WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN POL

The progress from Western colonial global expansion, and the construction of American wealth and industry on the backs of enslaved Blacks and Native peoples, followed by the abrupt "emancipation" of the slaves and their exodus from the South to the Northern cities, has led us to our current divided society. Divided by economic inequities and unequal access to social resources, the nation lives in a media dream of social harmony, or did until YouTube set its bed on fire. Now, it is common knowledge that our current system of brutal racist policing and punitive over-incarceration serves the dual purpose of maintaining racial prejudice and the inequities it justifies. Brief yourself on this late-breaking development in American history here.

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:33 pm

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report has been a project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The primary author is Kara Dansky, Senior Counsel at the ACLU’s Center for Justice. Will Bunting, the ACLU’s Fiscal Policy Analyst, conducted the statistical analysis and contributed to the drafting of the report. Sarah Solon, ACLU Communications Strategist, also contributed to the drafting of the report. Additional contributors included Allie Bohm, ACLU Advocacy and Policy Specialist; Emma Andersson, Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project; and Jesselyn McCurdy, Senior Lobbyist at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. A special thank you goes to Iman Boukadoum, who provided project management assistance.

The authors would also like to thank ACLU Deputy Legal Director Vanita Gupta and Criminal Law Reform Project Director Ezekiel Edwards, who reviewed and edited the report; ACLU Media Strategist Alexandra Ringe, who provided media expertise; ACLU paralegal Alex Stamm, who helped with the document review and statistical analysis and ACLU intern Jason Clayton who helped with research and editing. ACLU interns Ian Wahrenbrock, Makeba Rutahindurwa, and Aron Milberg conducted hours of document review.

This report would not have been possible without the participation and contributions of the ACLU affiliates in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The ACLU would like to thank Tom Nolan, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Plattsburgh and a 27-year veteran of the Boston Police Department, for serving as a consultant and for his expertise on policing and criminal justice.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:35 pm

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Public Records Request Letter Sent From the ACLU To Law Enforcement Agencies


NAME TITLE AGENCY OFFICE ADDRESS 1 ADDRESS 2

DATE

Re: Public Records Request / SWAT Teams and Cutting-Edge Weapons and Technology

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is a request under the by the American Civil Liberties Union of _______. This request seeks records regarding your Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, as well as your acquisition and use of cutting-edge technology.

Records Requested

A. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams


Please provide copies of the following created, updated, or edited, records from January 1, 2011, to the present:

1. All incident reports or other records documenting each time a SWAT team was deployed. All reports showing breakdowns of SWAT team deployments by crime, requesting agency, or purpose for the raid (i.e. to serve a warrant, arrest someone, diffuse a hostage crisis, etc.) and all post-deployment documentation, including:

a. All documents relating to the number of no-knock warrants applied for, and the number of no-knock warrants granted, denied, or modified, in conjunction with a SWAT team deployment;

b. All documents relating to uses of force by all SWAT teams and all incident reports documenting all injuries incurred by anyone at the scene of a SWAT team operation.


2. All procedures, regulations, or guidelines relating to SWAT teams, including the protocols and legal standards that must be met before SWAT team deployment.

3. All documents relating to the structure or mission of SWAT teams, including chain of command and the selection of team personnel, as well as the ranks, salaries, and lengths of service of team personnel.

4. All documents or training materials used to instruct SWAT teams in any aspect of their operation, including information about any training, including but not limited to, with military units and other outside agencies and private contractors, when and where training sessions took place, and who conducted them.

5. All records relating to the procurement, maintenance or deployment of SWAT team weapons and other equipment, including guns, vehicles, personal protective equipment and uniforms, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, less than lethal devices, apparatuses and systems for augmented detainee restraint (also known as shock-cuffs), forced entry tools, facial recognition technology, Cellebrite or other mobile forensics units, biometric technology, cell phone sniffers, and deep packet sniffers, including how it is stored, and who has access to it.

6. All written mutual aid agreements or memoranda of understanding with federal, state and local agencies, including any branch of the military and private entities concerning SWAT teams.

7. All records relating to funding sources and grants your SWAT team applied for, and whether or not the application was successful; and

8. All internal or external audits of SWAT team performance or records of cost effectiveness.

B. Cutting Edge Weapons and Technology

Please provide copies of the following created, updated, or edited, records from January 1, 2011, to the present:

1. The number of Mobile Forensic Data Extraction devices, GPS tracking devices, biometric technology, cell phone sniffers, deep packet sniffers, unmanned aerial vehicles (sometimes called “drones”), apparatuses and systems for augmented detainee restraint (also known as shock-cuffs), Cellebrite or other mobile forensics units, and devices capable of facial or behavioral recognition currently owned, leased, or borrowed or proposed for purchase or acquisition by your agency and the unit or division of your agency given primary use of each device.

2. All practices, procedures, and trainings governing use of all such devices.

3. All policies relating to the maintenance and retention of information obtained through such devices, including but not limited to, policies detailing how records of such information are kept, databases in which they are placed, limitations on who may access the records and for what purposes, circumstances under which they are deleted, and circumstances under which they may be shared with other government agencies or nongovernmental entities.

4. The legal standard or level of suspicion (e.g. probable cause, reasonable suspicion, relevance) the agency requires or proffers prior to using such devices.

5. All applications submitted by your Department for equipment through the Department of Defense’s “1033” program1 (either directly to the Department of Defense or to your state’s administering agency), including whether the application was granted, denied, or granted in part (and if so, how).

6. All “1033” program inventories created and maintained pursuant to the May 22, 2012, moratorium (see https://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil ... ndex.shtml).

7. All applications submitted by your Department for funding through the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Grant Program or Urban Area Security Initiative program (including applications submitted to your state’s administering agency), including whether the application was granted, denied, or granted in part (and if so, how).

Because this request is on a matter of public concern and because it is made on behalf of a non-profit organization, we request a fee waiver. If, however, such a waiver is denied, we will reimburse you for the reasonable cost of copying. Please inform us in advance if the cost will be greater than ____. Please send us documents in electronic form if at all possible.

According to a custodian of public records shall comply with a request within days after receipt. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish all applicable records to ____. If you have questions, please contact me at (phone number/email address).

Sincerely,

_______________

Notes:

1 Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2576a, permits the Secretary of Defense to transfer excess Department of Defense supplies and equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies, has entered into an agreement with the Defense Logistics Agency, which governs the transfer of military property to for use in civilian policing.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:39 pm

Appendix B: Agreement Between the Defense Logistics Agency and the State of _____

Image

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY AND THE STATE OF _____

PURPOSE:


This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into between the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the State of , to set forth the terms and conditions which will be binding on the parties with respect to excess Department of Defense (DOD) personal property which is transferred pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a and to promote the efficient and expeditious transfer of the property and to ensure accountability of same.

AUTHORITY:

The Secretary of Defense is authorized by 10 USC § 2576a to transfer to Federal and State Agencies, personal property that is excess to the needs of the DOD and that the Secretary determines is suitable to be used by such agencies in law enforcement activities, with emphasis on counter-drug/counter-terrorism activities, under such terms prescribed by the Secretary. The authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense have been delegated to the DLA in determining whether property is suitable for use by agencies in law enforcement activities. DLA defines law enforcement activities as activities performed by government agencies whose primary function is the enforcement of applicable Federal, State, and local laws and whose compensated law enforcement officers have powers of arrest and apprehension.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

The DOD, through the DLA, has final authority to determine the type, quantity, and location of excess DOD personal property suitable for law enforcement activities, if any, which will be transferred to the State. This agreement creates no entitlement in the State to receive excess DOD personal property. Property available under this agreement is for the current use of authorized program participants; it will not be requested nor issued for speculative use/possible future use with the exception of authorized Transitional Distribution Points (TDPs) and/or Customer Reserve Stock (CRSs), which are required to utilize property within one year or schedule its return to the nearest Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO). Property will not be obtained for the purpose of sale, lease, rent, exchange, barter, to secure a loan, or to otherwise supplement normal Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) or State/local governmental entities budgets. All requests for property will be based on bona fide law enforcement requirements. Requests for property for the purpose of cannibalization will be considered for approval on a case by case basis. A memorandum must be submitted to the Director of the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) requesting approval. Any transportation, repair, maintenance, insurance, disposal, or other expenses associated with this excess DOD personal property is the sole responsibility of the State/LEA.

The State will establish and submit to the DLA, a State Plan of Operation, developed in accordance with Federal and State law and conforming to the provisions of this MOA. This State Plan of Operation will detail organizational and operational authority including staffing and facilities. It will also address procedures for making determinations of LEA eligibility, allocation and equitable distribution of material, accountability and responsibility concerning excess DOD personal property, training and education, Operational Effectiveness Reviews (OERs), and procedures for turn-in, transfer, and disposal. Property obtained under this MOA must be placed into use within one (1) year of receipt and utilized for a minimum of one (1) year, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable. Only in special circumstances will property be obtained and held for the minimum time frames and then sold, battered, exchanged, or traded. Approval will be considered on a case by case basis. A memorandum must be submitted to the Director of LESO requesting approval. Property will not physically move until the approval process is complete. If property is not put into use by the recipient within one (1) year, the State/LEA must contact the DLA LESO to coordinate the return of the property to the nearest DRMO for proper disposition. Once the DLA LESO is notified and a DRMO is identified, property must be returned within thirty (30) days. The State/LEA will bear the burden of returning the property to the nearest DRMO. Under no circumstances will property be sold or otherwise transferred to non-U.S. persons or exported.

Only the Governor appointed State Coordinator identified at the end of this document is authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the State. An Appointment Letter from the State Coordinator, authorizing the State Point of Contact (POC) signature authority or to act on the behalf of the State Coordinator must be on file with the DLA LESO in order to actively participate in the program. The State Coordinator is required to sponsor LEAs that want to actively participate in the program and the State Coordinator must screen all LEAs requests for excess DOD personal property. The State Coordinator will validate that all approved requests for property are legitimate and for law enforcement purposes. In so doing, the State Coordinator assumes the responsibility to maintain records ensuring LEA accountability for all excess DOD personal property received through the 1033 Program for his/her state. In conjunction with each request, the State Coordinator will furnish a detailed justification for the property. Property received through the 1033 Program can only be distributed to an authorized LEA for whom the initial request was made and justification was provided, unless the property was requested for a TDP or from CRS.

