How Do We Choose Police Cars?

I am often asked how we decide which cars to purchase for our patrol fleet. Some think we just pick the one that looks the most intimidating, but if that were the case, we would be driving Abrams Tanks. In reality, the decision involves a great deal of research and thought.

There are six different considerations that go into our decision on police vehicle purchases.  Each of them is discussed below.

1.      The design of the vehicle must be such that it meets the needs of police operations.  The car must have means to secure lots of equipment, and it must be capable of transporting a front-seat passenger and secured prisoners in the back seat.  This means that it must have four doors and sufficient interior room to allow for installation of a prisoner partition.  Essentially, the only vehicles that will meet this requirement are full-size sedans or sport-utility vehicles.

                    

2.      The performance capabilities of the vehicle must be able to meet the needs of police operations.  Emergency responses, pursuits, and traffic enforcement all require 100% of a vehicle’s performance capability.  Officers are trained to use full acceleration and threshold braking for the entire duration of a response.  Seconds could mean the difference between life and death, or between the apprehension and escape of a violator.  In traffic enforcement, successful prosecution requires that the officer be able to maintain sight of a violator until initiating a traffic stop within the city limits.  This requires powerful acceleration.

3.      The vehicle must be designed and built in such a way that it will withstand the stresses encountered under typical operations.  Emergency response driving puts extreme stresses on the engine, brakes, cooling system, and chassis.  All of these things must be strong enough to handle the abuse.  In addition, police cars spend a great deal of time idling (traffic stops, perimeter posts, crashes, etc), which means that the cooling systems must be built to keep the cars from overheating in such conditions.  Finally, the computer, video system, radio, and emergency equipment can put a tremendous draw on the electric system.  The vehicle must have an alternator of sufficient capacity to handle the load.

4.      The maintenance requirements should not be so costly that they outweigh any initial savings recognized by the purchase of a less-expensive vehicle.  The only real alternative that offers an initial cost savings is the Chevrolet Impala.  While the car costs approximately 20% less than others, its front-wheel-drive design is likely to require additional maintenance costing much more over the life of the car.  Constant velocity (CV) joints must be maintained, and the front weight bias puts more wear on the brakes and tires, requiring that they be replaced more frequently.  Additionally, front-wheel-drive cars have a transverse-mounted engine, and the last time Gulfport Police used this layout, the engine mounts could not handle the stress and had to be replaced regularly.

5.      The vehicle should be designed and built in such a way that the city will be exposed to the least liability in the event of a claim resulting from its operation.  This is the primary reason we select vehicles that are marketed for pursuit driving.  Because the manufacturer represents that the vehicle is intended for such a purpose, it reduces the liability to the city if an officer were to cause or be involved in a crash while responding to an emergency or while involved in a pursuit.  If we were to purchase any other vehicle, the city would have to defend the use of the vehicle under such conditions.  Doing so would require evaluations in the manner conducted annually by the Michigan State Police, and we simply do not have the resources to do this.

6.      The vehicle should be replaced when its maintenance costs become excessive or when it is no longer reliable for emergency operations.  Gulfport patrol cars average about 20,000 miles per year each.  If we purchase new cars once per year, the schedule would result in replacement at 60K, 80K, or 100K miles.  While the 80,000 mile mark does not typically extend into the realm of unreliability, 100,000 does.  This is the point at which major maintenance must occur, and it also historically been the point when important components fail under pressure, including the engine, transmission, and brakes.  Due to the critical nature of these vehicles, it is in the best interest of the city to replace them before they are subject to those conditions.

Conclusion:

For patrol use, the Gulfport Police Department should replace its fleet every 80,000 miles with rear-wheel-drive sedans marketed by their manufacturer for pursuit operation.  Only two such vehicles currently exist in the United States.  They are the Chevrolet Caprice and the Dodge Charger.  Both have similar performance and fuel economy ratings, but the Caprice costs approximately 10% more. The Charger is available with two engine options: a 292 bhp V-6 and a 370 bhp V-8. Using cylinder deactivation technology, the V-8 achieves EPA mileage ratings similar to the V-6, and under the Florida Sheriff’s Association purchasing agreement, the V-8 costs just $400 more.

All things considered, the Charger with V-8 engine is the best option currently available, which is why our fleet consists primarily of these cars.

Take-Home Police Cars?

The City Council will soon be asked to approve an agreement between the City and the Police Benevolent Association, which is the police officers' union. This agreement has been negotiated for the past few months by the attorneys for both parties, and the result is essentially a carryover of the previous agreement, with one big change: take home police cars.

