National & Arizona F.O.P. attends
U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder’s
Law Enforcement Roundtable on AZ SB 1070
 
On June 8, 2010, Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan G. Soller was called to Washington D.C. by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to join in a roundtable discussion on the Arizona Immigration Law Senate Bill 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.  U.S. Attorney General Holder invited the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police to attend a roundtable discussion with the staff of the U.S. Department of Justice and other professional law enforcement organizations.  This meeting was attended by;
National Fraternal Order of Police, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, Major City Chiefs Association, Women in Federal Law Enforcement, National Troopers Coalition, National Sheriffs Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Association of Police Organizations, International Association of Police Chiefs, Police Executive Research Forum, Major County Sheriffs Association, and the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association.
 
This roundtable discussed the new Arizona Immigration Law Senate Bill 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.  Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police President Soller spoke on the bill, but cautioned that this bill was not a fix all bill and was only a tool in the fight to stop illegal immigration.  He advised U.S. Attorney General Holder that this bill does nothing  to stop the flow of illegal drugs, human smuggling, or stopping criminals from crossing our borders and that we need the federal government to do more to close the holes in our border security.  He also urged the U.S. Department of Justice to partner with state, county, and local law enforcement agencies and officers to deal with the illegal immigration problems facing our country.   By working together we can pool our resources, reduce the costs, and more effectively deal with this national problem.
  
President Soller advised U.S. Attorney General Holder how the law enforcement community is outraged by the statement and accusations that law enforcement officers would resort to racial profiling and insinuating that Arizona’s professional law enforcement officers would participate in racial profiling.  Also that law enforcement officers don’t understand the concept of reasonable suspicion.  Arizona’s law enforcement officers know all too well the laws pertaining to racial profiling.  We have been under the microscope in the past and have proven repeatedly that the law enforcement officers in Arizona DO NOT and WILL NOT profile any nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.  We are professionals who know and abide by laws.
    
The training Arizona law enforcement officers need is not determining reasonable suspicion or preventing racial profiling, but rather Federal 287(G) training from ICE.  We need a clear direction on what proper documentation is, how to recognize forged documentation, the proper questioning format, and how to complete the proper ICE forms. This is a very unique and detailed training that cannot be taught in a 60 to 90 minute video.   Officers in the field need the proper training and tools to ensure accuracy when enforcing this new law and protect them from baseless lawsuits. We urged U.S. Attorney General Holder to ensure that officers in Arizona would receive the proper Federal immigration training.
 
The Fraternal Order of Police is still extremely concerned about the potential cost of enforcing this new law.  No one knows what those costs are going to be, but we all know the burden will be carried by the local law enforcement cities and towns.  Unfortunately, the cost could be overwhelming to our local cities and towns who are already struggling with tight budgets and less officers on the streets. This unfunded mandate will put a great burden on the cities and towns and we urge the Federal Government to team up with us to help offset the cost of enforcing this new law. We also urged the Department of Justice to allow the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to partner with our agencies and officers to ensure we have a comprehensive and strategic approach to enforcing the new Arizona immigration law.

Finally, we advised U.S. Attorney General Holder that Arizona law enforcements job is to enforce the laws passed by our state legislators and signed by our governor. The Arizona law enforcement agencies, officers, and community will find a way to make Arizona SB1070 work, but really need the support of his office and the Department of Justice.

Law-enforcement deaths decline in 2009

124 officers were killed in '09; fewest in U.S. since 1959
Dec. 29, 2009 12:00 AM
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Law-enforcement deaths this year dropped to their lowest level since 1959, while the decade of the 2000s was among the safest for officers - despite the deadliest single day for police on Sept. 11, 2001.

The drop in deaths, cited in a police group's report Monday, was tempered by an increase in firearm deaths. In one horrific November shooting, four officers were executed as they discussed their upcoming shift in a Lakewood, Wash., coffee shop.

The figures do not include the death Monday of a Washington state sheriff's deputy who was shot Dec. 21 and taken off life support.