The DOD has authorized the transfer and use of excess Federal property to the State/LEA and as such reserves the right to recall any and all property issued through the 1033 or 1208 Programs. As stipulated in Federal regulation, title may be conditionally granted to the State/LEA upon receipt of the property, however approval will be considered on a case by case basis. A memorandum must be submitted to the Director of LESO requesting approval before the disposal, sale, auction, trade-in, salvage or transfer of any 1033 or 1208 property can occur. Property will not physically move until the approval process is complete. Costs of shipping or repossession of the excess DOD personal property by the U.S. Government will be borne by the LEA. To the extent permitted by law, the State Coordinator/LEA shall indemnify and hold the U.S. Government harmless from any and all actions, claims, debts, demands, judgments, liabilities, cost, and attorney's fees arising out of, claimed on account of, or in any manner predicated upon loss of or damage to property and injuries, illness or disabilities to or death of any and all persons whatsoever, including members of the general public, or to the property of any legal or political entity including states, local and interstate bodies, in any manner caused by or contributed to by the State/LEA, its agents, servants, employees, or any person subject to its control while in, upon or about the sale site and/or the site on which the property is located, or while the property is in the possession of, used by or subject to the control of the State/LEA, its agents, servants, or employees after the property has been removed from U.S. Government control. The State will maintain or assure that the LEA maintains adequate insurance to cover damages or injuries to persons or property relating to the use of the property. Self-insurance by the State/LEA is considered acceptable. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for damages or injuries to any person(s) or property arising from the use of the property.

All excess DOD personal property will be managed utilizing property accounting records. These records will be concise, accurate, and be able to provide timely and relevant information. Records will be maintained in accordance with the DLA Record Management Procedures and Records (DLA Directive (DLAD) 5025.30 - See Appendix).

The DLA LESO will conduct an OER for all Federal Agencies, States, and U.S. Territories enrolled in the 1033 Program every two (2) years. If a Federal Agency, State, or U.S. Territory fails an OER, the DLA LESO will temporarily suspend their operations. If a Federal Agency, State, or U.S. Territory fails to correct identified deficiencies the DLA LESO will permanently suspend their operations. The Federal Agency, State, or U.S. Territory will bear all expenses related to the turn-in to the nearest DRMO, the transfer to an approved Federal Agency, State, or U.S. Territory or the disposal of all excess DOD personal property.

All property missing, lost, stolen, damaged, or destroyed must be reported to the DLA LESO. Excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code of C, D, E, F, or G must be reported to the DLA LESO within twenty-four (24) hours. Excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code of A, B, or Q must be reported to the DLA LESO within seven (7) days. Extensions will be granted on a case by case basis.

In the event of a domestic disaster, accountability of excess DOD personal property must be conducted by every Federal Agency, State, and U.S. Territory within the effected area. Excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code of C, D, E, F, or G must be reported to the DLA LESO within seven (7) days. Excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code of A, B, or Q must be reported to the DLA LESO within thirty (30) days. Extensions will be granted on a case by case basis.

All aircraft (fixed wing and rotary wing), Flight Safety Critical Aircraft Parts (FSCAP), Demilitarization required Munitions List Items (MLI), Commerce Control List Items (CCLI) may be transferred to the State for its use in law enforcement activities. The State Plan of Operation must ensure that all LEAs and all subsequent users are aware of and agree to provide all required controls in accordance with applicable laws and regulations for these items. Additionally, the following conditions apply:

A. LEAs may transfer aircraft and FSCAP with other authorized LEAs, provided the aircraft and components are maintained in accordance with applicable airworthiness standards and procedures for maintenance and repair and provided further that the LEAs perpetuate repair and maintenance documentation. The LEA must request the transfer of aircraft and FSCAP through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from the LESO. Aircraft and FSCAP will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to the transfer of aircraft and FSCAP will be borne by the State/LEA.

B. LEAs may transfer FSCAP and MLI items requiring demilitarization (Demilitarization Codes C, D, E, and F) to another authorized LEA within their State or they must be turned-in to the nearest DRMO when no longer required for law enforcement use. The LEA must request the transfer or turn-in of FSCAP and MLI items through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from the LESO. Aircraft and FSCAP will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to the transfer or turn-in of FSCAP and MLI items will be borne by the State/LEA.

C. LEAs enrolled in the 1208 Program can sell, trade or barter aircraft and aircraft parts issued on or before September 30, 1996. LEAs that received aircraft or aircraft parts after September 30, 1996 have the following options: retain the aircraft or aircraft parts, transfer them to another LEA or turn them in to the nearest DRMO. The LEA must request to sell, trade, barter, transfer or turn-in aircraft and aircraft parts through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from the LESO. Aircraft and aircraft parts will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to the sell, trade, barter, transfer or turn-in will be borne by the State/LEA.

LEAs may transfer weapons provided through the 1033 or 1208 Program to an authorized LEA within their State, to an authorized LEA in another participating State, or they must turn-in their weapons to the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) when no longer required for law enforcement use. The LEA must request the transfer or turn-in of weapons through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from the LESO. Weapons will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to the transfer or turn-in of weapons will be borne by the State/LEA.

When the State Coordinator/LEAs no longer require MLI/CCLI (Demilitarization Band Q), the State Coordinator/LEA must transfer the equipment to another authorized LEA or turn-in to the nearest DRMO. The State Plan of Operation must reflect these two options. The LEA must request the transfer or turn-in to the nearest DRMO through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from LESO. MLI/CCLI (Demilitarization Codes Band Q) property will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to transfer, turn-in, or disposal of property will be borne by the State/LEA.

Except where indicated in this MOA, the State/LEAs may transfer, turn-in to the nearest DRMO, or dispose of other types of property (Demilitarization Code A items) in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws when it is determined that the State/LEA no longer requires the property for law enforcement use. The LEA must request the transfer, turn-in to the nearest DRMO, or disposal through the State Coordinator, who in turn must request approval from LESO. Demilitarization Code A property will not physically move until the approval process is complete. All costs related to transfer, turn-in, or disposal of property will be borne by the State/LEA.

By signing this MOA or accepting excess DOD personal property under this MOA, the State pledges that it and each LEA agrees to comply with applicable provisions of the following national policies prohibiting discrimination:

A. On the basis of race, color, or national origin, in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) as implemented by DOD regulations 32 CR Part 195.

B. On the basis of age, in the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 USC 6101, et seq) as implemented by Department of Health and Human Services regulations in 45 CFR Part 90.

C. On the basis of handicap, in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93- 112, as amended by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-516 (29 U.S.C. 794), as implemented by Department of Justice regulations in 28 CFR Part 41 and DOD regulations at 32 CFR Part 56.

These elements are considered the minimum essential ingredients for establishment of a satisfactory business agreement between the State and the DOD. The State Plan of Operation is subject to Federal review and will require DLA LESO approval prior to any subsequent transfer of excess DOD personal property.

THE DLA LESO SHALL:

1. Maintain an accessible website that will provide timely and accurate guidance, information, and links for all individuals who work or have an interest in the 1033 Program.

2. Receive and approve/disapprove applications for participation by a State in the 1033 Program.

A. Receive and approve/disapprove applications for an approved State to conduct a TDP. Approved States will receive an Authorization Letter from DLA LESO.

B. Receive and approve/disapprove applications for an approved State to conduct a CRS. Approved States will receive an Authorization Letter from DLA LESO.

C. Maintain a current and accurate approved/disapproved list of all State Coordinators and all State POCs.

3. Receive and approve/disapprove applications for participation by a LEA in the 1033 Program.

A. LEAs must be certified by their State Coordinator as having powers of arrest and apprehension.

4. Provide a comprehensive overview of the 1033 Program to all State Coordinators prior to or within thirty (30) days of their assumption of their duties.

A. Encourage and assist State Coordinators and LEAs in the use of electronic screening of the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS) world-wide inventory and the procedures to search for, identify, and request property.

B. Encourage and assist State Coordinators and LEAs with scheduling formalized instruction from the DLA/LESO and/or DRMS.

5. Upon receipt of a valid Request for property through LESO Automation, ensure equitable distribution and proper identification of the property.

A. Identify High Profile (Weapons/Night Vision Devices (NVDs), Aircraft/Watercraft, High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs)/Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs)), High Value (Acquisition Cost of $20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLI, CCLI, FSCAP) property, and then issue-free of charge-to the State Coordinator or designee for further transfer to an authorized LEA. All transportation costs will be borne by the State/LEA.

B. Provide the State Coordinator/LEAs with the available flight historical records and related documentation to FSCAP components. This documentation will be available for inspection by LEAs prior to transfer. The documentation will be sufficient to be accepted by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorized repair facility for evaluation and possible determination for use on an aircraft. DOD makes no representation as to the property's conformance to FAA requirements. The LEA must subject the assets to safety inspection, repair, and/or overhaul by a competent manufacturer or other entity such as those certified by the FAA prior to placing into use. The property that is provided to the State Coordinator/LEA may not meet FAA design standards, and/or may have been operated outside the limitations required by the Federal Aviation Regulations.

6. Maintain all records in accordance with the DLA Record Management Procedures and Records (DLAD 5025.30 - See Appendix). All files records, with the exception of consumable items, will be retained for five (5) fiscal years (Example: October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 constitutes a fiscal year).

A. All excess DOD personal property records of consumable items will have their files maintained in an active status for (1) year, then placed in an inactive status for (1) year, then may be destroyed.

B. All excess DOD personal property records that are more than five (5) fiscal years old may be purged with the exception of Demilitarization Code B through Q excess DOD personal property, property deemed "sensitive to theft", and property deemed "high dollar". The DLA LESO defines "high dollar" as excess DOD personal property that has an Acquisition Value of more than $20,000.

C. All excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code A will have their files maintained in an active status for two (2) years, then placed in an inactive status for three (3) additional years, then may be destroyed.

D. All excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code B through Q will have their files maintained through the life cycle of the property. If an item is approved for turn-in, transfer, or disposal, then the file will move to an inactive status and will be maintained for an additional three (3) fiscal years, then may be destroyed.

7. Maintain LESO Automation to approve/disapprove transfer, turn-in, and disposal requests from a State/LEA.

A. Assist State Coordinators with request procedures.

B. Assist State Coordinators/LEAs with transfer, turn-in, and disposal procedures.

8. Provide Reconciliation Reports through the Law Enforcement Equipment Database System (LEEDS) so that State Coordinators and DLA LESO can conduct monthly reconciliations of property records.

9. Validate the accountability of all High Profile (Weapons/NVDs, Aircraft/Watercraft, HMMWVs/APCs), High Value (Acquisition Cost of $20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLl, CCLl, FSCAP) property annually with the State Coordinator.

10. Validate the accountability of all High Profile (Weapons/NVDs, Aircraft/Watercraft, HMMWVs/APCs), High Value (Acquisition Cost of$20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLI, CCLl, FSCAP) property with the State Coordinator following a domestic disaster within the time frames established in this MOA.

11. Conduct an OER of each State participating in the program, at a minimum, every two (2) years or as needed. OER results will be provided electronically and in hard copy within thirty (30) days.

