1033 Program,”2 As It Is Sometimes Called, the LESO Branch of the DLA Can Give Leas Excess Dod Property at Little Or No Cost

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1033 Program,”2 As It Is Sometimes Called, the LESO Branch of the DLA Can Give Leas Excess Dod Property at Little Or No Cost An Evaluation of the Department of Defense’s Excess Property Program Law Enforcement Agency Equipment Acquisition Policies, Findings, and Options Aaron C. Davenport, Jonathan William Welburn, Andrew Lauland, Annelise Pietenpol, Marc Robbins, Erin Rebhan, Patricia Boren, K. Jack Riley C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2464 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0071-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover image by Florence County North Carolina Sheriff's Department. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Section 1048 of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires an evaluation of the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) program, which is run by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and provides excess Department of Defense (DoD) equipment—everything from printers to rifles to airplanes—to state and fed- eral law enforcement agencies (LEAs). The NDAA requires DoD to select a federally funded research and development center to review the program. RAND’s National Defense Research Institute (NDRI) was asked to undertake that review, documented in this report. This evaluation builds upon previous work RAND researchers com- pleted for DoD in 2016, in accordance with the fiscal year (FY) 2017 NDAA mandate for additional analysis of the LESO program. This research was sponsored by the Defense Logistics Agency and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant- Com mands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. For more information on the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/atp or contact the director (contact information is provided on the webpage). iii Contents Preface ................................................................................................. iii Figures .................................................................................................vii Tables and Lists ...................................................................................... ix Summary .............................................................................................. xi Acknowledgments ................................................................................ xxiii Abbreviations ....................................................................................... xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 History of the LESO Program ....................................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO Excess Property and LESO Program Processes ................................................19 DoD Excess Property Transfer and Disposal Time Line .........................................19 State Coordinators ....................................................................................21 Registration Process .................................................................................. 22 Reviews of Equipment Requests ................................................................... 22 Equipment Deliveries and Training ............................................................... 23 Equipment Transfers and Losses ................................................................... 24 Compliance Reviews ................................................................................. 24 CHAPTER THREE Transfers, Losses, Suspensions, Terminations, and Rebuys ................................ 27 Types of Equipment Transferred and to Whom ................................................. 27 Losses, Suspensions, and Terminations ............................................................ 36 Rebuys of Excess Equipment ........................................................................39 CHAPTER FOUR Stakeholder Interviews .............................................................................41 State Coordinators and State Points of Contact ...................................................41 Officials from Participating Law Enforcement Agencies .........................................47 Representatives from National Organizations .....................................................53 v vi An Evaluation of the Department of Defense’s Excess Property Program CHAPTER FIVE Public Perceptions ...................................................................................55 CHAPTER SIX Optional Paths Ahead ..............................................................................63 Maintain the Status Quo .............................................................................63 Modify Program Emphasis and Distribution of Controlled Equipment ...................... 64 Shift Responsibility for Controlled Equipment to Another Organization .....................65 APPENDIXES A. Executive Order 13688 ..........................................................................69 B. Executive Order 13809 ..........................................................................73 C. Standardized Interview Protocol for State Coordinators and State POCs ............75 D. Standardized Interview Protocol for LEA Officials .......................................79 References .............................................................................................83 Figures 1.1. LESO Time Line ......................................................................... 3 2.1. DoD’s Item Disposal Process .......................................................... 