 
Through Dec. 27, the report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund found:
• 124 officers were killed this year, compared with 133 in 2008. The 2009 total represents the fewest line-of-duty deaths since 108 a half-century ago.
• Traffic fatalities fell to 56, compared with 71 a year ago. The report said the decline partly was attributed to "move over" state laws, which require motorists to change lanes to give officers clearance on the side of a road.
• Firearms deaths rose to 48, nine more than in 2008. However, the 39 fatalities in 2008 represented the lowest annual figure in more than five decades.
• Thirty-five states and Puerto Rico had officer fatalities in 2009, with Texas the only state in double figures. Texas had 11 fatalities, followed by Florida, 9; California, 8; and North Carolina and Pennsylvania, 7.
• An average of 162 officers a year died in the 2000s, compared with 160 in the 1990s, 190 in the 1980s and 228 in the 1970s. Seventy-two officers died on Sept. 11.

"To reach a 50-year low in officer deaths is a real credit to the law-enforcement profession and its commitment to providing the best possible training and equipment to our officers," said the Memorial Fund chairman and chief executive officer, Craig Floyd.

"But we cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into a state of complacency. There are nearly 60,000 criminal assaults against our law officers every year in this country, resulting in more than 15,000 injuries. And, over the past decade, more than 1,600 officers have been killed in the line of duty.

‘Just Say NO!’

‘Just say No!’ was a great idea but did not stop the use of illegal drugs in this country – by the same token, other organizations policies of ‘just say no’ to private prisons and fiscal responsibility is not a responsible policy nor a viable solution to the crisis facing Arizona and our members interests.

The FOP is actively engaged at the legislature and the Governor’s Office concerned about the fiscal possibility of employee reductions in force and exploring alternative solutions.  The FOP is meeting with the Governors staff, the legislature, private prison executives and privatization activists, fully engaged and working on our member’s behalf on the privatization of prisons in Arizona.

Some organizations may feel negative rhetoric is great for recruitment, but it does not responsibly address the interests of their membership.

The FOP will continue to move forward with a positive agenda that responsibly addresses the needs and interests of their membership –
• a fiscally responsible state that retains all public safety positions in the best interests of society
• reasonable and prudent financial planning on the future growth in those professional positions
• retention of highly skilled and trained public safety employees to benefit the citizens of the state by reducing the cost of future education and training
• true long range planning that enhances the states ability to reduce incarceration and recidivism rates
• sustainable cost savings measures that ensure the states retention of sovereignty over its public safety and corrections departments which may be jeopardized by ‘over’ privatization
• ensuring future generations of Arizona citizens are not fiscally ruined by massive tax increases to pay for today’s short term savings in public safety

Most people have experienced this in their lives in one way or another  – it is easy to ‘just say no’ but you must have some viable alternative to the solutions being proposed to even have your position considered.  The FOP will continue to stay engaged, provide alternatives and seek solutions in the interest of their membership.

Are a cop's personal cell phone records fair game in court?

10-8: Life on the Line
- Sponsored by Blauer
with Charles Remsberg

Are a cop's personal cell phone records fair game in court?

Editor's Note: The appellate court’s full decision in State of New Mexico v. Marty Ortiz can be accessed via this web link. Our thanks to Chris Lawrence, an occasional contributor to PoliceOne as well as a noted Canadian trainer and an advisor to the Force Science Research Center, for alerting us to this decision.

When Officer John Boerth got to court on what he thought would be a slam-dunk DUI case, a surprise move by a public defender forced him and the prosecutor to draw a line in the sand.

 
Related Articles:
One cop’s fight to keep personal info secret
How to Protect Your Family and Yourself Against Revenge Threats
Their second surprise came when the trial judge stepped over it.

Now, support of the judge’s action recently by the New Mexico Court of Appeals potentially raises a question for every officer in the country: to what extent are records from your personal cell phone subject to public review in a criminal trial if you carry the phone with you on duty?

