2005 Survey of Post-Agencies Regarding Certification Practices, Franklin, 2005
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
2005-DD-BX-1119 POLICE OFFICER CERTIFICATION REVOCATION INFORMATION SHARING: NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DECERTIFICATION DATABASE 2005 SURVEY OF POST AGENCIES REGARDING CERTIFICATION PRACTICES Raymond A. Franklin NOVEMBER, 2005 Performing Organization: International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) 6852 4th Street Sykesville, Maryland 21784 Sponsoring Organization: U.S. Department of Justice – Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance 810 7th Street NW Washington, DC 20531 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 2 CERTIFICATION, REVOCATION AND INFORMATION SHARING ....... 3 SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 5 KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................. 6 SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION .................................................. 8 SURVEY RESULTS BY STATE ...................................................... 12 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 33 APPENDICES ............................................................................... 35 APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER APPENDIX B – SURVEY DISTRIBUTION LIST 1 INTRODUCTION The 2005 Survey of POST Agencies Regarding Certification Practices was conducted as part of the USDOJ funded, Police Officer Certification Revocation Information Sharing: National Public Safety Officer Decertification Database project of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST). The purpose of the project is to reduce interstate itinerancy of peace officers that were decertified for cause, that is misconduct, either criminally adjudicated or administratively sanctioned. The project proposes the facilitation of interstate access to information retained by peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies within the United States. An important part of the project effort is the establishment of current information regarding state practices related to the certification of law enforcement officers, state methods of information management, and existing impediments to the sharing of revocation action related information. Other project activities include the convening of a national symposium and development and operation of a pilot interstate database system. This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-DD-BX-1119 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice. 2 CERTIFICATION, REVOCATION AND INFORMATION SHARING Certification is the process by which law enforcement officers are licensed in their respective jurisdictions, establishing the satisfaction of both selection, training and continuing performance standards. While most states currently provide such a system of licensure, no comprehensive, national study has yet been performed of these processes. Decertification is the loss of such certification for a variety of reasons, varying among the several states. Revocation, or decertification for cause is generally understood to mean the loss due to misconduct, through action of a state POST Board or Commission. Again, no comprehensive survey of authority and practice in this regard has ever been performed. POST agencies, in the furtherance of these tasks, maintain record keeping systems. A variety of means have been devised, ranging from manual cards to elaborate, commercially available electronic database management systems. Regardless of the method employed, POST agencies generally do an adequate job of identifying prior loss of certification and thus prevent in-state rehire of problem officers. Unfortunately, no formal system has existed for the automated interchange of such information among the states, thus preventing rehire in another state. This informational shortcoming has long been recognized and several solution methodologies have been proposed. IADLEST has taken a leading role with the establishment of its Peace Officer Registry Committee with responsibility to develop a nationally accessible database to serve as a clearinghouse for persons decertified as law enforcement officers for cause. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers Employment Registration Act of 1996 proposed a comprehensive national registry for all police officers. Introduced in the 104th Congress as S. 492 by Sen. Bob Graham (D. Fl). and H.R. 3263 by Rep. Harry Johnson (D. Fl) the bill enjoyed the endorsement of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and IACP, however was never reported out of committee. In spite of this failure, FDLE initiated a National Officer Clearinghouse pilot program. Promoted as a voluntary and nonintrusive pointer system, it attracted some interest and participation before being terminated in 2000 in the light of a newly unveiled IADLEST effort. In June of 1999, the database contained some 129,224 records. An IADLEST sponsored pilot effort commenced in July of 1999, under the auspices of Peace Officer Registry Committee of the Association and within the scope of the POSTNet Information Access and Exchange System, a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Designed as a decertification pointer system, operation commenced in February of 2000. In early 2000, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs expressed interest in supporting the development of a comprehensive, fully operational, national certification data repository. IADLEST responded with a grant application, largely organized by the Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training Council. It was subsequently disapproved. 