Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 4020 AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: FEBRUARY 2017 I n Ohio, the Cleveland Police Department is operating under a federal consent de- cree overseen by the Department of Justice. One of the federal moni- tors says he’s found three major problems with the department’s bodycam poli- cies, including policies regu- lating camera usage during secondary jobs, when offi- cers themselves are allowed to review their body camera footage, and lastly, when the public gets access to the foot- age. The purchase and deploy- ment of bodycams were not part of the deal Cleveland signed onto with DOJ. How- ever, the city has spent $2.4 million to buy the cameras in February 2015. The impact of the body- cams was almost instanta- neous. Cleveland saw a 40 per- cent reduction in citizen complaints against officers over a nine-month period, officials said. While the consent decree didn’t mandate the purchase of the cams, it does require officials to come up with pol- icies governing their use. The bodycam policies are designed to “foster trans- parency, increase account- ability and build trust while protecting the privacy rights of individuals,” according to court documents. But the federal monitors say existing policy doesn’t fit the bill. One issue is that current policy does not require of- ficers who work security details at Cavaliers games or other private events to wear body cameras even though the officers often wear their full uniforms and carry their department-issued gear like firearms. “The failure of that officer to be using a body-worn camera in such circumstanc- es and the absence of such footage would foster confu- sion and ultimately detract from the goals of transparen- cy, accountability and trust,” the court filing stated. The second issue is when police officers are allowed to view the footage they re- corded. The current policy is murky at best on this. Rules state that officers may use the footage to as- sist with investigations or in writing reports, but that the department reserves the right to restrict officers’ ac- cess to the videos depending on the circumstances. Federal monitors say they will wait to see how the new use of force rules the agency has adopted play out before addressing the issue of when cops see the footage. As for public access to the footage, the monitors say they will also wait and see how the agency does with policies relating to the transparency of the Cleve- land P.D.’s information and data. Body cam policies still in the works? Body cams generally deliver the results that officials and agencies expect in terms of reductions in use of force and complaints against officers. But sorting out the rules can be challenging with so many cooks in the kitchen. In some areas, policies are unclear on use and rules There are many Ameri- cans who believe in the idea of total security. That’s one of the reasons a wall on the border (or a second or a third) is such an appealing idea. But what might be even more important than bor- der security infrastructure, at least as far as the stated mission is concerned, is the quality and integrity of the personnel we hire to get the job done. A recent investigation by The New York Times looked at thousands of court records and internal agency docu- ments going back 10 years. Records show that dur- ing that period roughly 200 employees and contract workers at the Department of Homeland Security have taken nearly $15 million in bribes while being paid to protect the nation’s borders and enforce the law. It’s not exactly breaking news that there’s a ton of money to be made if you work on the border. Simply by turning one’s head it’s easy to cash in big. Others go further, sell- ing green cards, accessing sensitive law enforcement intelligence from databases and then selling the info to drug cartels. There is even a murder-for-hire ring to deal with informants. The $15 million figure is misleading, by the way. In many cases court records do not list the amount a cor- rupt employee received or stole. And the findings also do not include gifts, trips or money stolen by Homeland Security employees, the dol- lar value of which are likely staggering. So walls are great and all but there’s a little more to it than that. “It does absolutely no good to talk about the build- ing of walls or tougher en- forcement if you can’t secure the integrity of the immigra- tion system, when you have fraud and corruption with your own employees,” said an internal affairs official at the Department of Home- land Security who spoke on the condition of anonym- ity. Take former Border Patrol agent Ivhan Herrera-Chiang for instance. He didn’t kill anyone. He just sold sensitive law enforcement information to drug cartels. Herrera-Chiang provid- ed maps of hidden under- ground sensors, lock com- binations to gates along the U.S.-Mexico border and the locations of Border Patrol traffic checkpoints. The cartels used the in- formation to smuggle meth- amphetamine, cocaine and marijuana into the country when their chances of getting caught were minimized. Bribes on the border not at all unusual