not familiar with police officers if they believe that some outside union boss is going to "take control" of them.

"And, of course, history shows us police and firefighter monopoly bargaining has all too often led to strikes. Violent. Destructive. Bloody. This legislation would pit honest taxpayers like you against the very people you count on to protect you. When your police are ordered out on strike, who will defend your home and loved ones? When union militants set up picket lines around fire stations, who will put out the fires?"

In September 1919, the Boston Police did go on strike. There has not been a police strike since. There are collective bargaining rights for police officers in most of the states. Only two states outlaw the practice: North Carolina and Virginia. But let's answer the questions they have offered.

If the police were ordered to strike, who would give that order - the local president? Both his job and his position of local president would vanish faster than a keg of beer at a biker rally. This is the first Federal legislation to actually BAN strikes by public safety employees and Forbes and his band of crazies know it.

If union militants set up a picket line around a fire station and an alarm came in, there would be tire tracks on the picket signs - and maybe on some of the picketers.

This is the time for honest dialog, not spurious scare tactics that pretend to foresee our citizens dialing 911 and getting no answer because a "union boss" called a strike. It hasn't happened in over 90 years and it is not about to happen today.

Certainly states, cities and counties are facing financial challenges. Dialog with the elected leaders of their public safety providers can only help the situation. Around the nation, police unions have deferred bargained raises in order to avoid furloughs that could weaken public safety. Some have even negotiated pay cuts to maintain their strength and protect the public.

Joseph Goebbels, the propagandist for the Germans in WWII said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." The attached article uses the term "monopoly bargaining" no less than 15 times and "union boss or bosses" ten times. They are intended to be deprecatory. The Right to Work coalition wants to conjure up the image of cigar smoking gangsters taking over our police and fire services, leaving our citizens to fend for themselves while first responders carry picket signs in front of police and fire stations. They have read Goebbels, and they believe. We must shine the light on their lies and call them out loud and clear. We have to educate our Representatives and our Senators. They cannot be allowed to read the lies of the Right to Work and use that information to guide them in this critical vote.

Collective bargaining is critical to our public's safety and to the welfare of the brave men and women who provide it. Smearing them because they want the same rights as every other worker in America cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. IUPA will continue to spread the truth and we promise if the "Right to Work" folks quit telling lies about public safety, we will quit telling the truth about them.

New Officers Elected at the Virginia AFL-CIO

2010-08-17T08:08:00.002-04:00

The Executive Board of the Local 5016 would like to congratulate Doris Crouse-Mays on being elected as the new president of the Virginia AFL-CIO and Ray Davenport who was elected as Secretary-Treasurer of the organization. Previously, Doris was the Secretary-Treasurer of the Virginia AFL-CIO and a very close and devoted friend to the Local 5016's causes and issues specifically relating to public safety in Virginia.

The Deputy Sheriff's Coalition is affiliated with the AFL-CIO through our charter with the International Union of Police Associations.

An important article from the IUPA homepage about employee free speech

2010-08-12T21:15:00.000-04:00

The legal landscape of police employee free speech

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases — Pickering v. Board of Education and Garcetti v. Ceballos — begin any discussion of employee right to free speech

I’ve been a PoliceOne Columnist over a year now, and I’ve been delighted by reader responses and comments to the various articles I’ve written. Your feedback has been informative, educational, humorous’ and much appreciated. Some of you have e-mailed and engaged me in more direct points and matters of interest. Comments and supplementary material have even come from our police colleagues in Canada and across the Atlantic. I now find myself penning an article, the seed of which was planted by a PoliceOne reader.

The situation which came to the reader’s attention was a local metropolitan New York news story wherein it was reported that a police officer, Mike Simonelli, was disciplined and lost five days pay due to his criticisms of the police commissioner he had made while off-duty and attending a local governmental meeting. The officer, an Iraq veteran scheduled to be re-deployed to Afghanistan, and who by all news accounts is an exemplary police officer, made critical comments of his police commissioner during testimony before a public safety committee of the County Legislature. The issue at hand, as reported by Newsday, was whether “budget concerns caused a recent delay in a homicide detective reporting to a Brentwood murder scene while the victim lay in the street.”