“Hopefully, the appellate decision will not have significant impact in other states,” says PoliceOne columnist Ken Wallentine, a law professor and chief of law enforcement for the Utah Attorney General’s Office. “But it would be wrong to just shake your head and say this is not a big deal.

“This case speaks directly to the issue of privacy rights of police officers, and the appellate decision could have persuasive authority in other jurisdictions. Frankly, this case scares me.”

What Happened

One quiet, rainy summer evening in 2005, John Boerth, then a patrol officer and now a detective with the Santa Fe PD, responded as backup toward what sounded to him like an ambulance-assist call on the other side of town. A woman was reported down in the parking lot of a gas station/convenience store, and a civilian was said to be performing CPR on her.
En route with lights and siren activated, he got an update. “Now,” he told PoliceOne, “dispatch said she’d been loaded into a four-door gold or tan Honda that took off. I wondered why they got out of there before the ambulance arrived, but I figured maybe they were going to the hospital.” He killed his lights and siren and turned back toward his beat.

Moments later, a brown Acura sedan with a male driver and two female passengers turned in front of him. That could be the car from the parking lot, Boerth thought. Moreover, “the driver was not maintaining his lane...weaving, bouncing off the curb.”

 
The officer reactivated his emergency equipment and pulled the car over.

“There were Budweiser cans on the floor in back and the driver was nodding like he was on heroin,” a symptom Boerth readily recognized from past experience working narcotics. The name and DOB the suspect offered came back clean, but he failed a field sobriety test and, despite an initial consent, ultimately refused to have blood drawn at a nearby hospital.

When Boerth questioned the women, they admitted having been at the gas station. “Everyone in the car shot up,” Boerth says. One of the females seemed to OD, but when the others brought her around, they all left.

Boerth arrested the driver for DUI. It was not until the man was booked into the jail that Boerth discovered he’d lied about his name.

 
He was really Marty Ortiz, with several past DUI convictions (among other offenses), making him eligible for a felony charge — and forcing Boerth to redo the paperwork because of the name change. “It was all a big old mess,” Boerth recalls.

Ortiz was not an easy client for a lawyer to defend. Besides the previous driving offenses, his sheet included multiple drug convictions, burglary, attempted murder — a laundry list of crimes large and small. Donna Bevacqua-Young, Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor who represented the State in his latest DUI, had “prosecuted him five or six times before,” she says. She believes the public defender who drew his case groped for a viable legal strategy.
It was in this effort that the case morphed from messy but commonplace into a hot potato that some legal observers say is potentially transformative.

During a series of pretrial hearings and conferences in Santa Fe County district court in the summer of 2006, the public defender doggedly pursued a bold demand for discovery. He wanted “access to evidence of all oral, electronic, telephonic, or written communications made between Officer Boerth and any other person” during the stop, “including personal cell phone calls that Officer Boerth had with anyone.”

As Boerth recalls it, there were allegations that “I knew his client and was out to get him.” Supposedly a “confidential informant” had called on the officer’s cell phone that night to tip off Ortiz’s whereabouts. Boerth’s dash-cam revealed no evidence of erratic driving, it was claimed, so the stop was made on a false “pretext” and therefore was illegal.

“Concocted BS!” Boerth emphatically asserts. “I’d never seen the driver before that night. If I knew him and was out to get him, why would I do all that paperwork with the phony name he gave me?”

As to the video recording, “The camera didn’t start until I turned on my emergency equipment to actually pull him over. I witnessed the dangerous driving behavior before that.” The public defender referred to that unrecorded gap as “missing footage,” implying a suspicious irregularity. It amounted to six minutes and 35 seconds between the time Boerth killed his lights and siren from the gas station run until he decided to stop the impaired driver.

Boerth says he did have a personal cell phone with him, but he didn’t receive or make any calls on it relative to the stop and arrest. And there was no confidential informant.