3 While COPS Office funding of the IADLEST POST-Net Information System effort was renewed in 2002, the new cooperative agreement specifically excluded continued operation and development of the National Decertification Database component. COPS cited unspecified legal concerns as the reason for the decision. IADLEST has independently continued the NDD pilot effort, although additional development has been significantly limited. In 2004, the Bureau of Justice Assistance expressed interest in supporting the study of existing certification information management practices, issues of data sharing and management, and further development of the pilot system. IADLEST responded with a comprehensive grant application. On September 16, 2005, the Office of Justice Assistance of the US Department of Justice approved the current grant. Based on a series of pre-approval cost letters, allowing the commencement of project operations, the survey was conducted. 4 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The present survey included all U.S. peace officer standards and training (POST) agencies. Currently, all states with the exception of Hawaii maintain POST commissions, boards or equivalent entities. The Honolulu Police Department, the largest law enforcement entity in that state, provided a survey response. Additionally, the District of Columbia Police Training and Standards Board was surveyed. The paper based survey was sent to each POST director for completion. The survey distribution list is attached as Appendix B. A preliminary review of submitted data was conducted and follow up contact with respondents provided for clarification of responses. Quantification of data utilized both commercial survey management data processing applications and manual calculation methods. 5 KEY FINDINGS CERTIFICATION AND REVOCATION AUTHORITY AND ACTIVITY 46 POST entities reported having the authority to certify or license law enforcement officers. All except the Rhode Island Municipal Police Training Academy and the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council reported the ability to revoke that license. The most common basis for revocation was felony conviction. 29 entities also reported the authority to revoke for conviction of certain misdemeanors. 24 reporting agencies reported the ability to administratively revoke a certificate for misconduct. Notably, six respondents reported the ability to revoke for the conviction of any misdemeanor offense. 33 states also reported the authority to temporarily suspend a certificate. All POST agencies, with the exception of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, reported the affording of due process through hearing or appeal. According to the 2000 IADLEST Sourcebook, a periodic study of POST agency data, 43 of the current POST agencies were established between 1959 and 1976. Rarely, has revocation authority existed from POST inception. Approximately half of all POSTs with revocation authority gained it in the 1970s, with inception ranging from 1967 to 2005. A bare majority (26) of respondents reported the exception of certain personnel from the state certification process. Often elected sheriffs, other less common exceptions include chiefs of police, state police and reserve officers. Two respondents, the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, reported that another state agency had authority to certify and decertify certain classes of law enforcement officers, the North Carolina Sheriffs Education and Training Standards Commission and the Illinois State Police, respectively. Many of the agencies surveyed reported the authority to certify other public safety personnel. 19 retain the authority to certify correctional officers, 21 certify parole/probation personnel and eleven certify dispatchers or police communications personnel. Since the inception of revocation authority, over 19,000 law enforcement officers had their certificates revoked for misconduct by U.S. POST agencies. In 2004 alone, over 2000 officers were revoked for cause. This is generally consistent with the figure of 1,810 law enforcement officers reported to have had sanctions imposed in 1999, reported in the previously referenced 2000 IADLEST Sourcebook. Over 13,000 of the identified revocations were conducted in California, Florida and Georgia. All other states provided approximately 6,000 actions. 6 CERTIFICATION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT A small majority (53 percent) reported use of an agency developed data management system to support the certification function. 