20 3.1. Distribution of Property (and Value) Distributed to State, Federal, and Tribal LEAs, FY 2015–2017.......................................................35 3.2. Controlled Property Transfers by State, FY 2015–2017 ............................ 36 3.3. Map of Total LEA Suspensions by State, FY 2014–2016 ...........................37 5.1. Overall, How Satisfied Are You with the Quality of Police Services in Your Neighborhood? ................................................................... 56 5.2. Do You Perceive Your Local Police/Law Enforcement Agency to Be Adequately Equipped? .................................................................. 56 5.3. Are You Aware of Federal Programs That Provide Excess Military Equipment to Police/Law Enforcement Agencies? ...................................57 5.4. Should Types of Equipment Transferred to LEAs Be Limited? ....................58 5.5. Program Support Responses by Respondent Age ....................................59 5.6. Program Support Responses by Respondent Race ...................................59 5.7. Program Restriction Responses by Respondent Age ............................... 60 5.8. Program Restriction Responses by Respondent Race ...............................61 vii Tables and Lists Tables 3.1. Current Property Held by LEAs: Quantity and Value, by Class (FY 2016 dollars) .........................................................................29 3.2. Current Property Held by LEAs: Top 20, by Value (FY 2016 dollars, DoD purchase price) ................................................................... 30 3.3. Current Property Held by LEAs: Top 20, by Quantity (FY 2016 dollars)........31 3.4. Current Uncontrolled Property Held by LEAs: Top 20, by Quantity (FY 2016 dollars) .........................................................................32 3.5. Current Controlled Property Held by LEAs: Top 20, by Quantity (FY 2016 dollars) .........................................................................33 3.6. Participation by LEA Size, as of FY 2016 ............................................ 34 3.7. Size Distribution of LEAs Receiving MRAPs, as of FY 2016 ..................... 34 3.8. LESO Justification for Suspensions, FY 2014–2016 ................................ 38 3.9. Total LEA Terminations by State, FY 2014–2016 .................................. 38 3.10. LESO Justification for Terminations, FY 2014–2016 ...............................39 4.1. Costs and Benefits of LESO Program Among Surveyed LEAs ....................53 Lists 3.1. EO 13688 Prohibited Equipment .................................................... 28 3.2. EO 13688 Controlled
Recommended publications
  • AB 481 Hearing Date: June 29, 2021 Author: Chiu Version: May 24, 2021 Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes Consultant: GC
    SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Steven Bradford, Chair 2021 - 2022 Regular Bill No: AB 481 Hearing Date: June 29, 2021 Author: Chiu Version: May 24, 2021 Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes Consultant: GC Subject: Law enforcement agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use HISTORY Source: Women’s Policy Institute of the Women’s Foundation California Prior Legislation: AB 3131 (Gloria), 2018, vetoed AB 36 (Campos), 2015, vetoed SB 242 (Monning), Ch. 79, Stats. of 2015 Support: ACLU California Action; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; Alliance San Diego; American Civil Liberties Union of California; American Friends Service Committee; Anti-recidivism Coalition; Asian Solidarity Collective; Bay Rising; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; Buen Vecino; California Faculty Association; California Federation of Teachers Afl-cio; California Latinas for Reproductive Justice; California League of United Latin American Citizens; California Public Defenders Association (CPDA); Californians for Safety and Justice; Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice; Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants; Change Begins With Me Indivisible Group; Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ); Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto; Council on American- Islamic Relations, California; Courage California; Del Cerro for Black Lives Matter; Democratic Club of Vista; Disability Rights California; Drug Policy Alliance; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Empowering Pacific Islander
    [Show full text]
  • The Militarization of Police in Our Communities
    The Militarization of Police in Our Communities Ways to Take Action From Phillip Thompson, Loudoun County NAACP Chapter: “Protection of human life at all cost should be the policy. That will change use of force procedures from shoot first to try to calm the situation down. That will also give better guidelines to shoot to wound where necessary instead of current all shoot to kill based on standard center mass training all law enforcement now get.” Insist on policing that is founded on a respect for life and the rule of law. The ACLU of Virginia urges people to: o Advocate for a law enforcement culture that values transparency over secrecy and respects civilian authority over police. o Accept responsibility as a taxpayer for public funding of public safety and bring an end to fee-based justice and policing for profit. Support state legislation restricting law enforcement’s use of civil asset forfeiture. o Oppose weapons transfer programs and terrorism grants. Advocate for greater public input on police departments acquiring military-grade equipment. o Support policy and legal barriers to warrantless mass surveillance (e.g., warrantless Stingray use or city-wide 24/7 searchable aerial surveillance) o Engage the community in conversation about alternatives to criminalization and prosecution of low level offenses like disorderly conduct, drunk in public, loitering, vagrancy, petty theft. o Advocate for the use of community-based alternatives to incarceration for people whose behavior is caused by or related to their mental illness or developmental disability, are addiction to drugs or alcohol, or poverty. Join the Richmond Peace Education Center's program and advocacy efforts for a more peaceful & just community and world.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Police Militarization