Ramifications for Officer Safety

Ken Wallentine, writing about the case later in his legal newsletter “Xiphos,” observed: “Ortiz’s defense attorney didn’t use the term ‘fishing expedition’ in the demand for [Boerth’s] cell phone records, but offered no substantive basis” for why he was entitled to get them. Nor was the formal process of subpoenaing the records and giving Boerth a chance to be heard followed.
Donna Bevacqua-Young, the prosecutor, says she didn’t know about Boerth’s personal cell phone use on the night in question — or even if he had one with him. But when the defender made his sweeping demand, she was alarmed. She told PoliceOne: “I thought about the security of officers’ friends and families. If dangerous felons can get their hands on private cell phone records, anything could happen.”

She argued — with the full support of Boerth and the police department — that granting the defense motion would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the officer’s privacy and violate his rights under the federal and state constitutions. He “has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal cell phone records,” she said.

At the very least, she maintained, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act specifies that “reasonable grounds” must be shown that the records are “relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation” before they can be ordered surrendered, and the defense had failed to offer such proof. She told the judge, “There is no way that the State is giving out” Boerth’s cell phone information which, for the record, remained in the officer’s possession.
Ortiz’s attorney kept pressing, of course, arguing that Boerth “did not have an expectation of privacy of his cell phone records while on duty, on patrol, in a marked unit, during an emergency or arrest situation.”

After weeks of wrangling, Judge Stephen Pfeffer in the end agreed that the defense “had a right to access the requested information even without knowing whether any such information existed.” He did attach limitations. Only Boerth’s cell phone records during the controversial six-minute “missing footage” gap in his dash-cam recording would be subject to review. This apparently was the time the defense considered most likely that the alleged C.I. call occurred. And the State could request that the judge first inspect the records alone in his chambers to determine if they included “personal matters irrelevant to the case.”

With those conditions, he ordered Bevacqua-Young to produce Boerth’s cell phone records. The officer was “an arm of the State,” the court ruled, and therefore his private phone records were “within the possession, custody, or control of the State, making them subject to disclosure.” Still, the prosecutor steadfastly refused to order Boerth to surrender them.
Her stance was “insulting” and “in bad faith,” Pfeffer declared, and it “arguably intentionally” prevented the trial from moving forward. Early in 2007, he granted a defense motion to dismiss the case. Marty Ortiz walked.

On the State’s appeal, the case landed with the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which now, nearly three years later, has issued a ruling that supports Judge Pfeffer’s decision and his reasoning regarding officers’ personal cell phones.

Bevacqua-Young’s behavior in refusing to cooperate was “conscious, intentional, and unjustifiable,” the Court of Appeals stated. Her privacy arguments were not “persuasive,” in the court’s view. For example, the court reasoned, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act protects only service providers, not phone customers. Consequently, “[W]e will not disturb the district court’s decision.” Ortiz’s dismissal and the judicial reasoning behind it stand affirmed.
Not surprisingly, Bevacqua-Young is convinced the appellate panel got it wrong. “I wouldn’t change anything I did,” she says. And Boerth predicts that “this is not going to be the last time this issue comes up.”

Wallentine agrees. He praises Bevacqua-Young for “cowboying up and standing her ground” regarding Boerth’s privacy rights. He believes that Pfeffer’s order for her to produce the phone records was a “plain violation” of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

“I am mightily offended by the outcome of this case,” he says. “I consider it a warning. It raises vital questions about an officer’s constitutional rights. There may be a lot of intimate information on a cell phone, in addition to numbers called and received: family records, photographs, internet banking transactions, passwords, account numbers. Is it right for an officer to have a diminished expectation of privacy regarding his personal life just because he carries a personal cell phone on duty?

“Right now this case affects officers in New Mexico. Maybe it will not gain traction in other jurisdictions. But you should be discussing the issues involved with your administration, your prosecutors, and your union so you know where you stand before you find yourself facing them.”