Simonelli was subsequently presented with a disciplinary notice for “embarrassing, ridiculing, and degrading” the commissioner by his comments. The officer has not backed down from his comments, or his right to make them, and his union has vowed to fight the charges. A hearing is planned — the specific charge brought against him is conduct unbecoming an officer.

This is a disciplinary charge I’ve encountered many times in my representations of officers and one I find to be the administrative equivalent of the disorderly conduct charges some officers too liberally apply on the street. The constitutional dimensions of these charges are rarely contested in administrative cases, yet there has been argument in isolated instances of the “overbreadth” of the charge as it relates to the First Amendment rights of police officers. The charges, as reported in the case of Officer Simonelli, may be more supportive of the argument that the restriction on speech is overly broad.

Several issues are raised with this case. First is the authority and power of the commissioner or chief of police to discipline employees. Second is the right of the employee to the exercise of free speech. Third is the nature of “whistleblowing” and what conduct is protected by law.

A police agency has a right to monitor its employees, even regulating certain conduct outside of the workplace. This latter aspect of police employment is owing to the nature of the public trust and responsibility which is placed on the police professional. The powers granted to police commissions and police chiefs in the determination of disciplinary matters are quite broad and protective of the quasi-judicial nature of their activity when handling disciplinary cases. There is an immunity defense for police commissions and supervisors for legal claims made in response to employer decisions adverse to an employee.

The protection from “vexatious and unlimited litigation” provides one requirement for the basis of immunity, and the impartiality of the hearing board provides the other basis. While due process does not require the total absence of impartiality required of the judiciary, there is a presumption of impartiality that attends all administrative determinations ¹. In order to overcome such a presumption a complainant would have to show actual bias on the part of an official, conflict of interest or other disqualifying condition ².

What is the line between a police employee speaking out as a citizen over a matter of public concern and that of a disgruntled employee? When does the exercise of First Amendment rights extend beyond the liberty interest in free speech and become protected further as a whistleblower? Under what circumstances can police employee free speech be legitimately curtailed by the department and subjected to discipline? These are issues of intense litigation which have had some interesting legal results within the past few years.

While many public employees rely on their First Amendment rights and whistleblower protection laws when speaking publicly relative to their employment, their reliance is often misplaced. An improper understanding of the protections afforded to whistleblowers — and what exactly entails whistleblower protection — has led many public employees to incur discipline as a result of improper public disclosures. Similarly, First Amendment rights are not absolute and a public employee has less protection when speaking out on work related matters than he/she would as a private citizen engaging in public discourse.

U.S. Supreme Court Cases
An employee’s good faith belief in the righteousness of his/her cause has little relevance to the case law. Two U.S. Supreme Court cases begin any discussion of employee right to free speech. One case set the standard for employee speech; the other limited the effect of the previous case’s long standing ruling.

In Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), a high school teacher wrote a letter to the editor of a local newspaper criticizing the allocation of funds between academics and athletics at the local high school. The teacher was subsequently terminated by the school board for making inaccurate accusations against the school board. In a case where the teacher asserted a violation of her 1st and 14th Amendment rights, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee’s interest as a citizen in making public comment needs to be balanced against the employer’s competing interest “in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees.”

This “balancing test” will weigh in favor of the employee when the speech is made as a citizen on a matter of public concern ³.

Absent this requirement of public concern or interest and the speech may be subject to discipline by the employer. This was the case in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected any balancing inquiry when the employee speech is made as part of his employment.