A. If a State fails an OER, they will be verbally notified by DLA LESO that their operations have been suspended. The OER results will be provided within fourteen (14) days.

B. The State Coordinator will have twenty-one (21) days to draft a Corrective Action Plan for approval/disapproval by the DLA LESO. The State Coordinator has ninety (90) days to implement an approved Corrective Action Plan. At, or before the end of the ninety (90) day Corrective Action Plan, the State Coordinator should schedule a second OER with the DLA LESO. Failure to properly execute the Corrective Action Plan and receive a Mission Capable grade on a second OER may result in termination from the 1033 Program.

C. If a State is terminated from the 1033 Program, the State/LEA will bear all expenses related to the turn-in to the nearest DRMO, the transfer to an approved Federal Agency, State, or U.S. Territory or the disposal of all excess DOD personal property.

12. Suspend or terminate a State from the 1033 Program if a State Coordinator or a LEA materially fails to comply with any term of this MOA, any Federal statute or regulation, any assurance provided in a State Plan of Operation or application, or a State MOA with a LEA.

A. Temporarily Suspend Operations-Pending Review (TSO-PR): withhold approval of excess DOD property or release of property under previously approved requests, transfers, turn-ins, or disposals pending administrative or legal review by the DLA LESO or appropriate Federal or State agency and/or LEAs.

B. Temporarily Suspend Operations-Pending Deficiency Corrections (TSO-PD): withhold approval of excess DOD property or release of property under previously approved requests, transfers, turn-ins, or disposals pending correction of administrative or legal deficiencies identified by the DLA LESO or appropriate Federal or State agency and/or LEAs.

C. Suspend Operations (SO): withhold approval of excess DOD property or release of property under previously approved requests, transfers, turn-ins, or disposals until major deficiencies are corrected and personnel changes are effected as recommended following administrative or legal review/action by the DLA LESO or appropriate Federal or State agency and/or LEAs.

D. Terminate Operations (TO): at the expense of the State/LEA(s) require the State Coordinator and/or identified LEA(s) to transfer, turn-in, or dispose of all property previously received through the 1033 or 1208 Program. DLA LESO will provide oversight.

THE STATE SHALL:

1. Access the DLA LESO website on a weekly basis for timely and accurate guidance, information, and links concerning the 1033 Program and ensure that all relevant information is passed on to participating LEAs.

2. Create a comprehensive State Plan of Operation, forward to the DLA LESO for approval/disapproval, and implement to conduct operations in accordance with the regulations of the 1033 Program. Maintain the approved MOA and State Plan of Operation on file.

A. If operating as a TDP, create a comprehensive TDP Plan of Operation, forward to the DLA LESO for approval/disapproval, and implement to conduct operations in accordance with regulations of the 1033 Program. Maintain TDP Authorization Letter and TDP Plan of Operation on file.

B. If operating as a CRS, create a comprehensive CRS Plan of Operation, forward to the DLA LESO for approval/disapproval, and implement to conduct operations in accordance with regulations of the 1033 Program. Maintain CRS Authorization Letter and CRS Plan of Operation on file.

C. Ensure the DLA LESO has a current and accurate listing of the State Coordinator and State POC Listing. Allow a maximum of four (4) screeners. The screeners must be full-time and/or part-time, sworn and/or non-sworn officers, per LEA performing this duty. The screeners must be named in a "Data Sheet", provided and approved by the State Coordinator, and approved by the DLA LESO and in the LEEDS/LEA File. Notify DLA LESO immediately upon notification of change of Governor or State Coordinator.

D. Enter into written agreement with each LEA, via the State Plan of Operation, to assure they fully comply with the terms, conditions, and limitations applicable to property transferred pursuant to this agreement. The State Plan of Operation must be signed by the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the respective LEA.

3. Receive and approve/disapprove applications for participation by a LEA in the 1033 Program.

A. The State Coordinator will only certify LEAs that have powers of arrest and apprehension.

4. Provide a comprehensive overview of the 1033 Program to all LEAs once they are approved.

A. Encourage and assist LEAs in the use of electronic screening of DRMS world-wide inventory and the procedures to search for, identify, and request property.

B. Encourage and assist LEAs with scheduling formalized instruction from the State Coordinator, DLA LESO and/or DRMS.

5. Create requests or upon receipt of a valid Request for property from a LEA, ensure equitable distribution within the State and properly identify all property. Properly justify all requests and ensure identification of TDP, CRS or LEA.

A. Ensure LEAs are aware that High Profile (Weapons/NVDs, Aircraft/Watercraft, HMMWVs/APCs), High Value (Acquisition Cost of $20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLI, CCLl, FSCAP) property is identified by DLA LESO and is subject to additional controls.

B. Request from the DLA LESO all available flight historical records and related documentation to FSCAP components. This documentation will be available for inspection by LEAs prior to transfer. The documentation will be sufficient to be accepted by a FAA authorized repair facility for evaluation and possible determination for use on an aircraft. DOD makes no representation as to the property's conformance to FAA requirements. The LEA must subject the assets to safety inspection, repair, and/or overhaul by a competent manufacturer or other entity such as those certified by the FAA prior to placing into use. The property that is provided to the State Coordinator/LEA may not meet FAA design standards, and/or may have been operated outside the limitations required by the Federal Aviation Regulations.

C. If a State/LEA request is approved, the State Coordinator or a designee will receipt for property -- free of charge- -- or a TDP (if approved), CRS (if approved), or further transfer to an authorized LEA. All transportation costs will be borne by the State/LEA.

D. The State Coordinator will bear responsibility for the allocation, receipt, transfer, turn-in, and disposal of all excess DOD property received through the 1033 Program (TDP, CRS, or LEA).

6. Maintain all records in accordance with the DLA Record Management Procedures and Records (DLAD 5025.30 - See Appendix). All files records, with the exception of consumable items, will be retained for five (5) fiscal years (October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008 constitutes a fiscal year). These records must provide an audit trail for all excess DOD property from receipt "cradle" to transfer, turn-in, or disposal "grave". These documents include, but are not limited to the following: DRMS Form 103 (Screener Tally Sheet) optional for TDPs, with all justifications or printouts of automated requests, DD Form 1348 (Disposal Turn-In Document (DTID)), all requests for transfer, turn-in, or disposal, approved Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Form 5, ATF Form 10, Certificate of Aircraft Registration (AC Form 8050- 3), Aircraft Registration Application (AC 8050-1) and any pertinent documentation associated with the 1033 Program.

A. All excess DOD personal property records of consumable items will have their files maintained in an active status for (1) year, then placed in an inactive status for (1) year, then may be destroyed.

B. All excess DOD personal property records that are more than five (5) fiscal years old may be purged with the exception of Demilitarization Code B through Q excess DOD personal property, property deemed "sensitive to theft", and property deemed "high dollar". The DLA LESO defines "high dollar" as excess DOD personal property that has an Acquisition Value of more than $20,000.

C. All excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code A will have their files maintained in an active status for two (2) years, then placed in an inactive status for three (3) additional years, then may be destroyed.

D. All excess DOD personal property with a Demilitarization Code B through Q will have their files maintained through the life cycle of the property. If an item is approved for turn-in, transfer, or disposal, then the file will move to an inactive status and will be maintained for an additional three (3) fiscal years, then may be destroyed.

E. The records must also satisfy any and all pertinent requirements under applicable Federal statutes and regulations for the 1033 Program and for this property.

7. Maintain access to LESO Automation to approve/disapprove transfer, turn-in, and disposal requests from an LEA or to generate these requests at the State level and forward, all approvals to the DLA LESO for action.

A. Assist the LEAs with request procedures.

B. Assist the LEAs with transfer, turn-in, and disposal procedures.

8. Review Reconciliation Reports through LEEDS and conduct monthly reconciliations of property records.

9. Validate the accountability of all High Profile (Weapons/NVDs, Aircraft/Watercraft, HMMWVs/APCs), High Value (Acquisition Cost of $20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLI, CCLI, FSCAP) property annually with each LEA by having them conduct and ce11ify a physical inventory. All inventories will be maintained on file indefinitely.

10. Validate the accountability of all High Profile (Weapons/NVDs, Aircraft/Watercraft, HMMWVs/APCs), High Value (Acquisition Cost of $20,000 or more) and/or High Awareness (Demilitarization required, MLI, CCLI, FSCAP) property with each LEA following a domestic disaster within the timeframes established in this MOA by having them conduct and certify a physical inventory. All inventories will be maintained on file indefinitely.

11. Conduct an OER of LEAs participating in the program in order to ensure accountability, responsibility, and program compliance.

12. Suspend or terminate a LEA from the 1033 Program if a LEA materially fails to comply with any term of this MOA, any Federal statute or regulation, any assurance provided in a State Plan of Operation or application, or a State MOA with an LEA. Report all LEA terminations to the DLA LESO immediately upon termination.

NOTICES:

Any notices, communications or correspondence related to this agreement shall be provided by the United States Postal Service, express service, or facsimile to the cognizant DLA office. The DLA LESO, may, from time to time, propose modifications or amendments to the provisions of this MOA. In such cases, reasonable opportunity will, insofar as practicable, be afforded the State Coordinator to conform changes affecting their operations.

TERMINATION:

This MOA may be terminated by either party, provided the other party receives thirty (30) days notice, in writing, or as otherwise stipulated by Public Law.

The undersigned State Coordinator hereby agrees to comply with all provisions set forth herein and acknowledges that any violation of the terms and conditions of this MOA may be grounds for immediate termination and possible legal consequences, to include pursuit of criminal prosecution if so warranted.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the last date written below.