In New Mexico, appeals of court rulings are handled by the Attorney General’s office. Bevacqua-Young says the decision had been made there not to appeal the Ortiz case further.

Arizona F.O.P. ALC attorneys at Yen, Pilch, Komadina, and Flemming (YPKF) win a landmark Arizona Supreme Court decision.

Arizona F.O.P. ALC attorneys at Yen, Pilch, Komadina, and Flemming (YPKF) win a landmark Arizona Supreme Court decision.  Carol Pilch and Neil Landeen of the YPKF law firm won yesterday in the Arizona Supreme Court.  In Lake v. City of Phoenix, the Supreme Court, after years of litigation, held that our client, a Phoenix Police sergeant, was entitled to “meta data,” imbedded computer information, which might show whether his supervisors improperly backdated his performance evaluations in order to deny him a promotion.

Not only is the decision a landmark one in Arizona, it is a landmark case nationwide and is expected to make government more transparent and accountable all across the United States.

Fourteen years ago we set up the FOP/Arizona Labor Council to secure, enforce and create additional rights for law enforcement officers.  We wanted you to know that nearly a decade and a half later, we’re still doing it—it’s still working.

Kudos to Carol Pilch and Neil Landeen.  Not all lawyers ever get a chance to try and change the law.  Fewer still actually succeed.  Ours do.

Best regards to all,

Bob Yen

Ariz. Supreme Court rules electronic data is public record
by Jim Walsh - Oct. 30, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

In a major public-records victory, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that government agencies must release hidden data embedded in electronic documents that provides greater insight into the actions of government agencies.

The court found that electronic records are no different than paper records and must be released to the public in their native form. The Arizona ruling is among the first appellate-court decisions to address the question and could set a precedent on public-records laws nationally.

"I think this goes a long way toward accessibility and openness," said Caroline Pilch, an attorney for Phoenix police Sgt. David Lake, who sued the city to obtain the electronic records.

     Metadata is embedded in electronic records and can reveal such information as who authored a report, when it was written and how it was revised. The data also can include a code of other information that would not be listed on printed records but can be used to reveal trends.
     Newspaper reports have used the data to reveal that banks in Atlanta were rejecting loans for Blacks at a higher rate than Whites and that predatory teachers in Florida were protected by a system that allowed them to move from school to school, according to a brief filed by Stephen K. Doig, an Arizona State University journalism professor.
     "It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness underlying the public-records law, to conclude that public entities can withhold information embedded in an electronic document, such as the date of creation, while they would be required to produce the same information if it were written manually on a paper public record," Justice W. Scott Bales wrote in the unanimous ruling.
     The decision overturns a 2-1 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling that found metadata is not a public record.
     As the result of Thursday's unanimous ruling, Lake will now learn whether documents were created and backdated to justify his failure to pass a probationary period as a sergeant in 2005, Pilch said.

Lake was demoted to officer but eventually promoted to sergeant a year ago, she said. The delayed promotion potentially could have cost Lake thousands of dollars in pay.
"When you strip it all away, however a record is kept, that's the public record," said Dan Barr, an attorney for the First Amendment Coalition, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pilch's position.
     "The law doesn't change as technology changes. The application of the law is the same," he said.
     City Attorney Gary Verburg said the ruling updates an old statute and recognizes that technology has changed how people communicate.
     He said Phoenix thought it had complied with Lake's public-records request by providing a print copy and didn't want to go through the extra work of retrieving electronic records.
"It wasn't like we were trying to hide anything," Verburg said.
     David Bodney, an attorney for The Arizona Republic, said the ruling should allow reporters or anyone else to obtain public records on a compact disc much faster and for a fraction of the cost of printed documents.
     He said Phoenix has refused to hand over electronic documents and the ruling should overturn that policy.
     "It should allow reporters to maintain their watchdog role and allow the public to stay informed in an electronic age," Bodney said.
     In the future, computer technicians may be required to redact such personal information as Social Security numbers that are exempt from the public-records law, he said.
     The ruling also recognizes that even public records can be withheld if the state can make a case that privacy, confidentiality or the best interests of the state outweigh disclosure.
     That provision would allow municipalities to reject requests that are overly broad and burdensome, Verburg said.