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2021 Citizens, Suspects, and Enemies: Examining Police Militarization Milton C. Regan Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2346 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3772930 Texas National Security Review, Winter 2020/2021. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law and Race Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Citizens, Suspects, and Enemies: Examining Police Militarization Mitt Regan Abstract Concern about the increasing militarization of police has grown in recent years. Much of this concern focuses on the material aspects of militarization: the greater use of military equipment and tactics by police officers. While this development deserves attention, a subtler form of militarization operates on the cultural level. Here, police adopt an adversarial stance toward minority communities, whose members are regarded as presumptive objects of suspicion. The combination of material and cultural militarization in turn has a potential symbolic dimension. It can communicate that members of minority communities are threats to society, just as military enemies are threats to the United States. This conception of racial and ethnic minorities treats them as outside the social contract rather than as fellow citizens. It also conceives of the role of police and the military as comparable, thus blurring in a disturbing way the distinction between law enforcement and national security operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Download As A
    WESTER.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/15/2016 9:05 AM DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN RAMBO & BARNEY FIFE: OVERHAULING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’S EXCESS PROPERTY PROGRAM IN ORDER TO HALT THE OVERMILITARIZATION OF AMERICA’S POLICE FORCES MICHAEL T. WESTER* The Department of Defense’s Excess Property Program, other- wise known as the 1033 program, provides local law enforcement agencies with excess military property at little to no cost. To go along with the 1033 program, the federal government also provides local law enforcement agencies with billions of dollars worth of funding. This funding gives local law enforcement agencies the monetary means to be able to use the military-grade equipment or buy new mili- tary-grade equipment they cannot get through the 1033 program. As a result of these 1033 programs, military-grade equipment may be mis- used. Specifically, law enforcement agencies may want to use their military-grade equipment because they have the equipment. Addi- tionally, there is the “subtle” effect that if law enforcement officers dress like soldiers, they will think they’re at war. This Note recom- mends stricter standards for the transfer of military weaponry to local law enforcement agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. I NTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 730 II. B ACKGROUND ..................................................................................... 733 A. The 1033 Program ........................................................................ 734 B. Federal Funding ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights To
    Interactive Dialogue with the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association Statement by the American Civil Liberties Union 43rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council July 10, 2020 George Floyd’s horrific murder on May 25 and the killings of other Black people have sparked protests in at least 140 cities across the United States and in over 40 countries around the world. The heartening public support for the Black Lives Matter movement (BLM) is forcing governments, businesses, academic institutions and civil society organizations to denounce and seriously address structural racism and white supremacy and push for sweeping changes including divestment from police departments. In recent weeks, the ACLU and other groups have documented and brought legal challenges to end serious violations of the right to assemble in the context of BLM protests. Federal, state, and local governments have failed to protect First Amendment rights to protest and assemble and resorted to excessive and indiscriminate use of force, arrests, and attacks on protesters. Since May 26, there have been over 400 instances of journalists being detained, assaulted, or otherwise prevented from performing their duties by police. Protesters have experienced injuries, and sometimes death, from tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and other crowd control tactics used by the police. Over 10,000 protesters have been arrested. People assembling in mass gatherings and exercising their First Amendment rights to protest are all too often met with militarized police force, unlawful arrests, rough physical handling, as well as mass surveillance by police, including the use of surveillance aircrafts and drones.