Type/Print State Coordinator Name

State Coordinator Signature

Date (MM/DD/YYYY)

Type/Print DLA/LESO Representative Name

DLA/LESO Representative Signature Date (MM/DD/YYYY)

Attachment
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:45 pm

Appendix C: Examples of SWAT incident reports and weapons transfers received in connection with the ACLU’s investigation

Examples include:

• A Concord, North Carolina, threat matrix, showing that a person’s religious views is a factor in determining whether SWAT should be deployed in that city
• A SWAT incident report from El Paso, Texas, describing a SWAT raid in which the squad used a Bearcat APC to break through the door of a man known to suffer from mental illness, after already forcing entry through multiple other sites and shattering a sliding glass door, then beat and tased the obviously confused man
• Documentation of receipt by the Keene, New Hampshire, Police Department of the purchase of a Lenco Bearcat APC, using homeland security funds
• A SWAT incident report from New Haven, Connecticut, describing a nighttime SWAT raid in which the squad arrived at the home in a Bearcat APC, broke down the front door with a battering ram, deployed a distraction device inside the home, and detained two people inside a home, but did not report finding any weapons or evidence
• Documentation of receipt by the North Little Rock, Arkansas, Police Department of two Marcbots (robots capable of being armed) and a Mamba tactical vehicle
• A training document from the National Tactical Officer’s Association showing that officers are being trained to have a soldier mentality

Image

Image

EL PASO POLICE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR'S DAILY LOG

Name: Sgt. Gabriel Peralta #1923
Division: O.S.S.D.
Section: SWAT
Date: 02-14-12
Type of Incident: Forced Entry
If other, please specify: Use of Force - Taser and LLBB; Use of Force - Hard Empty Hand
Date of Incident: 02-14-12
Involved Employee Name 1: Abascal, Victor
Involved Employee Name 2: Guerra, Alex; Peralta, Gabe
Time of Incident: 0015
Address of occurrence: 3022 Dublin
ID #1: 2231
OD #2: 2078
ID #2: 1923
Citizen's Complaint: No.
Case Number: 12-044/225
Subject or Citizen's Name: [DELETE]
Address: [DELETE]
Phone: [DELETE]

Brief explanation of events: SWAT Team members responded to the listed address reference to a barricaded subject with a weapon call. Operators were provided information from Command Post that the listed subject was a mental health patient diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. After failed negotiations and deployment of chemical agents, operators were able to restrict the movement of subject [DELETE] to the garage area. Operators made make forced entry through multiple entry sites, the front door was pushed inward into the house using the BearCat push bar. The sliding glass door was shattered using two less lethal rounds.

Operators designated an arrest team, less lethal and lethal team to confront subject [DELETE]. After several loud verbal commands to surrender and to visably show his hands to officers [DELETE] refused to comply. Officer Guerra deployed the two less leathal bean bag rounds, one to subjects left upper thigh and left upper bicep. Officers did not get the desired results, due to subject still refusing to show his hands. Officer Abascal followed up with a Taser cartridge deployment, which struck [DELETE] in the middle back area.

This temporarily impaired [DELETE] so officers could affect an arrest. [DELETE] refused to comply and actively resisted officer from placing handcuffs on him. While officers were attempting to place [DELETE] hands behind him, Sgt. Peralta struck [DELETE] in the face with a closed fist. Sgt. Peralta received the desired results because [DELETE] immediately stopped resisting and provided officers his hands. [DELETE] was subsequently taken into custody and released to patrol officers. Patrol officers obtained a medical release from Del Sol Hospital and was later booked into EPCDF. Lt. Ransom and Sgt. Law were advised on tactics used to subdue [DELETE].

* It should be noted that complete details of damage to the residence is documented in the After Action Report created by Sgt. Mark Fernandez. Taser No# X00-055316 was taken to IAD and memory log down loaded.

cc: Risk Management

Attachments: Enclosed
List below: Use of Force Template - Taser
Use of Force Template - Less Lethal Bean Bag
Supervisor Taser Use Report
Event Call Card - Event #P2012079596 & #P2012079759
8 - Photographs of [DELETE] injuries
54 - Photographs of damages to residence
Copy of After Action Report

Shift Commander: Lt. David Ranson
Date: 2/14/2012


Image

City of Keene

Police Department 400 Marlboro Street New Hampshire 03431

PRESS RELEASE

Keene Police Department Special Mission Rescue Vehicle Acquisition

November 20th, 2012

On Friday, November 16th, 2012, members of the Keene Police Department and the City's Fleet Services took possession of the Department's Special Mission Rescue Vehicle from Lenco Industries. Lenco provided training on the vehicle and its equipment prior to release of the vehicle.

On that date the vehicle was dropped off with a private contractor to have a police radio installed. This is the only additional piece of equipment needed that the vehicle did not come built and equipped with.

Upon completion of the radio installation on Tuesday, November 20th, 2012, the vehicle was driven to the Keene Police Department and placed into service.

Training on the vehicle and its on-board equipment and capabilities will be ongoing. This vehicle was purchased through Department of Homeland Security and the New Hampshire Department of Safety-Grants management unit grant funding upon approval of the City Council.

Information concerning any incident may be provided anonymously via email on our website at:

http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/departments/p ... crime-tips

NH Department of Safety- Grants Management Unit FY 2010 Homeland Security Grant Application

Please address all points in sequence. The NH State Strategy is approved to support the preparedness, prevention, protection and recovery needs of NH's PRIMARY First Responders (see http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/home ... mmary.html) Responses should include all jurisdictions participating in the applications. Responses to each Section should be labeled; however do not exceed page limits for each Section. Please use the standard Times New Roman font, 12 pt. with 1" margins.

SECTION 1: STRATEGY

(Maximum of 3 pages - use the letter for information pertaining to each Key item)

Describe your problem and solution in three pages or less. This narrative should include the following:

A. The acquisition of a Specialized Mission CBRNE/WMD Rescue Vehicle will help to guard against a terrorist or CBRNE/WMD incident as the vehicle is capable of deflecting blast fragmentation behind a wall of shielding, thereby protecting support and/or rescue personnel. This ability allows specialized personnel to respond to or enter into an area and effectively diffuse or render harmless any terrorist or CBRNE/WMD situation thus limiting a potential mass casualty incident.

The vehicle will be equipped with the latest in Radiation Detection and Explosive Gas Detection equipment to further enhance the safety and capabilities of the mission personnel. The vehicle will be equipped with a radio system that will meet APCO (Association of Public Safety Communications Officials) Project 25 specifications, assuring the interoperability between law enforcement and fire agencies throughout the State of New Hampshire. The system capable of integrating with future system designs.

B. The terrorism threat is far reaching and often unforeseen. Terrorist's goals, regardless of affiliation, usually encompass the creation of fear among the public, convincing the public that their Government is powerless to stop the terrorists, and get immediate publicity for their cause. Keene currently hosts several large public functions to include: an annual Pumpkin Festival, which draws upwards of 70,000 patrons to the City, the Clarence DeMar Marathon which has been held for the last 33 years and is an official qualifying race for the US Olympic Time trials as well as an official qualifying race for the Boston Marathon. This race brings in runners and spectators from all over the United States. Keene State College, part of the university system of New Hampshire, is located in the downtown area of the City of Keene and brings 6000 students to its environs daily. There are other city events that draw large crowds and all are susceptible to terrorist attacks. It is known that the use of Radiological Dispersion Devices by terrorists is much more likely than the use of a nuclear device. Cheshire County currently does not have a transport vehicle capable of protecting personnel in a critical incident or measure such radiation. The closest Specialized Mission Vehicle is well over 1 hour away and this does not include the time it takes to mobilize and prepare the personnel necessary to drive it to Cheshire County.

Highways passing through Keene, Routes 9 and 101, provide the major east/west corridor for trucking from Interstate 91 in Vermont to the Concord, Manchester, Nashua and the seacoast. Many of these trucks carry hazardous materials and are subject to terrorism, natural disasters and motor vehicle accidents.

Image

CITY OF NEW HAVEN, DEPARTMENT OF POLICE SERVICES
SPECIAL WEAPON AND TACTICS
AFTER ACTION REPORT
Case Number: 13-7061
District: 6
Date of Operation: 02/15/2013
Time Initiated: 1054
Time Secured: 1116
Location of Operation: [DELETE]
Type of Operation: Search Warrant

REPORT: Members of the New Haven Police Shooting Task Force secured a search warrant for [DELETE] NHPD SWAT was briefed at 710 Sherman PKWY along with NHPD Investigators. NHPD SWAT travelled to this target location utilizing the Bearcat. NHPD SWAT deployed from the vehicle in front of the residence. The front common door was breached utilizing a one man battering ram. Two subjects were detained within the residence. NHPD SWAT secured the location until relieved by New Haven Patrol and Investigators.

Subjects located on scene (Arrested, Detailed, interviewed): 1 Males; 1 Female; 1 Infant Male

Diversion used (Distraction device, Other): Distraction device deployed within residence

Damage to property (Front door, broken windows, equipment): First floor front interior door

Injuries: (LEO, Subjects): No reported injuries during execution


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

TACTICAL MINDSET: Not proud of taking a life but realize satisfaction from performing a task learned through repetition and rehearsal.
"Pride"
"Teamwork"
"Faith in teamates"


Image
ACTION-REATION-COUNTERACTION: Always Ev
Act can begin with officers or suspects
SUSPECT THINKING RESIST; DOESN'T EXPECT OUR COUNTERACTION: FBI Studies interviewing predators indicates they look for weaker targets in suspects as well as officers
Neat, "Professional," squared away in command
"ALPHA DOG"
DOMINATE THE SITUATION; PREVAIL


Image
OODA Loop; Observe, Orient, Decide, Act
TALK-FIGHT-SHOOT-LEAVE
"STEEL YOUR BATTLEMIND"


Image
WHAT IS BATTLEMIND: A WARRIORS INNER STRENGTH TO FACE FEAR AND ADVERSITY DURING COMBAT WITH COURAGE. IT IS THE WILL TO PERSEVERE AND WIN. IT IS RESILIENCE.
EXPECT SUCCESS
OBSTACLES AND SETBACKS ARE PART OF LIFE
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:47 pm

Appendix D: Fact Sheet: Responses on Excess Property Program

Image

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

January 14, 2014

The Honorable Henry Johnson
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Johnson:

This letter is in response to your inquiry requesting additional information on military-grade equipment to civilian police through the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) program. Attached is a Fact Sheet with responses to your questions.

If you have any additional questions regarding this issue or need further details, please contact Mr. Robert Wimple, Director, DLA Legislative Affairs at (703) 767-5264 or robert.wimple@dla.mil.

Sincerely and Very Respectfully,

MARK HARNITCHEK
Vice Admiral, USN
Director

Attachment
As stated


Image
FACT SHEET
SUBJECT: Responses on Excess Property Program for Representative Henry Johnson
DISCUSSION:
In regards to your question, are new, used or both types of property transferred through the 1033 program? What percentage of new property is being transferred to law enforcement agencies: What percentage of the property is used? Both new and used property is issued through the 1033 program. Approximately 36% of the property issued is new and 64% is used.

What percentage of this property is military-grade weapons as opposed to non-military grade weapons? All weapons issued through the 1033 program are military grade.

What does DLA do with the property not transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies? Excess DOD property is offered for reuse based on a priority cycle and the military services have the first priority before law enforcement agencies. If the property is not reutilized by those programs, it is offered to federal civil agencies and then to eligible state or local government recipients.

Is there a Department of Defense budget line item associated with the 1033 Program? If so, what was that budget line for FY2011 and FY2012? Yes, FY2011 budget was $2.1M and FY2012 budget was $2.6M.

According to various reports, DLA instituted a Moratorium on Weapons transactions in May of 2012. Is this or any other moratorium of the transfer of property or weapons in place? No, the moratorium was lifted in October 2013 based on a phased approach. States will be allowed to requisition weapons only if they are in good standing with LESO, receive all weapons into the LESO property accounting system, and provide photos of all weapons.