FOP and eBay Strike deal on sale of FOP items

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, announced today that eBay, Inc. has finally agreed to prohibit the sale of certain items bearing the FOP insignia.

“Obviously, I am very pleased that were able to work with eBay officials to change company policy with respect to the sale of the FOP’s items,” Canterbury said.  “Once they understood and recognized the dangers officers might face if they were deceived by an FOP badge or member identifier, they acted swiftly and in good faith to make the changes we requested.”

The FOP adopted a resolution at its 58th National Biennial Conference in Louisville, Kentucky, calling for eBay to halt sales of items bearing the FOP insignia and other police identifiers.  In its initial contact with eBay, the FOP pointed out the public safety risks of allowing non-law enforcement personnel to access such items, but the company allowed the sales to continue.  Further dialogue with the online vendor led to a more productive engagement, culminating in an official change of policy which became effective on Friday, 5 June.

“I am very pleased with both the outcome and with eBay’s willingness to work directly with us,” Canterbury said.  “They really came through and demonstrated that they are a reliable and responsible corporate citizen.”

FOP ADC Labor Council Submits Due Process Proposal (ADC LC News)

The following due process proposal has been submitted to Director Ryan.

The FOP ADC Labor Council believes that the support observer program as described in DI 221 is the employer’s best defense against accusations of unfair treatment by the employees.  This support observer provides a witness against accusations of abusive language, coercion, inappropriate questioning techniques or any other accusations of wrongdoing by the Department’s investigative or administrative personnel. 

As written in DI 221, there are so many restrictions that an undue burden is placed on the employee that desires a support observer.  Most investigative interviews are conducted with such short notice to the employee that prior arrangements can not be made for the support observer.

To ensure that the Department is viewed as completely fair and transparent when conducting investigations that might result in discipline to the employee, the addition of representatives from the Qualifying and Other Employee Organizations should be added to DI 225, DO 601 and any other pertinent policies.  These representatives should be:

 Employees who are members of a recognized employee organization may request a representative from that organization.
 Representatives shall not be attorneys.
 Representatives shall not be paid employees of the employee organization.
 Representatives shall not have been terminated from State service or resigned from State service while under investigation or in lieu of discipline.

Employee representatives are already allowed throughout the Grievance process.  The addition of employee representatives at all levels of the discipline process serves to show the Department as completely fair and transparent when disciplining its employees and that discipline is the ‘measure’ of last resort by the Department in correcting an employee’s behavior. By allowing the active participation of employee representatives throughout the discipline process the number of complaints brought to the State Personnel Board for review should be substantially reduced.

Corrections is the final result of the criminal justice system and those corrections employees are no less public safety and law enforcement personnel than the other employees in the criminal justice system.  The FOP ADC Labor Council believes firmly that the due process rights of corrections employees should be virtually the same as those extended to police and other public safety employees across the nation.  Honesty and integrity are imbedded in the obligation taken by members of the FOP and without it, our motto, which translated means ‘Law is a Safeguard of Freedom’ is meaningless.  

Director Ryan has already addressed these proposals with initial responses.
• No representatives shall be allowed during the fact finding.
• No representatives shall be allowed during one-on-one verbal corrective action by supervisory or administrative staff.

Our position has never been intended to become involved in the fact finding.  That is an exclusive function of the employer and we agree completely.

We will continue to pursue expanded due process and will make the following points:

1. DI #221 makes no reference or consideration to representatives from the QEO (Qualifying Employee Organization) or OEO (Other Employee organization).
1. DI #206 section 3.8.4 and section 6.8.4 expressly provides for representation from the QEO and OEO.
2. It is the position of the FOP ADC Labor Council that DI #221, DO #601, DO #508 and any other applicable DI or DO should be updated and integrate employee representation from the QEO and OEO.
3. Information from other law enforcement organizations in other states that fully utilize employee representatives has shown that properly applied, employee representation can significantly improve communication with administration and reduce the need for employee discipline and employee grievance. 