    [Show full text]
  • And Visual and Performance Art in the Era of Extrajudicial Police Killings
    International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 5, No. 10; October 2015 Protesting Police Violence: “Blacklivesmatter” And Visual and Performance Art in the Era of Extrajudicial Police Killings John Paul, PhD Washburn University Departments of Sociology and Art Topeka, Kansas 66621 Introduction This visual essay is an exploration of the art, performance, and visual iconography associated with the BlackLivesMatter social movement organization.[1]Here I examine art that is used to protest and draw awareness to extrajudicial violence and the “increasingly militarized systems of killer cops…in the United States of America.”[2]In this review, secondary themes of racism, dehumanization, racial profiling and political and economic injustice will also be highlighted. Ultimately this work intertwines (and illustrates with art) stories of recent and historic episodes of state violence against unarmed black and brown citizens, and my goals with this project are several. First, I simply seek to organize, in one place, a record of visual protest against excessive policing. In particular, I am interested in what these images have to say about the use of state violence when compared and analyzed collectively. Second, via these images, I hope to explore the various ways they have been used to generate commentary and suggest explanations (as well as alternatives) to racism, police brutality, and a militarized culture within police departments. Within this second goal, I ask whose consciousness is being challenged, what social change is being sought, and how these images hope to accomplish this change. Third, I claim these images as part of the symbolic soul of the BlackLivesMatter social movement—and I explore the art directly within the movement as well as the art in the surrounding culture.[3] I begin however with conceptions of social movement activism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Militarization of American Law Enforcement and the Psychological Effect on Police Officers & Civilians
    Document1 (Do Not Delete) 4/8/2016 4:43 AM NOTES US VS. THEM: THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT ON POLICE OFFICERS & CIVILIANS JOSEPH B. DOHERTY* TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION………………………..………………………416 II. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICA’S DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT………………………….417 A. DIRECT MILITARIZATION…………………………..……..…417 B. INDIRECT MILITARIZATION………………………….……....423 III. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECT OF MILITARIZATION….442 IV. REFORM……………………………………………………….445 A. REDUCTION OF SWAT DEPLOYMENTS……………….…….445 B. REALLOCATION OF DHS GRANTS…………………………..446 C. ELIMINATION OF THE 1033 PROGRAM………………….…...447 D. ELIMINATION OF JAG GRANTS………………………..…….448 E. REVERSING THE “US VS. THEM” MILITARY MENTALITY THROUGH COMMUNITY BASED TRAINING & RECRUITMENT…………………………………………...…449 V. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..450 * Class of 2016, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Staff Member, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Volume 24. The author would like to thank the staff and executive editorial board of Volume 25 of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal for all of their hard work on this Note. The author would also like to thank Professor Dan Simon, and all of the investigative reporters that work tirelessly to expose the physical, psychological, and economic ramifications of the use of military equipment and tactics by local law enforcement officers. 415 Document1 (Do Not Delete) 4/8/2016 4:43 AM 416 Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Tunnel Vision: How the System Chooses Its Target
    Public Interest Law Reporter Volume 21 Issue 2 Article 8 2016 Tunnel Vision: How the System Chooses its Target Alison Hill Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Human Rights Law Commons Recommended Citation Alison Hill, Tunnel Vision: How the System Chooses its Target, 21 Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 131 (2016). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr/vol21/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Interest Law Reporter by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact law- [email protected]. Hill: Tunnel Vision: How the System Chooses its Target No. 2 * Spring 2016 Tunnel Vision: How the System Chooses Its Target Alison Hill 1 "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." An idea has intensified within the innocence community, comprised of those exonerated from prison after being wrongfully convicted and their allies: the theory of tunnel vision.2 Tunnel vision refers to how state actors focus on a suspect and build a case around that one person in such a way that it ends in a conviction.3 Typically, both poor and minority communities are systematically left to the mercy of the justice system, including police interrogations, prelimi- nary hearings, prosecutions, public defenders, sentencing, and the appeals process. 4 Tunnel vision begins when police are called, yet there is a difference in 5 how police respond based on the community in which the situation occurs.
    [Show full text]
  • WAR COMES HOME the Excessive Militarization of American Policing
    WAR COMES HOME The Excessive Militarization of American Policing June 2014 War Comes Home TheAt America’s Excessive Expense: Militarization of American Policing The Mass Incarceration of the Elderly © 2014 ACLU Foundation June 2012 American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 www.aclu.org Cover image credit: Tim Gruber Cover photo: Shutterstock/Luis Santos CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 SPECIAL REPORT: SWAT Raid Ends with Toddler in Medically-Induced Coma..................................................... 14 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................. 21 Policing and Militarism ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Use of Military Equipment by SWAT Teams ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The RISE and REACH of Surveillance Technology 2
    21st Century Policing: The RISE and REACH of Surveillance Technology 2 About the Authors Action Center on Race and The Community Resource the Economy (ACRE) Hub for Safety and The Action Center on Race and the Economy Accountability (ACRE) is a campaign hub for organizations The Hub serves as a resource for local advocates and working at the intersection of racial justice and Wall organizers working to address the harms of policing in Street accountability. We provide research and the U.S. and seeking to cultivate community safety and communications infrastructure and strategic support accountability outside of the criminal legal system. The for organizations working on campaigns to win Hub is a conduit of information and assistance for local structural change by directly taking on the financial grassroots organizations across this nation and beyond. elite that are responsible for pillaging communities of color, devastating working-class communities, This report was written by Jasson Perez, Alyxandra and harming our environment. We partner with local Goodwin, and Jessica Quiason of ACRE and Kelcey organizations from across the United States that Duggan, Niaz Kasravi, and Philip McHarris of The Hub. are working on racial, economic, environmental, and education justice campaigns and help them connect Special thanks to Kendra Bozarth, Tracey Corder and the dots between their issues and Wall Street, so that Carrie Sloan for your invaluable edits. each of the local efforts feeds into a broad national movement to hold the financial sector accountable. Acknowledgements We want to thank the following people for taking time to speak with us about their work and law enforcement surveillance generally: • Albert Fox Cahn, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Systemic Racism and Militarization of Law Enforcement in the United States: Health Equity and Human Rights Implications for Africans and People of African Descent
    Submission to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on Human Rights Council resolution 43/1: “Promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Africans and of people of African descent against excessive use of force and other human rights violations by law enforcement officers” SYSTEMIC RACISM AND MILITARIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: HEALTH EQUITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS FOR AFRICANS AND PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT HERE4Justice is a student-led organization situated in the Masters of Public Health in Health Equity program at Simmons University in Boston, United States. The program has a unique focus on racial justice, examining public health and human rights implications of systemic and structural racism–in the United States and internationally. Our membership reflects the diversity of our community and experiences, and our engagement in HERE4Justice calls in our commitment to advance health equity and social justice as they affect our communities through confronting societal structures and policies that disproportionately and intentionally disadvantage underrepresented, marginalized, and vulnerable groups. In the context of the present submission, we call attention to the racialized deployment of militarized police forces in the United States, the associated violence from law enforcement, and ensuing human rights violations and denials of fundamental freedoms, including realizing the highest attainable standard of health. Militarization of police came under international scrutiny as law enforcement deployed rubber bullets, tear gas, stun grenades and other wartime equipment to quell protests in the wake of the 2014 killing of Michael Brown by police in Ferguson, Missouri. In subsequent years, militarized tactics of law enforcement and associated violence became increasingly publicized.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Police Militarization Affect Civilian Deaths?
    Does Police Militarization Affect Civilian Deaths? Abstract State-level panel data is used to determine whether the militarization of police departments affects the number of civilians killed by law enforcement officers. Utilizing novel civilian death data and information from the U.S. Census Bureau, FBI Uniform Crime Report, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, I estimate an ordinary least squares model containing state- level fixed effects. Given there are multiple datasets containing civilian death information measured in a variety of ways, I estimate multiple models and present sensitivity analysis. I find that police militarization has a significant effect on civilian death rates. Considering the negative impacts of civilian deaths, the consequences of federal programs that perpetuate police militarization must be weighed against the potential benefits when considering future policy. Brent S. Echols Georgia College & State University J. Whitney Bunting College of Business Department of Economics & Finance Does Police Militarization Affect Civilian Deaths? I. Introduction Recent incidents of police involved shooting deaths of unarmed civilians have brought to the forefront a national discourse about the militarization of municipal police departments. National and local media outlets contain stories of police officers using deadly force against unarmed civilians more frequently than ever (see Fisher 2014; Wofford 2014; Whitehead 2015; and Kindy, et al. 2015). Modern police forces resemble soldiers of war more than officers of the peace. The images of paramilitary style police officers in mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs) that were broadcast out of Ferguson, MO brought to the public’s awareness the fact that military tools and tactics are being deployed by local police departments.
    [Show full text]