Subject to final approval, the conditions are expected to be as follows:

1. We will use the existing fleet; no new cars will be purchased to accomodate this program.
2. Sixteen vehicles will be assigned to senior officers. The other officers will share the five remaining fleet cars.
3. Cars will only be assigned to sworn officers who live in Pinellas County (with the addition of on-call command staff and detectives).
4. Except for those who are on-call, officers may only use the cars for city business or commuting to and from city business.
5. Officers will be required to clean the vehicles on their own time and using their own supplies.

As the police chief, I support the take-home car program because I feel it benefits both the officers as well as the City. The advantages for the officers are fairly obvious, but not so apparent are the perks for the taxpayers. Consider these:

1. In the case of the officers who live in Gulfport, the presence of the patrol cars will have a positive effect on crime prevention and community policing efforts.
2. Take-home vehicles last longer. Studies in other agencies have shown that officers take much better care of assigned cars, which leads to longer life and lower maintenance costs. Also, with one officer driving the car, it will take more time to reach the replacement mileage threshold. We expect to keep these vehicles 20% longer than the fleet rotation counterparts, which can add up to a great deal of long-term capital savings.
3. While all officers are subject to call at any time, those with take-home cars are more available to respond in case of emergency. During the commute, they are connected by radio and computer to all calls for service and can instantly respond if needed. At all other times, they have an emergency vehicle at their disposal to hasten the commute when necessary.
4. This is a much more efficient use of officers' time. With fleet cars, officers must spend about a half hour every day loading and uloading required equipment, as well as performing inspections for damage and contraband. Those tasks are not required with assigned vehicles, which means on average, each officer will save approximately 90 hours per year that can be dedicated to actual police work.
5. Recruitment of new officers will require less effort and expense. Take-home cars for law enforcement officers is quickly becoming the standard for this market. Without such a benefit, our staff must go to extra lengths to find, recruit, and retain qualified officers. Having this program in place, we will be able to compete for the best on a level playing field.

I truly believe this is a win-win situation for all parties, but if you have a different perspective, I'd love to hear from you. I will update this post with details on the date, time, etc. of the scheduled council vote.

Red Light Cameras--A Commitment to Safety

By now you have likely heard the news; on March 21st, Gulfport will start using photo enforcement cameras for red light violations. This will make us the third city in Pinellas County (behind Kenneth City and South Pasadena) to implement these measures. Likely to follow will be the cities of St. Petersburg and Oldsmar, both of whom are now in planning stages.

I have been involved in this project for three years now, and in that time I have become intimately familiar with the details. Armed with this information, and from my perspective as police chief, I am confident we are moving in the right direction.

Controversial subject?

There are those who say that red light cameras are about revenue and not safety. They say that the cameras actually have little effect on reducing traffic crashes, and that they may in fact increase crashes. Some claim that the enforcement mechanism is unfair or even unconstitutional.

To all of these, I say they are simply wrong.

Yes, red light camera enforcement will probably result in revenue for the city. I am just not sure why that is such a concern. Cities have been receiving revenue from traffic fines since roads were first built. The only difference with this program is that citations will be issued via an automated process rather than a police officer. So the true question becomes this: do we really need to issue that many citations?

The answer lies in the fact that more people are killed and seriously injured in traffic crashes than in all forms of crime combined. The worst of these crashes typically involve a red light violation. If we truly want to put resources where the problems lie, then we need to put as much as possible into traffic enforcement. Unfortunately, the budget situation simply won't allow us to employ enough officers to do the level of enforcement we ought to be doing. So when an option comes along that allows me to catch almost 100 percent of violators without having to deploy a single officer, I'm all for it.

Photo enforcement reduces crashes and saves lives. Period. I have personally looked at many of the studies that purport to show otherwise, and I have found major issues with their results. For example, one publication suggested red light cameras caused crashes to increase in Los Angeles. Detailed review, however, shows that the "researcher" was including crashes within a block of the intersection, whether or not related to the traffic signal. When those irrelevant crashes were excluded, the results were the opposite: crashes at camera-controlled intersections had decreased.

Also note the February, 2011 study released by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This independent organization found that red-light-running crashes reduced 35% from 2004 to 2008 in the 14 largest cities with red light cameras in operation.

Due process means you have the right to challenge your accuser and present evidence on your behalf. Every person who receives a violation notice from a photo enforcement program will have that right. The process for these types of violations is no different than it is for any other; a traffic court magistrate will rule based on the evidence presented from both sides. What makes photo enforced violations different is the fact that the vehicle owner, and not necessarily the driver, is the responsible party. That issue brings about claims of unfairness.