The Garcetti case involved a supervising deputy district attorney in Los Angeles who, at the request of defense counsel, reviewed a warrant affidavit in which he found several misrepresentations. He brought this information to the attention of his superiors who ignored it and proceeded with the prosecution based on the faulty affidavit. Ceballos wrote a dismissal memorandum which he submitted to the court hearing the criminal case. The trial court rejected his challenge to the submitted evidence stemming from the faulty affidavit. He claimed subsequent retaliation by his employer in violation of his 1st and 14th Amendment rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the employer by distinguishing the Pickering balancing criteria from that here where Ceballos’ speech was made pursuant to his official duties, in essence ruling it was speech made as part of his job and not made as a private citizen. The threshold inquiry after Garcetti is the extent to which an employee can be said to be speaking in connection with his/her employment.

Federal Circuit Courts Weigh In
The courts’ treatment of a public employee’s freedom of speech will depend on the nature of that speech and the overall aim of that speech. Two cases from the federal circuit courts involving police officer speech distinguish the differing treatment of employee speech.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Foraker v. Chaffinch, 501 F.3d231 (3d Cir., 2007) ruled against police officers assigned to the firing range who complained to the state auditor regarding conditions at the firing range. In finding their job duties were to report through the chain of command on matters pertaining to range operations and conditions, the court held their speech was not protected. This was not a matter of public concern but was within the scope of their routine duties.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals case of See v. City of Elyria, 502 F.3d 484 (6th Cir., 2007) involved a complaint made to the F.B.I. by an officer reporting misconduct within the police department. The complaint was held to be constitutionally protected speech since it involved a matter of public concern.

The distinguishing factor in these two cases comes down to a question of whether speech is made pursuant to an employee’s official duties. This is a factual issue which courts must consider prior to any ruling on the nature of the speech ⁴. A determination that the speech is made part of the official duty though can have the incongruous result of muting a First Amendment based retaliatory claim premised on the reporting of potential corrupt activities.

This was the case in Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506 (7th Cir., 2007), wherein the plaintiff officer reported to superiors his suspicions that targets of a drug raid were tipped off beforehand. Though it declined the officer’s First Amendment claim, the court opined as a consolation that Garcetti was not a “categorical rule” depriving public employees of First Amendment protection and that state whistleblower protections might be more availing.

The legal landscape of public employee free-speech has been unsettling since Garcetti, and police officers have shouldered a good part of the fallout. The ruling in Garcetti is not without its criticism, especially now several years removed from the decision when we can observe the aftermath in ensuing lower federal court decisions which have dismissed police officer complaints of retaliation based on their exercise of free speech.

The most ardent constitutionalist among us would agree that no right is absolute; restraint, within limits, is necessary for good social order. However, the limiting of employee speech in the name of unchallenged workplace authority is troublesome. Hence, the repeated concerns that the reach of Garcetti works to stifle the speech of those employees most accessible to view government misconduct.

Nevertheless, the rule of Garcetti remains that an employee is protected only if the speech is unconnected to employment. The inquiry now is whether or not the employee made the speech as a private citizen or as a part of his official duties. What this has done to the concept of employees — especially police employees — reporting wrongdoing at work is to potentially mute those employees who have witnessed others before them disciplined for attempting good-faith efforts to report wrongdoing.

Criticism of the “blue wall of silence” and citizen mobilization for more transparency has hit a speed bump with the Garcetti decision. The police culture has not been one generally favorable to officers coming forward to report wrongdoing in the past ⁵. Whistle-blowing laws exist to protect from retaliation those employees who report abusive, fraudulent, and corrupt behavior within their workplace. These laws are ineffective if the employee is judged to be speaking in his/her official capacity and not on a matter of public concern. Police officers with legitimate complaints of wrongdoing must understand how the courts have been applying the rule in Garcetti. Officers often seek to go outside of the job to make their complaint on the belief that doing so internally nothing will be done. Every situation is unique and officers must weigh the issues carefully.