How does DLA define the word "weapon" for the purposes of this moratorium? A weapon is defined as a firearm. The federal law that established the program uses the term "small arms" to define the kinds of firearms the Law Enforcement Support Office ...


Image
can allocate to eligible law enforcement agencies. Small arms are considered those firearms that are .50 caliber and smaller.

What was the reason(s) for this moratorium? What is the scope of the moratorium (i.e., the entire country or certain jurisdiction?) Do you expect the moratorium to expire? If so, when? The suspension was enacted to ensure mandatory inventories of all issued firearms were verified as required by the DLA Memorandum of Agreement with the State. The moratorium applied to all states that requisitioned property.

Does the moratorium apply to interagency transfers (i.e., transfers between state and local law enforcement agencies) or just to DLA transfers? Weapons could be transferred between law enforcement agencies that were enrolled in the LESO Program when approved by the state coordinator and LESO.

What current federal statutes and regulations are recipients of unused military goods distributed through the 1033 program required to comply with in order to receive and maintain military property? Are there any specific regulations that apply to military weapons that are transferred under the program? 10 USC 2576a states that the Secretary of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is suitable for use by agencies in law enforcement activities, including counter-drug and counter-terrorism activities and is excess to the needs of the Department of Defense. The DLA Memorandum of Agreement outlines annual inventory and other requirements for weapons.

A September 14, 2012, article in USA Today (available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat ... 57781594/1) suggested that DLA was going to undertake a new rulemaking related to the 1033 program before the moratorium will be lifted. Is this correct? If the rulemaking has not occurred can you provide a citation to the new regulation? If not, what is the current status of the rulemaking? The issues that led to the weapons moratorium led to changes in the DLA Memorandum of Agreement between the LESO and the States. Those revised Memorandum of Agreements are currently out for signature with the States. A copy of the agreement is provided.

According to the LESO website, the 1033 program required a biannual compliance review in which the law Enforcement Support program staff must "visit each state coordinator and assist him or her in ensuring that property accountability records are properly maintained, minimizing the potential for fraud, waste and abuse." Is there any specific form, standard, or rubric used?


Image
Yes. I have included a checklist that is used for compliance reviews.

What criteria is used by the State Coordinator and LESO to approve or reject LEA requests for equipment: Does DLA have any performance metrics in terms of monitoring the recipients of equipment transferred through the 1033 program? Governor-appointed state coordinators screen and recommend law enforcement agencies for participation. Requisitions for property are first approved by the state coordinator and then submitted to LESO with a justification that includes a brief description of law enforcement use. The LESO staff reviews each requisition, looking at such factors as the number of officers and the type and quantity of property requested, before items are approved. DLA monitors compliance with program requirements. Bi-annual compliance checks are conducted utilizing a checklist and the DLA Memorandum of Agreement outlines accountability, general terms and condition of the program and other requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: None
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:49 pm

Appendix E: DLA Performance Review Checklist

Date: Click here to enter a date.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 1033 PROGRAM STATE COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: Program Compliance Review (PCR) Checklist

I. LESO will Verify:

*1. Is the State Coordinator appointed, in writing, by the current Governor of the State?

Choose an item.

1a. Appointment letter effective date: 7/9/12

*2. Is the State Coordinator appointment letter on-file with the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO)?

Choose an item.

*3. Has the current State Coordinator signed the current Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)?

Choose an item.

3a. MOA date: 12/18/13

4. If applicable, are State Points of Contact (SPOCs) appointed, in writing, by the current Governor appointed State Coordinator?

Choose an item.

4a. Is SPOC appointment letter (s) on-file with the LESO?

Choose an item.

5. Has the State Coordinator delegated his/her authority to anyone other than a SPOC?

Choose an item.

5a. Is delegation of authority letter (s) on-file with the LESO? Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

II. Website Knowledge:

1. Appointed personnel performing the duties with the State 1033 Program, are proficient and knowledgeable when utilizing the following DLA websites:

1a. AMPS Website: https://amps.dla.mil

Choose an item.

1b. RTD Website: https://business.dla.mil/landing/index.jsp

Choose an item.

1c. DLA Disposition Services Website: https://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/index.shtml

Choose an item.

1d. LESO Website: https://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/rtd03/leso/

Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

III. Eligibility Requirements:

1. Are Applications for Participation submitted by Law Enforcement Agencies (LEA) with arrest and apprehension authority signed by the Chief Executive Official (CEO), then forwarded to the State Coordinator?

Choose an item.

2. Does the State Coordinator and/or SPOC (s) verify that the LEA is authorized to participate in the 1033 Program?

Choose an item.

3. Are State Coordinator-approved Applications for Participation forwarded to the LESO for approval?

Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

IV. Records Management:

*1. Is there a current State Plan of Operation on file for the State?

Choose an item.

1a. State Plan of Operation effective date:

Click here to enter a date.

*2. Does the State Coordinator keep current copy of the State Plan of Operation, signed by the LEA CEO in LEA file?

Choose an item.

3. Does each LEA keep current copy of the State Plan of Operation, signed by their CEO on file?

Choose an item.

4. Does the State Plan of Operation address the following areas:

5a. Purpose

Choose an item.

5b. Authority

Choose an item.

5c. Terms and Conditions:

-LEA Eligibility Criteria

Choose an item.

-How to enroll in the 1033 Program

Choose an item.

-LEA Screener Criteria

Choose an item.

-Identification/Acquisition of Property

Choose an item.

-Transportation of Property

Choose an item.

-Storage of Property

Choose an item.

-Distribution of Property

Choose an item.

-Security of Property

Choose an item.

-Accountability of Property

Choose an item.

-Establish an Inactive File

Choose an item.

-Utilization of Property

Choose an item.

-State internal compliance reviews

Choose an item.

-Transfer of property

Choose an item.

-Disposal of property

Choose an item.

-Turn-in of property

Choose an item.

5d. DEMIL Property requirements

Choose an item.

5e. Training opportunities

Choose an item.

5f. State responsibilities in the 1033 Program

Choose an item.

5g. LEA responsibilities in the 1033 Program

Choose an item.

5h. Suspension and/or Termination Criteria

Choose an item.

5i. Signature requirements (ie. LEA CEO/State Coordinator/SPOC)

Choose an item.

* 5. Transfers of high visibility property are approved by the DLA LESO.

Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

V. Records Retention:

1. Are the following documents on-file with the State Coordinators Office and/or LEA?

1a. DLA Form 103s (aka Manual Requisitions)

Choose an item.

1b. DD Form 1348-1A (for all 1033 Program property currently on the LEA inventory)

Choose an item.

1c. DD Form 1348-1A (for all turn-ins)

Choose an item.

1d. DD Form 1348-1A (for all transfers)

Choose an item.

1e. Transfer documentation

Choose an item

1f. Turn-in documentation

Choose an item.

1g. Inventory adjustment documentation for authorized property

Choose an item.

1h. ATFE Form 10

Choose an item.

1i. ATFE Form 5

Choose an item.

1j. FAA Certificate of Aircraft Registration (Form 8050-1)

Choose an item.

1k. Exception to policy memorandums (if applicable)

Choose an item.

1l. Other documentation as applicable [justification forms, Memorandum for Record (s), etc]

Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

VI. Property and Inventory Control:

1. Is 1033 Program property properly stored in a controlled storage area with limited access?

Choose an item.

2. Have all reports of missing, lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed 1033 Program property been reported to the appropriate State Coordinators Office?

Choose an item.

3. Have all reports of missing, lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed 1033 Program property been reported to the appropriate Local/State/Federal Officials and the LESO? Note: If the property is DEMIL Coded B, C, D, E, F, G or Q3 you have (24) Hours for notification. If your property is DEMIL Code A, or Q (with an Integrity Code of 6) you have within (7) days to report.

Choose an item.

4. In determining State Coordinator’s recommendation for approval of LEA request, is consideration given to the needs and resources of its LEAs (i.e. size of LEA, mission requirement and like property on hand)? NOTE: LESO personnel must conduct a random search of records.

Choose an item.

5. Are annual reconciliations of property receipts being conducted? Choose an item. 6. Has the State submitted the previous Fiscal Year’s certified inventory to the LESO?

Choose an item.

6a. Date submitted: Click here to enter a date.

*7. Are photographs of Front, Side and Data Plates provided to the LESO for Aircraft, Watercraft and Tactical Vehicles?

Choose an item.

*8. Are photographs of Weapons Data Plates provided to the LESO? Choose an item. Comments: No issues to report.

VII. Transitional Distribution Point (TDP):

*1. Is there an authorization document from DLA, on hand, authorizing your State to operate as a TDP?

Choose an item.

2. Are TDP property requests earmarked for a specific LEA identifying them as the end user?

Choose an item.

3. Is 1033 property identified and stored separate from other categories of property such as 1122 and State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASP)?

Choose an item.

4. Does the State Coordinator and/or SPOC understand that transfers

Choose an item.

of 1033 Program property from the TDP to LEAs within his/her State still need to be processed via the LESO prior to physical movement of property?

Comments: Click here to enter text.

VIII. Compliance and Utilization Reviews:

*1. Is there a State-level 1033 Program Compliance Review process in-place, that ensures that 5% of State LEAs are inspected within the 2- year reporting period since the last PCR?

(Current MOA-2009 states that “The State shall: Conduct an OER of LEAs participating in the program in order to ensure accountability, responsibility, and program compliance.” Therefore, until new MOA is signed and effective, the “PASS/FAIL” criteria is based on proof that the State Coordinator/SPOC has an internal review process in place that ensures accountability, responsibility and program compliance of LEAs within their State.)

Choose an item.

2. Does the State Coordinator follow through with LEAs to rectify cases on non-compliance found on State Level PCRs?

Choose an item.

3. Does the State Coordinator provide documentation to the DLA LESO in cases of non-compliant LEAs?

Choose an item.

4. What steps are taken to resolve cases of non-compliance to the terms and conditions of the 1033 Program?

Click here to enter text.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

IX. Non-Utilized 1033 Program Property:

1. Are current procedures in place for LEAs to identify and report serviceable property when no longer needed?

Choose an item.

2. What steps does the State Coordinator take to ensure LEAs do not requisition unnecessary or excessive amounts of property?

Click here to enter text.

3. What steps does the State Coordinator take to ensure 1033 Program property is not sold?

Click here to enter text.

4. Has there been an incident, since the last conducted PCR, where an LEA has sold property received under the 1033 Program or received 1033 Program property for the sole purpose of selling it?

Choose an item.

4a. If yes, provide detail and supporting documentation of the outcome (who, what, when, where, how much).