Consider this, however. Courts have upheld the eviction of tenants based on the unruly behavior of guests. The government also holds taxpayers accountable for false returns completed by a third party. Even police are allowed to seize property used in the commission of a crime when the owner is not the one using said property. The major argument behind all of these is that the owner bears responsibility in exercising control over his or her property. Red light violations are no different. Vehicle owners must scrutinize those to whom they consider lending their cars. If a citation is issued, the owner can always demand that the borrower pay up or risk losing the right to borrow the vehicle in the future.

Conclusion

Pinellas County has among the highest traffic crash injury and death rates in the United States. Our society, and Gulfport is no exception, cannot afford NOT to take advantage of every opportunity to address this situation. The use of a camera enforcement program precisely targets the main problem while allowing us to use our existing resources on other issues. If we happen to end up with some money in the end, so be it.

Mourning the Loss

Yesterday, two St. Petersburg police officers were killed in the line of duty. Wow, somehow writing it down makes it seem more real. I like to think of myself as an experienced law man. I've been on the job now for seventeen years, and I have been to more police funerals than I care to remember. And while each of them was heart wrenching, none have been so difficult to bear as the deaths of Sergeant Baitinger and Officer Yaslowitz. This one is somehow more personal. These were not just brother officers doing the same job; they were next-door neighbors working the same streets and dealing with the same people that my officers and I have worked and dealt with for years.

The Pinellas County law enforcement community is very tight-knit. Because of our close boundaries, we work together and see each other constantly. We are, without a doubt, a family, and it's been a long time since this has happened to one of us. In fact, the last time was while I was attending the police academy in 1993. Officer Jeffery Tackett of the Belleair Police Department was killed while trying to apprehend a burglary suspect. I recall the sensation of incredible anger and a strong desire to help however possible. I felt the same emotions yesterday as I stood by other members of our family at the St. Petersburg command post, wanting nothing more than to go in and get the man responsible.

Every May, the sheriff hosts a memorial ceremony where we honor those who have lost their lives in the service of Pinellas County residents. The names of fallen officers are read aloud, and each year I wonder when another name will be added. Last year, I noted that it had been seventeen years since a name was put on the list--the longest gap we've ever had. And I hoped and prayed it wasn't a sign that somebody was due.

That good fortune came to an end yesterday, as we were all suddenly and harshly reminded of the dangers we face in our line of work. Evil manifested itself in a violent and unthinkable manner, killing two of our family and wounding another. Today, tomorrow, and in the coming days, we will attempt to mourn this loss and put some meaning behind what happened. As we do that, I for one will endure emotions that I thought were made dormant from life experience.

I am frustrated, angry, and sad over the loss, as are likely most of those who live and work in Tampa Bay. Yet as I listened to the St. Petersburg District 1 radio traffic yesterday morning, and as I stood at the command post with Chief Harmon yesterday afternoon, I began to experience an entirely unexpected emotion. I witnessed first-hand the bravery of my fellow officers as they begged to go back and face death to try and save their friend. I watched as an entire city put aside its issues and poured its collective support into hoping for the best. In the midst of this awful tragedy, I saw people, all kinds of people and lots of them, simply doing the right thing.

The result of all this for me was a seemingly conflicting sense of great pride in my profession and my community. At first I felt guilty for having positive emotions at such a time, but as I sit here and put my thoughts into words, I think I'm seeing things exactly as I should. I also think I am not alone. I predict that this terrible loss will have a positive impact on all of us in this family. We will grieve, but we will move forward and come back with a stronger sense of community and with a better focus on the direction we need to go.

*Note to media representatives--

I published this post today because I want my officers and my small community of blog followers to know how I feel about this situation. However, I think it would be inappropriate for my statements to be published or reproduced in a larger media outlet at this time. I would not want my statements to overshadow or take attention away from those of Chief Harmon or Mayor Foster as they lead the city's time of grief. They have an incredible responsibility, and I believe they are owed that respect.  Thank you for your consideration.

Crime Down For 2010

We just tallied the numbers for 2010, and the results support what I thought was the case. Crime is down--way down.

From 2009 to 2010, overall crimes* dropped by 25 percent in Gulfport. That is an astounding reduction, and the most significant decreases were in the two areas where officers put the most attention--burglaries and auto thefts. While this is certainly good news, and while I'd like to credit our refocus on community policing last year, I will wait to see results from other local communities as well those around the state. After all, the drops we've seen in Gulfport could be part of a much larger trend.