Where officers have been encountering post-Garcetti problems is in instances when they have eschewed the internal complaint process and went to public forums, as in Officer Simonelli’s case, or to the media. Internal processes, whether they are internal affairs or a municipal integrity board, must be the preliminary avenues for complaint. An officer who speaks in public on an employment matter does so at his or her own risk. Garcetti has foreclosed the cause of action based on retaliation as drafted within the context of a civil rights complaint.

While my sympathy — and that of the reader who first brought this to our attention — is with Officer Simonelli, the law will likely be unsympathetic to his cause. The speech will not be considered to be the subject matter of general public concern. The broad deference given to the commissioner in the management of the department will trump any claims based on free speech or whistleblower protection. Even New York State’s own whistleblower statute, recently strengthened this past August with legislation signed into law by the Governor, will provide little protection for the speech at issue. New York’s statute, like so many others, requires a report of illegal conduct and a prior good faith effort to inform the employer. Officer Simonelli’s comments do not seem to allege the type of behavior contemplated by the statute.

A better solution for all concerned would be to rescind the five-day suspension, consider the officer’s exemplary record, and provide a warning memorandum or some alternative to the loss of pay. An otherwise good police officer and military veteran deserves that accommodation.

¹ See eg., Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, 102 S. Ct. 1665, 72 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1982).
² Ibid
³ See eg., Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983): “Employee speech has to be determined by the content, form and context of a given statement.” The threshold inquiry in Connick is whether the “employee speech touches on a matter of public concern” and provided the second part to the two-prong Pickering-Connick test.
⁴ See eg., Williams v. Riley, No. 07-60252, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals: “’when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes’...At issue then, is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists on Garcetti’s threshold inquiry – whether Plaintiff’s speech was pursuant to their official duties.”
⁵ For a discussion on this topic see, “Whistleblowing and the Police,” Roberta Ann Johnson, Rutgers University Journal of Law and Urban Policy, 1 Vol. 3

About the author

Terrence "Terry" Dwyer is a full-time Assistant Professor in the Justice and Law Administration Department at Western Connecticut State University and an attorney in private practice. Terry holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Fordham University and a Juris Doctorate degree from Pace University School of Law. He is admitted to practice law in New York and Connecticut, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Supreme Court. Twice certified as a police expert in New York State Supreme Court he is a member of the New York State Bar Association, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA), the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS), Ethics in Policing, and the Police Executive Research Forum. Contact Terry Dwyer

UNION PLUS E-NEWS AUGUST 2010

2010-08-12T21:13:00.000-04:00

In This Issue: Back-to-School Savings

UNION FAMILIES SAVE ON BACK-TO-SCHOOL
http://www.unionplus.org/back-to-school-savings?email-index

JOIN UNION PLUS MOTOR CLUB NOW, GET $100 FREE GAS
http://www.unionplus.org/motor-club?email-index

SAVE 10%-30% ON DELL COMPUTERS
http://www.unionplus.org/computers/dell-discount?email-index

NEW! CUSTOMIZED HEALTH & FITNESS FOR LESS
http://www.unionplus.org/health-fitness/health-clubs?email-index

DO YOU QUALIFY FOR A $250 JOB LOSS GRANT?
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-job-loss-grant?email-index

ASK A WORKING WOMAN SURVEY 2010
http://aaww.questionpro.com/?custom1=email

FOLLOW US ON:
Facebook [ http://www.facebook.com/unionplus ]
Twitter [ http://twitter.com/unionplus ]
MySpace [ http://www.myspace.com/unionplus ]
YouTube [ http://www.youtube.com/unionplusbenefits ]

LATEST UNION PLUS UPDATES

FEATURED TESTIMONIAL

Service helped member with medical bills

Jason Levi is a member of American Federation of Musicians (AFM) Local 72-147 and a professional trumpet player. After an accident, Jason was able to have his $800 bill taken care of with the Union Plus Medical Bill Negotiating Service – leaving him debt free!
http://www.unionplus.org/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-medical-bill-negotiation-grant?email