N/A

Comments: Click here to enter text.

X. Compliance to LESO MOA:

1. Is all property transferred consistent with requirements of the DLA MOA?

Choose an item

2. Is the State Coordinator’s Office aware that they must ensure that the LEA maintains adequate insurance to cover damages or injuries to persons or property relating to the use of the property. (Self-insurance by the State/LEA is acceptable)

Choose an item.

3. Is the State Coordinators Office aware that property available under the MOA is for the current use of authorized program participants; it will not be requested nor issued for speculative use?

Choose an item.

4. Is the State Coordinators Office aware that property will not be obtained for the purpose of sale, lease, loan rent, exchange, barter, to secure a loan, or to otherwise supplement normal Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) or State/Local governmental entity budgets?

Choose an item.

5. Is the State Coordinator Office aware that any transportation, repair, maintenance, insurance, disposal or other expenses associated with the excess Department of Defense (DOD) personal property is the sole responsibility of the State/LEA?

Choose an item.

6. Is the State Coordinators Office aware that all property obtained under the MOA must be placed into use within one (1) year of receipt and utilized for a minimum of one (1) year, unless the condition of the property renders it unusable?

Choose an item.

7. Is the State Coordinators Office aware approval of any variation to the above standard for property no longer needed by an LEA must be approved by the LESO through the State Coordinators Office?

Choose an item.

8. Is the State Coordinator’s Office aware that the DOD has authorized the transfer and use of excess DoD property to the State/LEA and as such reserves the right to recall any and all property issued at the state or LEA expense?

Choose an item.

9. Is the State Coordinators Office aware that excess DEMIL A & Q (with Integrity Code of 6) property will transfer title to the State/LEA after receipt, placement into use and utilization for a minimum of one (1) year?

Choose an item.

10. Is the State Coordinators Office aware that to the extent permitted by law, the State Coordinator/LEA shall indemnify and hold the U.S. Government harmless from any and all actions, claims, debts, demands, judgments, liabilities, cost, and attorney's fees arising out of, claimed on account of, or in any manner predicated upon loss of or damage to property and injuries, illness or disabilities to or death of any and all persons whatsoever, including members of the general public, or to the property of any legal or political entity including states, local and interstate bodies, in any manner caused by or contributed to by the State/LEA, its agents, servants, employees, or any person subject to its control while in, upon or about the sale site and/or the site on which the property is located, or while the property is in the possession of, used by or subject to the control of the State/LEA, its agents, servants, or employees after the property has been removed from U.S. Government control. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for damages or injuries to any person(s) or property arising from the use of the property.

Choose an item.

Comments: Click here to enter text.

XI. Conclusion:

XII. Areas of concern:

XIII. Areas of Recommendation:

Click here to enter text.

XIV. Areas of Praise:

XV. PCR Inventory Results:

Image

* The DLA LESO PCR Team is required to physically inventory or obtain a copy of an acceptable custody card for 100% of the 1033 Program Weapons, Aircraft, Watercraft and Tactical Vehicles, as appearing on the accountable record, for each LEA that has been selected for review during the PCR. The LEA must provide the DLA LESO PCR Team a copy of any custody card (s) used, at the time of the site visit, and must maintain the custody card (s) on-file as part of substantiating records. An acceptable version of a custody card must contain the following elements: 1) LEA name, 2) Name of individual responsible for physical custody of item, 3) Item nomenclature (Name), 4) Serial number of item (if applicable), 5) QTY of item (if more than one), 6) Printed name of individual responsible for physical custody of item 7)

Signature of individual responsible for physical custody of the item and 8) Date.

**Overall State Inventory Accuracy Rate (%) is determined by adding required Weapons (A), Aircraft (B), Watercraft (C), Tactical Vehicles (D) and General Property (E) at LEAs selected for review during the PCR, and dividing by the actual # of the property that was physically inventoried (X) or verified via an approved custody card (Y) during the course of the PCR

Image

XVI. PCR Training provided to the State:

PCR Training Date:

Image

Thank you for the hospitality and professionalism shown to us during our visit. As always, we at the LESO stand ready to support and serve. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at 1-800-532-9946 or via email at DRMSLESO@dla.mil.

XVII. Program Compliance Review Team:

X________________________________ Deborah Smith

X________________________________ Dan Arnold

Dates of Program Compliance Review:

Click here to enter a date.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:50 pm

Appendix F

Image

(U) DEA - The "Other" Warfighter
DEA Account Manager (S112)
Run Date: 04/20/2004

(U//FOUO) When you think about our top national security threats, chances are that terrorism and military conflict come quickly to mind -- and for good reason. But how many of us list illegal narcotics among the top threats to our society? Our national leadership recognized the seriousness this problem poses and declared a war on drugs two decades ago. This "war" has all the risks, excitement, and dangers of conventional warfare, and the stakes are equally high.

(U//FOUO) We are all aware that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is leading our nation's counternarcotics (CN) efforts. But many are not aware that from the start NSA has been at the forefront of Intelligence Community (IC) support to this seemingly unconventional DOD mission. The novel collection and analysis techniques NSA developed and refined against these criminal hard targets have not only resulted in major successes in the war on drugs, but they have also proven invaluable to other critical SIGINT missions, particularly counterterrorism, sometimes
blurring the lines between the two missions.

(C) DEA has close relationships with foreign government counterparts and vetted foreign partners. The results of this team approach regularly make the headlines in the form of major drug busts and arrests. Less known is the critical supporting role that NSA continues to play in key DEA operations to disrupt the flow of narcotics to our country and thwart other, related crimes. DEA, however, recognizes the unique access and sole source information NSA provides and coordinates major cases with the S2F/ICN Product Line.

(C) As a result, both agencies enjoy a vibrant two-way information sharing relationship that enhances their common mission. Processes have been carefully established to exchange lead (foreign intelligence) information while protecting NSA equities. The Customer Relationships Directorate (SI), the Data Acquisition Directorate (S3), and MRSOC work with the S2F/ICN office as an integrated team to realize these mission successes.

(S//SI) One of those successes: Based on SCS (US-966L) intercept, S2F/ICN issued an OPS IMMEDIATE report on 30 March 2004 on the exact whereabouts of Colombian narcotics trafficker Gonzalo Hinojosa, an evasive and brutal international fugitive wanted for murder, drug trafficking, and money laundering. S2F had the foresight to include a tearline to share the actionable intelligence with Panamanian partners. With a short window for action, NSA's [DELETE] worked through the Joint Interagency Task Force (JITF)-South to immediately forward the information to DEA/Panama. DEA/Panama in turn alerted the Panamanian authorities who quickly
located and apprehended Hinojosa, without knowing the information came from NSA SIGINT. As Chief [DELETE] noted, this is an excellent example of "outcome-oriented collaboration."

(U//FOUO) To learn more about NSA support to the "other" warfighter, DEA, visit the International Crime and Narcotics (S2F) website.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: WAR COMES HOME: THE EXCESSIVE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN

Postby admin » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:51 pm

ENDNOTES

1. Police militarization has been defined as “the process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.” Peter Kraska, Militarization and Policing—Its Relevance to 21st Century Police, Policing (2007) 1 (4) 1-13 (Jan. 1, 2007).

2. Other manifestations of the militarization of policing, such as routine patrols using SWAT gear, militarization of the U.S. border, and the use of military surveillance equipment and other forms of intelligence gathering—while unquestionably of grave concern—are beyond the scope of this report.

3. Because the analysis examined SWAT deployments conducted by a small subset of law enforcement agencies over a limited number of years, the analysis itself does not allow us to make more general conclusions about the use of SWAT nationally or over time. However, as explained throughout the report, the specific findings we make regarding the SWAT deployments studied support the existing research on the militarization of policing generally.

4. Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, “America’s New Drug Policy Landscape: On Drug Policy, Gov’t Should Focus More On…,” April 1, 2014, available at http://www.people-press. org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/4-2-14-1/ (last visited April 25, 2014).

5. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47 percent of adult Americans report that they have a gun in their house or elsewhere on their property. Gallup Politics, “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993,” Oct. 26, 2011, available at http://www. gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx (last visited May 2, 2014).

6. Nick Gillespie, “Police in Columbia, South Carolina and 499 Other Cities Get ‘Free’ Tanks,” Reason.com, November 18, 2013, available at http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/18/polic ... ina-and-49 (last visited March 21, 2014).

7. Individual ACLU affiliates had the option to participate in the investigation and selected the law enforcement agencies with which to file records requests. A copy of the public records request filed with the agencies is attached as Appendix A.

8. Some agencies elected to provide SWAT incident reports for 2012 only.

9. There is no way to know definitively whether responding law enforcement agencies turned over all of the documents the ACLU requested. In addition, although we continued to receive documents throughout 2013 and into 2014, we did not review any documents received after September 30, 2013. All of the documents the ACLU received in connection with this investigation can be made available upon request.

10. Kraska (2007), 1.

11. See generally, American Civil Liberties Union, “The War on Marijuana in Black and White” (June 2013), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/11144 ... s-rel1.pdf (last visited April 3, 2014); Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow (New York: New Press 2010). Racial disparities exist at each decision point in the criminal justice system. See The Sentencing Project, “Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice System: A Manual for Practitioners and Policymakers,” 2 (2008), available at http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/ rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf. Thirty-eight percent of prison and jail inmates are Black, compared to their 13 percent share of the overall population. Latinos constitute 19 percent of the prison and jail population compared to their 15 percent share of the population. A Black male born in 2001 has a 32 percent chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life, a Latino male has a 17 percent chance, and a white male has a six percent chance. See id.

12. See 10 U.S.C. § 2576a.

13. See National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center, Federal Property and Equipment Manual: Federal Sources of Personal Property for Law Enforcement, 2 (Revised 2002), available at http://info.publicintelligence.net/Fede ... Manual.pdf (last visited March 17, 2014).

14. See supra, note 14 at 3.

15. One limitation, which the ACLU supports, is a prohibition on the sale of equipment obtained through the 1033 Program.

16. Agreement Between the Defense Logistics Agency and the State of ___ (MOA), 3. The MOA is standard across states and is attached as Appendix B.

17. Joint Chiefs of Staff 1993: I 1, quoted in Christopher M. Schnaubelt, “Can the Military’s Effectiveness in the Drug War Be Measured?” Cato Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Fall 1994), available at http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f ... 14n2-5.pdf (last visited April 24, 2014).

18. Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Grant Activity Report: Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, April 2012-March 2013,” p. 2, available at https://www.bja.gov/Publications/JAG_LE_Grant_ Activity_03-13.pdf (last visited April 3, 2013).

19. Supra note 18 at 4.

20. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Impact Assessment: DHS Support to the National Network of Fusion Centers, 6 (March 1, 2013), available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/ files/publications/DHS%20Support%20to%20National%20Network_ 0.pdf (last visited March 17, 2014).

21. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FY 2013 Homeland Security Grant Program (FY 2013 HSGP Fact Sheet), 1 (2013), available at http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/8d- 0439562c89644a68954505a49cbc77/FY_2013_Homeland+Security+ Grant+Program_Fact_Sheet_+Final.pdf (last visited March 17, 2014).

22. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Next Steps: Supporting Community-Based Efforts to Reduce Violent Crime,” U.S. Department of Homeland Security, available at http://www.dhs. gov/xlibrary/assets/fact_sheet_reduce_violent_crime_080310. pdf (last visited March 22, 2014). This problem is not theoretical; DHS provides numerous sources of support to state and local law enforcement agencies for reasons that are entirely unrelated to terrorism prevention. Indeed, DHS operates a nationwide law enforcement network called the Homeland Security Information Network, which was created to assist state and local enforcement agencies conduct their ordinary work related to investigating allegations of gun, drug, and gang offenses; the notion that DHS support to local law enforcement is purely for the purpose of terrorism prevention is a myth. See, e.g., “Homeland Security Information Network—Law Enforcement Mission,” Homeland Security, available at http://www.dhs.gov/homeland- security-information-network-law-enforcement-mission (last visited April 24, 2014).

23. Sgt. Glenn French, “Police militarization and an argument in favor of black helicopters,” PoliceOne, Aug. 12, 2013, available at http://www.policeone.com/SWAT/articles/ ... licopters/ (last visited March 19, 2014).

24. Jack E. Hoban and Bruce J. Gourlie, “The Ethical Warrior,” PoliceOne, Aug. 12, 2013, http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/ articles/6383533-Police-militarization-and-the-Ethical-Warrior/ (last visited March 19, 2014).

25. Doug Deaton, “Police militarization and one cop’s humble opinion,” PoliceOne, Aug. 15, 2013, http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety ... e-opinion/ (last visited March 19, 2014).

26. Jay Evensen, “‘Militarization’ of local police nationwide worries Salt Lake Chief Chris Burbank,” Deseret News, July 10, 2013, available at http://perspectivesonthenews.blogs.deseretnews. com/2013/07/10/militarization-of-local-police-nationwide-worries-salt-lake-city-chief-chris-burbank/, (last visited March 19, 2014).

27. Karl Bickel, “Recruit Training: Are We Preparing Officers for a Community Oriented Department?” E-newsletter of the COPS Office, Vol. 6, Issue 6 (June 2013), archived version available at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... _officers_ for_a_community_oriented_department.asp.

28. SWAT teams go by many names, including Search and Response Team (SRT), Emergency Response Team (ERT), and Special Emergency Response Team (SERT). There is no real difference between these police units—they all use weapons that are not available to regular patrol officers and are trained to use tactics designed for extremely high-risk and emergency scenarios. For purposes of consistency and clarity, we will use the term “SWAT” throughout this report.

29. Daryl Gates, Chief: My Life in the LAPD (New York: Bantam, 1992), p. 131. For an excellent summary of the creation and evolution of SWAT, see Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop (New York: PublicAffairs, 2013).

30. These included the 1965 Watts rebellion, Charles Whitman’s shooting spree at the University of Texas at Austin, and a barricade scenario that left several police officers dead.

31. Rob Deal, “Police Armed With AR-15s Roam the Streets of an Arkansas City Stopping and Asking for Citizens’ ID,” Republican Party of Benton County Blog, December 18, 2012, available at http://bentoncountygop.org/blog/?p=154 (last visited March 18, 2014).

32. “Stop and frisk” has been defined as “a crime-prevention tactic that allows a police officer to stop a person based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ of criminal activity and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, [which] has been a contentious police practice since first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968.” See David R. Rudovsky and Lawrence Rosenthal, “Debate: The Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk in New York City,” 162 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 117, 117 (2013). Its legality and efficacy have both been questioned, and its detrimental impact on communities of color has been well documented. See, e.g., Brett G. Stoudt, Michelle Fine, and Madeline Fox, “Growing Up Policed in the Age of Aggressive Policing Policies,” New York Law School Review 56 (2011/2012): 1331-1370.

33. For more information about the government’s use of illegal domestic spying tactics, see the ACLU’s Spy Files: the ACLU’s Campaign to Stop Illegal Spying, available at https://www.aclu. org/spy-files (last visited April 21, 2014).

34. For more information about border militarization, see the ACLU’s Border Communities Under Siege: Border Patrol Agents Ride Roughshod Over Civil Rights, available at https://www.aclu.org/ border-communities-under-siege-border-patrol-agents-rideroughshod- over-civil-rights (last visited April 21, 2014).

35. Kraska (2007), p. 6.

36. David Klinger and Jeff Rojek, “Multi-Method Study of Special Weapons and Tactics Teams,” p. 7 (an unpublished study of the U.S. Department of Justice) (2008), available at https://www. ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223855.pdf (last visited April 24, 2014).

37. Abigail R. Hall and Christopher J. Coyne, “The Militarization of U.S. Domestic Policing,” George Mason University Department of Economics Working Paper No. 12-50 (August 2, 2012) (“[D]uring the past four decades domestic policing in the U.S. has become increasingly militarized. That is, domestic law enforcement has taken on the characteristics of the armed forces by engaging in military-like training, acquiring military weapons and utilizing military tactics in everyday operations.”).

38. David Klinger and Jeff Rojek, “A Paramilitary Policing Juggernaut,” Social Justice, 1043-1578 (March 22, 2009).

39. Balko (2013). See also Jon Fasman, “Cops or Soldiers,” The Economist, March 22, 2014, available at http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... r-soldiers (last visited April 25, 2014).

40. See, e.g., Kraska (2007).

41. Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ring%20ram (last visited March 19, 2014).

42. There are other kinds of distraction devices such as “tactical balls,” which wobble and spin when rolled or tossed into a room, but flashbang grenades seem to be the most well known. For the most part, the incident reports the ACLU studied tended to use either the words “flashbang” or “distraction device” to refer to these weapons.

43. See Virginia Hennessey, “Monterey County agrees to pay $2.6 million in ‘flash-bang’ death of Greenfield man,” The Monterey Herald, Aug. 19, 2013, available at http://www.montereyherald.com/localnews ... lion-flash (last visited March 19, 2014).

44. Shaila K. Dewan, “City to Pay $1.6 Million in Fatal, Mistaken Raid,” New York Times, Oct. 29, 2003, available at http://www. nytimes.com/2003/10/29/nyregion/city-to-pay-1.6-million-in-fatal-mistaken-raid.html (last visited March 19, 2014).

45. Charlie LeDuff, “What Killed Aiyana Stanley-Jones?” Mother Jones, November/December 2010 Issue, available at http://www. motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/aiyana-stanley-jones-detroit, (last visited March 19, 2014).

46. Bill Donnelly, “SWAT-ing at Flies,” New York Times, Op-Ed; p. A20; Letters to the Editor (July 18, 1997).

47. American Forces Press Service, “Military Sealift Command to Deliver Largest MRAP Shipment,” U.S. Department of Defense: News, Dec. 14, 2007, available at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48416 (last visited March 21, 2014).

48. David Zucchino, “From MRAP to scrap: U.S. military chops up $1 million vehicles,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 27, 2013, available at http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/27 ... r-20131227 (last visited March 21, 2014).

49. Nick Gillespie, “Police in Columbia, South Carolina and 499 Other Cities Get ‘Free’ Tanks,” Reason.com, Nov. 18, 2013, http:// reason.com/blog/2013/11/18/police-in-columbia-south-carolina- and-49 (last visited March 21, 2014).

50. Tom Benning, “Dallas County sheriff acquires ‘a beast’ to handle the bad guys,” Dallas News, Oct. 18, 2013, available at http:// http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20 ... d-guys.ece (last visited March 21, 2014).

51. Alex Greig, “California police department gets $650,000 37,000lb armored military truck,” UK Daily Mail, MailOnline, Dec. 21, 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... truck.html (last visited March 21, 2014).

52. Nate Carlisli, “Blankets to armored vehicles: Military gives it, Utah police take it,” Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 19, 2014, available at http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57358 ... e-program- utah-1033.html.csp (last visited March 21, 2014).

53. Molly Bloom, “Ohio State University Police Get IED-Resistant Military Vehicle for Use on Football Game Days,” NPR State Impact: Eye on Education, Sept. 30, 2013, available at http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2013/09 ... game-days/ (last visited March 21, 2014).

54. Some examples of SWAT incident reports and weapons transfers received in connection with the ACLU’s investigation are included as Appendix C.

55. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931-933 (1995).

56. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 589-90 (2006).

57. See Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997).

58. Id.

59. Hudson, 547 U.S. at 591, 599. State courts can offer greater protection under law than is provided under federal law. See, e.g., Berumen v. State, 182 P. 3d 635 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008) (officers serving search warrant knocked on door but failed to announce who they were before entering residence, violating state’s knock-and-announce rule; exclusionary rule applied under state law). In addition, people who are harmed by SWAT team officers could sue the SWAT team and police department for violating their Fourth Amendment rights. In reality, though, it is difficult to prevail in such lawsuits because courts often find that even if officers violate a person’s constitutional rights, if the officers “reasonably” believed that their conduct was lawful, they are immune from liability (referred to in the law as having “qualified immunity”). Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). See, e.g., Whittier v. Kobayashi, 581 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2009) (SWAT officer who killed a man in his home during a SWAT raid was entitled to qualified immunity because “a reasonable officer could have had a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing his presence would have been dangerous under the circumstances facing the SWAT team.”).

60. See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 934 (1995). See also United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557, 569 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Stack v. Killian, 96 F.3d 159, 162 (6th Cir. 1996); Ramage v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Gov’t, No. 08cv338, 2010 WL 2624128, at *5, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63688, at *13 (W.D.Ky. June 25, 2010) (evaluating whether the decision to use a SWAT team was reasonable under the circumstances); Solis v. City of Columbus, 319 F.Supp.2d 797, 809 (S.D.Ohio 2004) (“[S]omething more than probable cause is required in order for a hyper-intrusive search to be reasonable [and] something more than usual care in the execution of such a search is constitutionally required”).

61. Defense Logistics Agency, Disposition Services, “Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO): Providing Support to America’s Law Enforcement Community Since 1997,” available at https://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/rtd03/leso/, Jan. 23, 2014 (last visited March 17, 2014).

62. See supra, note 14 at 4; supra note 61.

63. 10 U.S.C. § 2576a(a)(1)(B).

64. Defense Logistics Agency, “Fact Sheet: Responses on Excess Property Program for Representative Henry Johnson,” sent in response to an inquiry from Representative Johnson requesting additional information on military-grade equipment to civilian police, Jan. 14, 2014. Attached as Appendix D.