Keep an eye out for the police department's 2010 annual report, which will be published in early February. This document will provide detailed analysis of crime and budget issues, as well as information on all operational components within the agency. Have a look at the 2009 version for an idea on what to expect.

http://gulfportpolice.com/Annual_Report_2009_web_version.pdf

*crimes for comparison purposes are those reported to the FBI as Part-One offenses. These include the following: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, arson, burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft.

Police Pensions--The Good and the Bad

Since the city council voted last week on first reading to adopt an improvement to the police pension benefits, I thought it would be appropriate to elaborate in the blog. Essentially, the proposed change would use state funds to increase the "multiplier" from 2.75 to 2.88, which would result in higher benefit payouts to retirees. This higher multiplier would be dependent upon continued receipt of state funds; if they are reduced or eliminated in the future, the multiplier could revert back to where it is now.

Police pensions have recently become a subject of great scrutiny, with many voters urging their legislators to take steps to reduce public funding for these programs. In response, the legislature has asked for input from the stakeholders. The Florida Chiefs of Police Association has formed a committee to develop a position statement on the subject, and I have been selected to serve on this committee. Before I make any official recommendations, I would love to hear your ideas as well.

So far, here are some of the things I will be taking into consideration:

1. The majority of police pensions are defined-benefit programs, which means the retirement benefit is pre-determined. These types of programs can be very successful when investments are good. Unfortunately, public funds must be used to subsidize the programs if investment income is insufficient to pay out benefits.
2. Many police pension programs do not require employees to contribute to the plan. Most notable among these is the Florida Retirement System (FRS), which seems to be the target of most of the controversy in this state. By the way, Gulfport officers are part of a completely independent system which has nothing to do with FRS. Gulfport officers contribute eight percent of their salary to their pension fund.
3. Typical retirement for police officers can come much sooner than in other professions. In Gulfport, for example, officers can retire at age 52 if they have at least 25 years of service. They are then guaranteed benefit payments for the rest of their lives. With life expectancies getting higher, retired officers can easily spend more time collecting retirement benefits than they spent working.
4. While all these things certainly cost money, maybe there are some valid reasons. I certainly don't want to sound like I am demeaning other professions, but law enforcement is very stressful, physically-demanding, and highly-dangerous work. I think to some degree, the enhanced retirement benefits are recognized as a reward for officers who have served under such conditions.
5. Market factors usually determine pay and benefits in any business, and ours is no different. If we reduce the benefit package, that will certainly have an effect on who we are able to recruit. I foresee that we will have to reduce the standards in order to maintain the number of officers. Reducing the standards is the last thing I want to do.

Our committee meets on January 9th. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know.

Is it appropriate to give gifts to police officers?

The Thin Blue Line. You may have seen this image of a dark field with a blue line running through the middle.

What you may not know is exactly what it portrays. Some have misconveyed it as a symbol of elitism, suggesting that police officers are part of a select group that is somehow above the masses. In actuality, it means something very different. Essentially, it embodies the notion that police serve as the thin line which separates order from chaos. While that may seem a bit dramatized, the truth is that police officers bear an incredible responsibility when it comes to maintaining stability in our society. We are the ones people turn to when they feel they have been mistreated, and they expect us to deliver an unbiased response.

Much of this responsibility lies in the perception that people have of police. In order to be effective arbiters of justice, we must be seen as being neutral and fair. The only way we can uphold that image is to ensure that our service is owed to no individual person, business, or special interest. Any conduct that could undermine that perception of neutrality should be prohibited or discouraged at the very least.

This is what brings us to gifts. It may seem completely innocent to offer a small token of appreciation to a police officer. After all, it's not as though you'd be paying him a bribe in return for a favor. Unfortunately, that is exactly how it can be perceived. Take, for example, the convenience store that serves discounted beverages to on-duty officers. No big deal, right? Well, it might be a very big deal if you're the person who calls police when the store short-changes you.

Knowing the officer receives a "gift" from the store could eliminate the perception of neutrality and fairness that is so critical. After all, without faith in the officer's independence, why would people call the police in the first place? And when people become uncomfortable calling the police, that is a sign of a corrupt society.

Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that my police officers are such scoundrels that they would be influenced to act improperly because they receive a discount on a drink. On the contrary, I believe each and every one of them to be well above such conduct under any circumstances. Unfortunately, it's not my opinion that matters. As soon as one person is given reason to believe otherwise, we're moving in the wrong direction.

So it is with this in mind that I have a policy prohibiting police employees from accepting gifts in their official capacity. If they turn you down, please don't think them rude; they are only following my rules. If you would like to recognize their service, a much more appropriate contribution would be a letter of appreciation that can be placed in their personnel files.

Do you agree or disagree with my policy? I'd love to hear from you.