FEATURED COUPON

Save on movie tickets, theme parks & more

Union members receive some of the best entertainment discounts available to any organization, saving up to $19 per ticket at theme parks and 40% off regular-price movie tickets and more.
http://www.unionplus.org/coupon-center/entertainment?email

FEATURED FACEBOOK POST

Do you drive one of the most stolen vehicles in the United States? The latest list of the top 10 most stolen vehicles compiled by the Highway Loss Data Institute has been released. Take a look -- do you spot any union-made cars? Click here to see the list: http://www.unionplus.org/autos-cars/top-stolen-cars?email

------------------------------

--

UNION FAMILIES SAVE ON BACK-TO-SCHOOL
http://www.unionplus.org/back-to-school-savings?email1

Stay within your back-to-school budget with these discounts exclusively for working families.

* Keep in touch with your students and you'll worry less. Save 15% off AT&T individual and family monthly wireless plans. Also get discounted phones and data plans from the only nationwide unionized wireless company.
http://www.unionplus.org/cell-phone-wireless/att-wireless?email

* Need a truck or van to make the move to college or an apartment easier? Rent a Budget Rental truck or van and save 20% with your Union Plus discount. Get a quote now and make a reservation online. Or call 1-800-561-1157 and reference BART #56000127763.
http://www.unionplus.org/autos-cars/budget-truck-rental?email

* Make sure your student's car is covered with Union Plus Auto Insurance. Also have your new driver check out the Union Plus $250 Driver's Education Grant. http://www.unionplus.org/insurance/auto-insurance?email

Find more discounts including text books at UnionPlus.org/BackToSchool
http://www.unionplus.org/back-to-school-savings?email2

TIP: Don't send your student off to college without some no-nonsense tips on how to use credit cards wisely and live within a budget.
http://www.unionplus.org/college-education-financing/student-credit-debt-tips?email

--------------------------------

JOIN UNION PLUS MOTOR CLUB NOW, GET $100 FREE GAS
http://www.unionplus.org/motor-club?email1

For less than half the cost of AAA, Union Plus Motor Club covers your entire family -- including student drivers at home and school. Plus, you get $40 in free gas when you pay for an annual membership -- just $64.80.

Enroll in an annual membership by September 30, 2010, and get an additional $60 in free gas for a total of $100. It's like getting your membership for free.
http://www.unionplus.org/motor-club?email2

Enroll now and get free gas at UnionPlus.org/MotorClub | 1-800-454-8722
http://www.unionplus.org/motor-club?email3

TIP: In addition to a flashlight, flares, and first-aid kit, what does your student need in his or her car emergency kit? Find out.
http://www.unionplus.org/autos-cars/emergency-car-kits?email

--------------------------------

SAVE 10%-30% ON DELL COMPUTERS
http://www.unionplus.org/computers/dell-discount?email1

Whether you're a student, parent, or retiree, a new computer can make your life easier and more enjoyable. With your Union Plus discount, you save 10%-30% on powerful Dell laptops and desktops, plus get FREE U.S.-based technical support when you buy a special pre-configured system.

Save on computers at UnionPlus.org/Dell | 1-877-882-3355 reference ID # PS16626766
http://www.unionplus.org/computers/dell-discount?email2

TIP: Get help choosing the best computer for your needs. Receive up-to-date computer reviews and comparisons when you subscribe to ConsumerReports.org. Save 27% with your union member discount. Subscribe now.
http://www.unionplus.org/consumer-reports-online?email

--------------------------------

NEW! CUSTOMIZED HEALTH & FITNESS FOR LESS
http://www.unionplus.org/health-fitness/health-clubs?email1

Get online help from a professional trainer, experienced nutritionist, fitness expert, or smoking cessation coach thanks to GlobalFit, the Union Plus health-and-fitness partner. GlobalFit has affordable new programs that help you lose weight, eat better, quit smoking, and get in shape without leaving home.