• The ‘Employee Observer’ program shall be enhanced and expanded with the inclusion of employee representatives.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy calls the National F.O.P. the premiere L/E Organization in the Country

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) attended the National Fraternal Order of Police’s Day on Capitol Hill meeting.  In attendance were F.O.P. members from across the country that came to Washington D. C. to meet their U.S. Representatives and Senators and push the National F.O.P. political law enforcement legislative agenda.  Senator Leahy during his speech thanked the National F.O.P. for their hard work on the passage of the “Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008.”

This bill will reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program.  This program was scheduled to end in fiscal year 2009, through fiscal 2012. This grant program will help law enforcement agencies purchase lifesaving bullet resistant vest for law enforcement officer across the country.  Senator Leahy praised the F.O.P. leadership for its role in getting this bill passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate.  Senator Leahy told the entire body that is was the F.O.P. and their hard work that made the passage of this bill possible.   The Vest Partnership Grant Program has so far helped departments across the country that could not afford it purchase over 800,000 bullet resistant vests for their officers.

Senator Leahy also thanked the National F.O.P. for their leadership role in getting the funding for the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) program, the Office for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program, as well as other direct assistance to state and local law enforcement which can be found in the conference report on H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act."  Senator Leahy along with the representatives and senators from Arizona all praised the National F.O.P. in fight to get these programs funded.

Senator Leahy called the Fraternal Order of Police the premier law enforcement labor and legislative organization in the country and the strongest voice for law enforcement on Capitol Hill.  Senator Leahy told the members of the F.O.P. in attendance that he only has one plaque hanging in his office; that plaque is the only one out of the hundreds he has that he cherishes enough to hang in his office, the Fraternal Order of Police plaque he received for his commitment to fighting for law enforcement on Capitol Hill.  No other organization, law enforcement or otherwise, has the credibility and respect that the Fraternal Order of Police has at the nation’s capital.  The F.O.P. is the voice of law enforcement.  Senator Leahy ended with a call for the Fraternal Order of Police to carry on the fight to represent the law enforcement officers of our great country.  He got a standing ovation by the members and National F.O.P. President Chuck Canterbury presented the F.O.P.’s 2009 Presidential Inauguration Badge to Senator Leahy.

FOP NEWS: FOP Attends Holder Swearing In

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, and James O. Pasco, Jr., Executive Director of the organization, were invited to attend Tuesday’s private ceremony at which Eric H. Holder, Jr. was sworn in as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States.  The FOP was the only law enforcement labor organization in attendance.

“I was very pleased to have the opportunity to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee about the strong support Eric Holder has from our membership,” Canterbury said.  “To be invited to the swearing in was a real honor, and I hope that his relationship with the FOP will continue to be a close one.”

Executive Director Pasco was present for the swearing in and offered his personal congratulations to our nation’s new U.S. Attorney General.

Letter to Speaker Pelosi in opposition to H.R. 800

27 February 2007

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our strong opposition to H.R. 800, the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act," which was favorably reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor.

This ill-named legislation attacks the very meaning of free choice. Without Federally supervised private ballot elections, our democratic process would be extremely susceptible to corruption, and the very foundation of our Republic could be undermined. This bill would do the same thing to our nation's workers by robbing them of their privacy, power and voice in deciding who should represent and defend their rights as employees. The scheme proposed by the legislation would replace the current democratic process of secret ballots with a "card check" system that invites coercion and abuse. Under this process, the identity of workers who signed or refused to sign union organizing cards would be made public to the union organizers as well as to the worker's employer and co-workers, leaving these individuals vulnerable to threats and intimidation from union leaders, management, or both.