65. The Mamba is a type of MRAP designed for use by the South African National Defense Force. See, e.g., http://www. defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6254:fact-file-mamba-apcmrap&catid=79:- fact-files&Itemid=159.

66. Abraham H. Maslow (1966). The Psychology of Science, p. 15.

67. The Keene Police Department’s application for a BearCat APC is one of the documents included in Appendix C.

68. Callum Borchers, “Armored truck maker in middle of debate on dollars and safety,” Boston Globe: Business, Jan. 4, 2013, available at http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/04/ pittsfield-company-selling-bulletproof-security-sparks-debate- over-cost/2DAQ3GHM8b4eNdeXcL2NqJ/story.html (last visited April 4, 2014).

69. Al Baker, “When the Police Go Military,” New York Times, Dec. 3, 2011, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/ sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.html? pagewanted=all (last visited April 21, 2014).

70. Supra note 18 at 6.

71. See, e.g., Michelle Alexander, “Obama’s Drug War,” The Nation, Dec. 9, 2010, available at http://www.thenation.com/article/156997/obamas-drug-war (last visited April 3, 2014) (“The Byrne grant program, originally devised by the Reagan administration to encourage state and local law enforcement agencies to join the drug war, has poured millions of dollars into drug task forces around the country that are notorious for racial profiling, including highway drug interdiction programs and neighborhood ‘stop and frisk’ programs. These programs have successfully ushered millions of poor folks of color into a permanent undercaste—largely for engaging in the same types of minor drug crimes that go ignored in middle-class white communities and on college campuses.”)

72. National Criminal Justice Association, “SAA Taskforce Performance Measures: A Look at Metrics Used to Evaluate MJTFs,” National Criminal Justice Association, available at http://www. ncja.org/sites/default/files/documents/Taskforce-Performance- Measures.pdf (last visited April 3, 2014).

73. Supra note 18 at 10.

74. A copy of this memo is attached as Appendix F.

75. This finding is consistent with previous attempts to examine the prevalence and impact of SWAT using raw data such as incident reports. Klinger and Rojek (2008) attempted to collect standardized after-action reports from SWAT teams and characterized law enforcement participation in the study as “dismal.” See Klinger and Rojek, supra note 36 at 2.

76. Public Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cited in FOIA Advocates, “FOIA Exemptions,” available at http://www.foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html (last visited April 21, 2014).

77. See Maryland Public Safety Article § 3-507(e)(2).

78. Id.

79. Id.

80. S.B. 185, “Law Enforcement Transparency,” (2014), available at http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/sbillenr/SB0185.pdf (last visited April 3, 2014).

81. Aaron C. Davis, “Police Raid Berwyn Heights’ Mayor’s Home, Kill His 2 Dogs,” Washington Post, July 31, 2008, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html (last visited March 17, 2014).

82. Rosalind S. Helderman, “Bill Calls for More Scrutiny of SWAT Teams by Police,” Washington Post, Feb. 5, 2009, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00034.html (last visited March 17, 2014).

83. Maryland Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention, Law Enforcement: SB 447—SWAT Team Reporting, available at http://www.goccp.maryland.gov/msac/law-enforcement.php (last visited March 17, 2014).

84. Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.bjs.gov/, March 5, 2014 (last visited March 17, 2014).

85. The other federal agency responsible for some criminal justice-related data collection is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI, through the Uniform Crime Reports, collects and publishes information pertaining to crime rates, law enforcement officers killed or assaulted, and hate crime statistics. The ACLU does not recommend designating the FBI as the federal agency with primary responsibility for collecting, maintaining, and evaluating information pertaining to the militarization of policing because BJS is the more appropriate federal agency for taking on this responsibility.

86. The process for acquiring equipment through the 1033 Program is fairly straightforward. States enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with DLA. A law enforcement agency interested in participating in the program simply completes an application and submits it to the state coordinator, who approves it and sends it to LESO. From there, the process for acquiring excess property is simple. A local agency may search the DLA website, which functions as a sort of catalogue, and submit an online request for the equipment it seeks. The state coordinator approves or disapproves the request and forwards approved requests to LESO. From here, the request is sent to Military Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures (MILSTRIP) for final approval.

87. MOA, 11. This minimal limitation would seem to allow for the transfer of an extraordinary amount of equipment. If every officer in every participating agency is allowed to have one of every type of item available, including rifles, robots, and APCs, this is not a meaningful limitation at all.

88. A copy of this checklist is attached as Appendix E.

89. MOA, 10.

90. As part of an ongoing effort to document the costs of securing the homeland, the Center for Investigative Reporting did a comprehensive investigation into states’ receipt and distribution of DHS and other federal agency grant dollars in 2011 as part of its “America’s War Within” series. To the best of the ACLU’s knowledge, this is the most comprehensive collection of data (from 2009, however) on federal handouts to state and local law enforcement agencies. The Center for Investigative Journalism, “Price of Peril: Homeland Security Spending by State,” http:// cironline.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/homelandsecurity/priceofperil.html (last visited March 21, 2014).

91. Supra note 21 at 1.

92. Senator Tom Coburn, Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities, 4, 5 (Dec. 2012), available at http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=- Files.Serve&File_id=b86fdaeb-86ff-4d19-a112-415ec85aa9b6 (last visited March 17, 2014).

93. The town of Keene, New Hampshire, held a hearing when its local police department sought a grant from DHS to purchase a BearCat. See “Free Keene: BEARCAT Hearing Promises Controversy,” NewHampshire.com, Aug. 12, 2013, available at http:// http://www.newhampshire.com/apps/pbcs.d ... /20130812/ AGGREGATION/130819787/0/newhampshire01 (last visited March 21, 2014).

94. Kraska (2007) at 6-7.

95. Id. at 7.

96. Forty-seven percent of adult Americans report that they have a gun in their house or elsewhere on their property. Gallup Politics, “Self-Reported Gun Ownership in U.S. Is Highest Since 1993,” Oct. 26, 2011, available at http://www.gallup.com/ poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx.

97. The U.S. Constitution prohibits government entities from targeting people based on their race, religion, or any other constitutionally protected status.

98. Gabe Rottman, “Radically Wrong: The Right to Think Dangerous Thoughts,” ACLU Blog of Rights, March 1, 2013, available at https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-secu ... s-thoughts (last visited April 3, 2014).

99. Enrique Flor and David Ovalle, “Hialeah police chief details tense moments of hostage rescue,” Miami Herald, July 31, 2013, available at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/28/v ... tense.html (last visited March 20, 2014).

100. See, e.g., New York Civil Liberties Union, “Stop and Frisk Data,” Racial Justice, http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data (last visited April 4, 2014); Bailey v. City of Philadelphia, “Plaintiff’s Fourth Report to Court and Monitor on Stop and Frisk Practices, C.A. No. 10-5952 (E.D.Pa.) (filed Dec. 3, 2013), available at http://www.aclupa.org/download_file/view_inline/ 1529/198/ (last visited April 4, 2014).

101. Some incident reports did not contain any information as to how many people were in a residence at the time of a deployment. This impedes analysis of the impact of SWAT on the lives of the people inside homes that are raided.

102. This is despite the fact that white people and minorities use and sell drugs at roughly the same rates. See, e.g., Drug Policy Alliance, “Race and the Drug War,” http://www.drugpolicy.org/ race-and-drug-war (last visited April 4, 2014) (“Although rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for drug law violations than are whites”).

103. As noted, many of the incident reports studied were ambiguous on the subject of whether a BearCat was used, so it is impossible to know this definitively. Nonetheless, based on our review of the documents, we think a reasonable inference can be drawn that no BearCat was used in a number of cases in which SWAT accomplished its objective.

104. In examining the SWAT incident reports, the ACLU assumed that records were made of injuries often enough that the absence of a notation regarding civilian injury likely meant that no civilian injury occurred during the deployment. In addition, some police departments file use of force reports separately from SWAT incident reports, so it is possible that the SWAT deployments studied resulted in deaths and/or injuries that were not recorded in the SWAT incident report. For both of these reasons, the actual number of civilian injuries and/or deaths could be higher.

105. A chilling video of the shooting is available here: http:// http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/2 ... d-by-cops_ n_5021117.html. The ACLU of New Mexico is calling on the mayor to change the training and culture within the Albuquerque Police Department so incidents like this one are not repeated. See “Action Alert: Ask ABQ Mayor Berry to Reform APD,” American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, March 27, 2014, available at https://www.aclu-nm.org/action-alert-as ... d/2014/03/ (last visited April 24, 2014).



106. See George Chidi, “Texas grand jury refuses murder indictment on man who killed deputy on (sic) no-knock raid,” The Raw Story, Feb. 8, 2014, available at http://www.rawstory.com/ rs/2014/02/08/texas-grand-jury-refuses-murder-indictment-on-man-who-killed-deputy-on-no-knock-raid/ (last visited March 19, 2014).

107. See generally, Early Childhood Matters, “Community Violence and Young Children: Making Space for Hope” (November 2012), available at http://bernardvanleer.org/Community-vio ... e-for-hope (last visited April 21, 2014).

108. Specific recommendations for how to implement such safeguards are set forth in an article by ACLU Senior Policy Analyst Jay Stanley, “Police Body-Mounted Cameras: With Right Policies in Place, a Win for All” (Oct.2013), available at https://www. aclu.org/files/assets/police_body-mounted_cameras.pdf (last visited April 4, 2014).

109. See generally, Jason Sunshine and Tom R. Tyler, “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing,” Law & Science Review, Vol. 37, Number 3 (2003).

110. Emily Ekins, “58 [sic] Percent Say Police Departments Using Drones, Military Weapons Goes Too Far, 60 percent of Tea Partiers Agree,” Reason-Rupe Poll, Dec. 17, 2013, available at http:// reason.com/poll/2013/12/17/56-percent-say-police-departments- usin2 (last visited April 21, 2014).

111. Tom R. Tyler and Albert A. Pearsall, III, “The Paradox of American Policing: Performance Without Legitimacy,” A Newsletter of the COPS Office, Vol. 3, Issue 7 (July 2010), available at http:// cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/July_2010/AmericanPolicing.asp (last visited April 4, 2014).

Image

During a “no knock” SWAT raid, an officer threw a flashbang grenade into the room where the Phonesavanh family was sleeping. It landed, and exploded, inside Baby Bou Bou’s crib. Officers were searching for a relative suspected of selling a small amount of drugs. Neither the suspect nor any drugs were found in the home. At the time this report was published—three weeks after the raid—Baby Bou Bou was still in a medically-induced coma.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 31179
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Previous

Return to Slavery 2.0: Racist Cops and the Prison Industrial Complex

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest