Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:31 pm
Time: 11:31 pm
Results for police equipment
4 results foundAuthor: U.S. Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group Title: Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group Summary: On January 16, 2015, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13688, "Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition" (EO), to identify actions that can improve Federal support for the appropriate use, acquisition, and transfer of controlled equipment by State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The EO established a Federal interagency Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, which consulted with stakeholders and deliberated to develop the recommendations described in this report. - Establishment of Federal Government‐wide Prohibited Equipment Lists. The Prohibited Equipment List identifies categories of equipment that LEAs will not be able to acquire via transfer from Federal agencies or purchase using Federally‐provided funds (e.g., Tracked Armored Vehicles, Bayonets, Grenade Launchers, Large Caliber Weapons and Ammunition). The Prohibited Equipment List will take effect upon transmission of the recommendations to the President. - Establishment of Federal Government‐wide Controlled Equipment Lists. The Controlled Equipment List identifies categories of equipment (e.g., Wheeled Armored or Tactical Vehicles, Specialized Firearms and Ammunition, Explosives and Pyrotechnics, Riot Equipment) that LEAs, other than those solely serving schools with grades ranging from kindergarten through grade 12, may acquire if they provide additional information, certifications, and assurances. While inclusion on these lists would not preclude an LEA from using other funds for such acquisitions, the Working Group's report urges LEAs to give careful consideration to the appropriateness of acquiring such equipment for their communities. - Harmonization of Federal Acquisition Processes. All Federal equipment acquisition programs must require LEAs that apply for controlled equipment to provide mandatory information in their application, including a detailed justification with a clear and persuasive explanation of the need for the controlled equipment, the availability of the requested controlled equipment to LEA in its inventory or through other means, certifications that appropriate protocols and training requirements have been adopted, evidence of the civilian governing body's review and approval or concurrence of the LEA's acquisition of the requested controlled equipment, and whether the LEA has been or is in violation of civil rights and other statutes, regulations, or programmatic terms. Ongoing coordination among the various Federal agencies will ensure that a uniform process is in place to assess the adequacy of the justification in each application. - Required Protocols and Training for LEAs that Acquire Controlled Equipment. LEAs that acquire controlled equipment through Federal resources must adopt General Policing Standards, including community policing, constitutional policing, and community input and impact principles. LEAs also must adopt Specific Controlled Equipment Standards on the appropriate use, supervision, evaluation, accountability, transparency, and operation of controlled equipment. LEAs must train its personnel on General Policing and Specific Controlled Equipment Standards on an annual basis. - Required Information Collection and Retention for Controlled Equipment Use in Significant Incidents. LEAs must collect and retain certain information when the LEA uses controlled equipment in operations or actions that are deemed to be Significant Incidents. LEAs also must collect and retain information when allegations of unlawful or inappropriate police actions involving the use of controlled equipment trigger a Federal compliance review of the LEA. Upon request, the LEA must provide a copy of this information to the Federal agency that supplied the equipment/funds. This information also should be made available to the community the LEA serves in accordance with the LEAs applicable policies and protocols. - Approval for Third‐Party Transfers or Sales. LEAs must receive approval from the Federal agency that supplied the funds or equipment before selling or transferring controlled equipment. Third‐party LEAs acquiring controlled equipment must provide to the Federal Government the same information, certifications, and assurances that were required of selling/transferring LEAs. Sales or transfers to non‐LEAs are restricted to certain types of controlled equipment that do not pose a great risk of danger or harm to the community if acquired by non‐LEAs. - Increase Federal Government Oversight and Compliance. The Federal Government will expand its monitoring and compliance capabilities to ensure that LEAs acquiring controlled equipment adhere to protocols, training, information collection and retention, and other requirements proposed by the recommendations this report. Additionally, the Federal Government will create a permanent interagency working group to, among other things, evaluate the Controlled and Prohibited Equipment Lists for additions and deletions, track controlled equipment purchased with Federal resources, develop Government‐wide criteria for evaluating applications and conducting compliance reviews, and sharing information on sanctions and violations by LEA applicants. The United States Digital Service will assist Federal agencies in the creation of a database that tracks information about controlled equipment acquired through Federal programs. These recommendations, if accepted and approved by the President, will be implemented by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2016 (October 1, 2015); the Prohibited Equipment List will take effect upon transmission of the recommendations to the President. The recommendations on protocols, training, acquisitions, and transfers and sales to third parties apply to all items on the Controlled Equipment List and are triggered when an LEA acquires controlled equipment using Federal resources beginning in Fiscal Year 2016. Within 45 days after the President receives these recommendations, Federal agencies will meet with stakeholders to further discuss the specifics of the recommendations and receive feedback on the potential approaches to implementing them. By the end of Fiscal Year 2015, Federal agencies will provide an update to the President on the progress of implementing the recommendations and any additional recommendations, suggestions, or clarifications to be considered based on stakeholder feedback. Details: Washington, DC: The White House, 2015. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/le_equipment_wg_final_report_final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/le_equipment_wg_final_report_final.pdf Shelf Number: 135862 Keywords: Law Enforcement EquipmentPolice EquipmentPolicingPolicing Policies and Practices |
Author: James, Nathan Title: Body Armor for Law Enforcement Officers: In Brief Summary: Firearms are one of the leading causes of deaths for law enforcement officers feloniously killed in the line of duty. Since FY1999, Congress has provided funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to help them purchase armor vests for their officers. The Matching Grant Program for Law Enforcement Armor Vests (hereinafter, “BPV program”) provides grants to state, local, and tribal governments to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers and court officers. The BPV program was first authorized by the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-181). It has been subsequently reauthorized four times. The most recent reauthorization expired in FY2012. Between FY1999 and FY2012, annual appropriations for the program generally ranged been between $25 million and $30 million. However, over the past four fiscal years, annual appropriations for the program were less than $23 million. Armor vests can only save lives when they are actually worn. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that an increasing percentage of police departments have instituted “mandatory wear” policies. Several factors can affect whether a law enforcement officer will wear an armor vest. Safety concerns are the most significant, followed by whether the officer’s department has a mandatory wear policy. Comfort and fit are also a factor. While armor vests can only save lives when they are worn, there is also a limit on how long they can be worn and still be effective. No definitive data exist on how long an armor vest will last before it needs to be replaced. Many manufacturers offer a five-year warranty on their vests, but this is not necessarily indicative of their useful lifespan. The age of an armor vest alone does not cause its ballistic resistance to deteriorate. Vest care and maintenance have been shown to have a greater impact than age. Similarly, no definitive data exist on the number of law enforcement officers whose lives have been saved by vests paid for, in part, with funds from the BPV program. A frequently cited statistic is that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over the past 30 years, but it is not known how many of those vests were purchased in part with funds from the BPV program. While there is no such thing as a totally bulletproof vest, research has shown that armor vests do save lives. The risk of dying from a gunshot wound to the torso is 3.4 times higher for law enforcement officers who do not wear armor vests. Should Congress consider legislation to reauthorize the BPV program, policy makers may consider several issues, including (1) what role the federal government should play, if any, in providing armor vests for state and local law enforcement, (2) whether Congress should invest in developing new technology for armor vests, and (3) whether Congress should require law enforcement agencies to provide training on the care and maintenance of body armor as a condition of receiving funding under the BPV program. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: R43544: Accessed November 12, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43544.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43544.pdf Shelf Number: 146975 Keywords: Body ArmorPolice EquipmentPolice OfficersPolice Protection |
Author: Silberglitt, Richard Title: Wearable Technologies for Law Enforcement: Multifunctional Vest System Options Summary: This report reviews the current and projected status of wearable technologies with potential for use by law enforcement and describes three conceptual integrated vest systems that incorporate these technologies. These three systems are meant to represent what could conceivably be implemented very quickly to enhance existing capabilities, what might be done in the near term to provide additional capabilities, and what might be considered to take advantage of technologies that are still in development and could provide even greater capabilities. Wearable technologies provide an opportunity to address several problems faced by law enforcement officers in an increasingly complex and technologically challenging environment - for example, the size and weight of equipment they must carry, the proliferation of batteries for electronic devices, the need for mounting and docking systems for body-worn cameras, and the need for comfort and flexibility while wearing body armor underneath uniforms. There is no reason for law enforcement to wait for wearable technologies that can provide improvements in the bulk, weight, and flexibility of carried equipment - major incremental improvements are available today using currently