Today, the most common method for determining whether or not employees want a union to represent them is a private ballot election overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB provides detailed procedures that ensure a fair election, free of fraud, where employees may cast their vote confidentially without pressure or coercion from unions, employers, or fellow employees. Indeed, law enforcement officers are uniquely susceptible to such pressure. The FOP is an organization run by law enforcement officers for law enforcement officers and without the anonymity of the secret ballot, the FOP would probably not exist today. We would be forced into competition with much larger, much richer unions, but ones without any professional law enforcement background.

The courts have repeatedly ruled that Federally supervised private ballot elections are the fairest method to determine whether a union has the support of a majority of employees. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that "It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wished of employees than a card check." Similarly, the Second Circuit ruled that, "It is beyond dispute that the secret ballot election is a more accurate reflection of the employees true desires than a check of authorization cards collected at the behest of a union organizer." The Sixth Circuit also shared this view, stating that, "An election is the preferred method of determining the choice by employees of a collective bargaining representative."

The only way to guarantee worker protection from coercion and intimidation is through the continued use of a Federally supervised private ballot election so that personal decisions about whether to join a union remain private. I urge you and your House colleagues to join us in opposition to H.R. 800 and, instead, continue to protect the rights of the American worker. If I can be of any further assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury, National President
Fraternal Order of Police

BIG Win in Youngtown

     The FOP/ALC battle to protect the rights of an FOP member in Youngtown has ended with a BIG win for Brother Ed Siemen.  Ed has been reinstated, with full medical benefits, and his retirement application is moving forward.  On a separate matter, the Chief of Police, who let Ed's retirement application sit in a drawer for more than 100 days, has been placed on admin leave.  After seeing what kind of representation and support Ed received, every officer in Youngtown joined the FOP/ALC.
     This success was made possible by the tough, take no prisoners, negotiations conducted by our FOPALC attorney, Kent Komadina.  I must tell you that Brother Ed Siemen was overwhelmed by the support he received from Kent's representation.  I want to share with you Brother Ed's comments regarding the services he received from Kent.
     "I can't begin to thank you and the FOP for all you've done.  The Youngtown chief of police and town manager believed that they could run roughshod over an injured and ill officer that they wanted to be rid of.  They did not bargain on the clout of the Fraternal Order of Police! "
     "My grandfather had been a police officer and a deputy sheriff.  He was my hero.  He was also a Life Member of the FOP in Michigan.  His tombstone has an inlaid FOP emblem.  When I became a police officer, the first thing I did was join the FOP.  I have always been proud of being a member of such a prestigious organization."
     "God Bless my brothers and sisters of the FOP/ALC."
     Personally, I want all Arizona FOP members to know that Kent, from the beginning, just a few days ago, personally took charge of the legal issues, conducted the negotiations, recommended how the PR firm could be used, and, behind the scenes, scripted this entire FOPALC win.
     If we have an FOP "Bring them to their knees - begging for mercy" award, I'd like to nominate Kent.
Fraternally, Jim Mann

Dollar for Dollar

Out of your FOP deduction, a full $10 goes directly to the ALC and our law firm.  That is part of what makes us different.  The remainder must cover all cost your lodge must bear; news letters, web sites, conferences, training, recruitment, travel, cook-outs, capital costs, insurance and the new ADC Labor Council.  Lodge 44 has ‘open books’ so the membership can directly participate in the expenditures their lodge makes.  Next year more reliance may be placed on the web site for distribution of information and the membership may have to decide if a monthly mailed news letter is financially worth while.  No funding has been arranged or provided for the FOP ADC Labor Council whose board members have been the most active in recruitment and interaction with ADC management.  As money gets tight throughout the economy, we can expect to have to continue to do more with less, just like government agencies.  Unlike government agencies, we are directly accountable to our membership and have no immediate way to increase revenue – unlike the feds, we can’t print and borrow trillions with no intention of paying it back.