Find a healthy living program right for you at UnionPlus.org/HealthClub
http://www.unionplus.org/health-fitness/health-clubs?email2

TIP: Eating right costs less than prescription drugs. And research proves illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure can be prevented or controlled by eating better. Try these eating tips for a healthier lifestyle. http://www.unionplus.org/health/healthy-lifestyle-tips/how-to-live-healthy?email

--------------------------------

DO YOU QUALIFY FOR A $250 JOB LOSS GRANT?
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-job-loss-grant?email1

If you're a laid-off Union Plus Credit Cardholder who has been out of work for 90 days or more within the last 6 months, you may qualify for a $250 Union Plus Job Loss Grant. This is money you don't ever have to repay.
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-job-loss-grant?email2

Apply for a Job Loss Grant at UnionPlus.org/JobLoss
http://www.unionplus.org/life-planning-services-legal/member-assistance-programs/union-safe-grants-job-loss-grant?email3

--------------------------------

ASK A WORKING WOMAN SURVEY 2010
http://aaww.questionpro.com/?custom1=email

It is time again for the Ask A Working Woman Survey. Women have something to say about the economy, health care, balancing family and work, and jobs. We want to hear it!

Every two years the AFL-CIO and Working America conduct a survey to capture the views of working women. This year's deadline is August 13.

Please take time TODAY to complete this short survey.
http://aaww.questionpro.com/?custom1=email

Fairfax Deputy Sheriff's Coalition - Local 5016

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #196

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #195

NCPERS News Clips

Our role in the County Executive Search

Off-Duty Officers and Firearms

No December General Membership Meeting

November General Membership Meeting

Preparing for the Virginia Legislative Season

Force Science News: Transmission #190 After the Shooting

Election Tuesday

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #189

National Council on Public Employee Retirement Systems--News Clips

October General Membership Meeting

Union Plus--Collective Bargains

Support fellow workers—buy your new iPhone 4S from AT&T

Finishing your degree may be easier than you think

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #188

Force Science News: Transmission #187

Union Plus Benefits

Save an average of $483 on car insurance -- carry auto insurance with union advantages

Union welder cuts the cost of keeping his family healthy

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #185

Living Labor Daily Coupons

August General Membership Meeting

Official Endorsement Statement for Sheriff Stan Barry

Sheriffs Election Endorsement

Force Science News: Transmission #183

NCPERS News Clips

National Council on Public Employee Retirement Systems New Clips

Sheriff Candidate Endorsement Vote

Candidate Forum for Sheriff Candidates

Union Plus Benefits

FREE 30-min. legal consultation

Sign up and save

IUOE family saves $650 with Union Plus Auto Insurance

NCPERS News Clips

News from the Public Retirement Front

Force Science News: #181

General Membership Meeting--June 2nd, 7:00 p.m.

Department of Justice Meeting

Statement on the Events from Wisconsin

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #172

Union Plus Benefits

February General Membership Meeting

FORCE SCIENCE NEWS: Transmission #17

Union Plus E-News February 2011

County employees might see cost-of-living adjustments

Officials consider altering pay system in absence of salary increases

What Retirees Should Watch for in 2011

January General Membership Meeting

Law Enforcement United

December Union Plus Benefits

Law Enforcement United Raffle

IUPA Discusses Immigration Reform

Union Plus Blast Savings for Members

IUPA FEATURE: The Truth about Public Safety Collective Bargaining

New Officers Elected at the Virginia AFL-CIO

An important article from the IUPA homepage about employee free speech

The legal landscape of police employee free speech

Two U.S. Supreme Court cases — Pickering v. Board of Education and Garcetti v. Ceballos — begin any discussion of employee right to free speech

UNION PLUS E-NEWS AUGUST 2010

Union welder cuts the cost of keeping his
family healthy

IUOE family saves $650 with Union Plus
Auto Insurance