available commercial technology. However, law enforcement agencies need to think about how to engage with manufacturers now to specify their needs and provide input on the directions that research, development, and design should take in the near future to best accommodate their unique challenges and opportunities. By the same token, manufacturers should reach out to law enforcement agencies and practitioners as the technologies described in this report continue to develop. Key Findings Technologies Are Improving Rapidly Wearable technologies with the potential to provide significant benefit to officers in the field are available today at reasonable cost, such as flexible batteries and wireless charging. More-sophisticated wearable technologies are also under development and are rapidly improving, such as WiFi mesh network connectivity and sensors that can provide indications of officer health and safety. The advanced system could include integration of biometric monitoring into the garment that makes up the vest, onboard processing, capacity for recharging batteries by harvesting energy from officer motion or the environment, and increased situational awareness via real-time data analysis. Increased access to portable, reliable, uninterrupted power in the field that travels with the individual officer is currently feasible and will likely be more so in the future. Law enforcement access in the field to broadband data and communication is likely to improve rapidly. Policy Questions and the Design of the Technologies Must Be Also Considered There are significant and challenging policy questions associated with technologies that are becoming available to law enforcement and are being adopted and expected by the public (examples include real-time access to personal data and use of unmanned aerial vehicles). Bulk and appearance matter and can be critical factors in the adoption of technology. Law enforcement agencies should think about how to engage with manufacturers now to specify their needs and provide input on the directions that research, development, and design should take in the near future to best accommodate their unique challenges and opportunities. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2017. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 19, 2017 at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2012.html Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2012.html Shelf Number: 147393 Keywords: Body-Worn Cameras Law Enforcement Technology Police Equipment |
Author: Strom, Kevin Title: Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing Strategy in the 21st Century, Final Report Summary: Over the past several decades, policing agencies have implemented an array of technological advancements to improve operational efficiency and outcomes, especially in times of diminished resources and enhanced public attention on and scrutiny of law enforcement activity. However, much remains to be known about the prevalence and utility of technology among the nation's law enforcement agencies and the factors that influence its selection and implementation. To address these issues, we need to build the knowledge base of why and how police select, implement, and integrate new technology; how that technology is being used; and whether new technology improves policing in a meaningful way for both the agency and the community. RTI International and the Police Executive Research Forum were funded by the National Institute of Justice to examine more closely the types of technology that U.S. law enforcement agencies (LEAs) are acquiring and implementing, and the degree to which the use of technology is linked to strategy development and larger organizational change within policing organizations. Three specific objectives were examined. The first objective was the prevalence of police technology on a national level; the second objective examined a group of selected "high-technology implementer" and "mixed-technology implementer" agencies. The combined findings from the national- and site-level data were used to develop the final objective: a research-based framework to guide police agencies in future selection, implementation, and use of technology. Findings show that for most technologies, a greater proportion of large agencies (250 or more sworn officers) had adopted the technology than those from the entire sample. A notable exception, however, is that large agencies were less likely to have used some technological devices, such as body-worn cameras, in the past 2 years. Site-level data illuminated the difference in how ingrained different technology is from agency to agency; two agencies may have implemented the same technology, but the level of sophistication and use can be widely divergent. Finally, the findings suggest that the success or failure of technology can be multidimensional and can rarely be traced back to a single issue. Instead, technology identification and adoption are complex processes and the factors that support technology success or failure are similarly multifaceted. In general, across U.S. LEAs, a strong association between policing strategy and technology uses was not found. In other words, at a national level, agencies are not making decisions to acquire technology based on dominant policing philosophies or the activities they prioritize. Instead, agencies appear to adopt technology ad hoc in response to a constellation of factors that includes executive staff decisions, perceived needs, community demands, and available funding. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2016. 151p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251140.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251140.pdf Shelf Number: 148771 Keywords: Law Enforcement TechnologyPolice EfficiencyPolice EquipmentPolice Policies and PracticesPolice Technology |