17 percent reported use of a commercial automated process, prevalently the Skills Manager Personal Computer application marketed by Crown Pointe Software. Ten percent reported the use of a manual card based system. Only the Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy and the Mississippi Peace Officer Standards and Training Board reported use of a card based system to the exclusion of a secondary automated data processing system. Fully 29 POSTs reported use of Social Security Number or modification thereof as a certification identifier, although eight of that number used a non-SSN identifier also. 44 respondents reported retention of records of denial of initial certification. The vast majority of respondents with certification authority reported indefinite record retention requirements. REVOCATION INFORMATION SHARING Of those agencies with revocation authority, only three, the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center, the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training and the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission reported a legislative proscription to the sharing of revocation information. Additionally, the California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training, the Delaware Council on Police Training and the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy responded that the information was unknown. In addition, the Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training Board did not respond to this question. Interestingly, the Colorado POST Board, the Delaware Council, the Indiana Academy and the Kansas Training Center reported the publication of revocation actions. As such, a limitation on the inclusion of revocation actions in a central repository may only exist in three currently authorized decertifying agencies. 17 POST agencies reported current data entry participation in the current pilot database. Currently the database reflects participation of 19 state agencies. Immediately subsequent to the survey Maryland joined the system. Florida, historically a major data contributor to the system, has suspended data entry citing compatibility issues. A variety of reasons for not participating were cited and are reproduced in the tabulation below. Several agencies reported current interest or action toward participation. Notably, all responding entities expressed willingness to consider participation. Remarkably, only seven POST agencies reported routine query of the existing database system, significantly lower than the rate of data contribution. Eleven agencies reported occasional query of the system, with 29 reporting never having queried the system. 7 SURVEY RESULTS – BY QUESTION Section A – Certification and Revocation Authority and Activity 1. Does your agency certify law enforcement officers? Choice Count Percent Yes 46 90.20% No 5 9.80% 2. Does your agency have the authority to revoke certification for cause? Choice Count Percent Yes 44 86.27% No 6 11.76% No Comment 1 1.96% 3. What are the bases for revocation? Please check all that apply. Choice Count Percent Felony Conviction 43 84.31% Misdemeanor Conviction (any) 6 11.76% Misdemeanor Conviction (certain) 29 56.86% Administratively for misconduct 24 47.06% Failure to meet training/qualification requirements 29 56.86% Termination of employment 14 27.45% Other 16 31.37% Questions 4 – 6 are open ended and therefore not quantified. 7. Are revoked officers afforded due process through hearing or appeal? Choice Count Percent Yes 43 84.31% No 1 1.96% No Comment 7 13.73% 8 8. Can your agency temporarily suspend certification? Choice Count Percent Yes 33 64.71% No 14 27.45% No Comment 4 7.84% 9. Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements, e.g. Chiefs, Sheriffs, State Patrol? Choice Count Percent Yes (Identify below) 26 50.98% No 20 39.22% No Comment 5 9.80% 10. Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers? Choice Count Percent Yes (Explain below) 2 3.92% No 45 88.24% No Comment 4 7.84% 11. Does your agency also certify: Choice Count Percent Correctional Officers 19 37.25% Parole/Probation Officers 21 41.18% Private Security Officers 4 7.84% Communications Personnel/Dispatchers 11 21.57% Other 10 19.61% Section B – Certification Information Management 1. What methods do you use to manage the certification/revocation function? Please check all that apply. Choice Count Percent Card based manual system 5 9.80% Agency developed electronic data management system 27 52.94% Commercial electronic data management system 17 33.33% Other 5 9.80% 9 2. Certification records are numbered using: Choice Count Percent Social Security Number (SSN) 28 54.90% A variation or modification of SSN 1 1.96% A non-SSN related number 23 45.10% 3. How long are records maintained? Choice Count Percent Indefinitely 42 82.35% Other 3 5.88% No Comment 6 11.76% 4. Does your agency issue wallet cards or other pocket proof of certification for officers? Choice Count Percent Yes 17 33.33% No 30 58.82% No Comment 4 7.84% 5. Does your agency maintain records of denial of initial certification? Choice Count Percent Yes 40 78.43% No 4 7.84% No Comment 7 13.73% Section C – Revocation Information Sharing 1. Is your agency legislatively proscribed form sharing revocation information? Choice Count Percent No 38 74.51% Yes 3 5.88% Unknown 3 5.88% No Comment 7 13.73% 10 2. Does your agency publish revocation actions? Choice Count Percent Yes 22 43.14% No 23 45.10% No Comment 6 11.76% 3. Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification Database (NDD)? Choice Count Percent Yes 17 33.33% No 28 54.90% No Comment 6 11.76% Question 4 is open ended and therefore not quantified. 5. Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database? Choice Count Percent Routinely 7 13.73% Occasionally 11 21.57% Never 29 56.86% No Comment 4 7.84% 6. Would you consider participation in an improved national revocation database? Choice Count Percent Yes 45 88.24% No 0 0% No Comment 6 11.76% 7. In your personal opinion, should query access to the database be made available to law enforcement hiring entities? Choice Count Percent Yes 44 86.27% No 3 5.88% No Comment 4 17.84% 11 SURVEY RESULTS – BY STATE Question A – 2: Does your agency have the authority to revoke certification for cause? Question A – 1: Does your agency certify law enforcement officers? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Question A – 3: What are the bases of revocation? Check all that apply. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Felony Conviction Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Any Misdemeanor Conviction Yes Certain Failure to meet Termination of Misdemeanor Administratively training Convictions for misconduct requirements employment Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13 Yes Yes Yes Question A – 3: Continued Other Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusett Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Yes Yes see attachment Ed. Note: Specifies felonies and misdemeanors. Fraudulant application, not guilty verdict based on mental capacity Yes Yes Not being able to possess firearm by federal law Restriction of right to bear arms Yes Misrepresentation or Fraud during application for certification Yes Violate our order of probation. Violate any of our administrative rules. Mental condition including alcohol or substance abuse Montana Nebraska Nevada Yes New Yes New Jersey New Mexico New York North North Dakota Ohio Yes Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Explain Gross misdemeanors and falsification of information to obtain certificate Resignation in lieu of termination. Misdemeanor: If charged with a felony, but pleads guilty to a misdemeanor pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement in which the person agrees to surrender the certificate. Yes Violation of moral fitness standard, falsification Yes Good character issues Yes Yes Cancellation of license(s), permanent/term voluntary surrender of license(s). Misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence Yes Yes Must be requested by the chief or sheriff to de-certify or both Failure to complete basic training, equivalency basic requirements of certification Yes For any reason including retirement. 13 Question A – 4: In what year did your agency gain the authority to revoke certification? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 1971 - Any felony conviction is a bar 8/10/1973 1968 1975 About 1973-1975 Felonies- always (1974), Certain Misdemeanors since July 1, 2001 1982 Since the Council on Police Training (COPT) inception Ed. Note: 1969 Approx. 1974 1970 1974 August 13, 1999 Public Act 91-495 this year 1986 1982 (But only actively pursued since 1998 when full time investigator hired) 1998 1976 1984 1966 N/A 1998 1978 1981 - enabling legislation 1992 1994 Approximately 1991, actions didn't start until 1996 1967 1985 N/A 1978 1972 1989 1997 1988 1969 1974 N/A 1976 1975 1982 9/1/1969 1977 2002 Unknown 1990 Always for Felony Conviction / 1991 for other than Felony 14 Question A – 5: How many officers have had certification revoked since authority was granted? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 72 since 1995 (no records prior to 1995) 38 656 59 5000 +/88 26 Unknown-records do not extend that far Stats are not available – avg. approx. 260/yr. Since 1974. Ed Note: Current NDD submissions exceed 4,100. 4,377 75 86 0 39 49 3 Unknown 109 1 N/A 72 91 45 263 including 27 permanent surrenders 68 revoked or suspended 26 data unavailable at this time 189 N/A 85 25 145 74 over 200 exact number unknown N/A not tracked Unknown UNK- records were not kept Information not available. 312 approximately 15 37 Unknown 126 54 15 Question A – 6: How many officers had their certification revoked in 2004? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4 2 45 6 0 16 2 2 257 540- revoked, 30-surrenders 16 17 0 1 4 None 2 9 0 N/A Eight 3 4 28 including 14 permanent surrenders 19 revoked or suspended 1 in 2004, 3 in 2005 to date 4 20 N/A 9 123 suspended (indefinitely or not less than 5 years) or revoked 2 21 Six 62 One N/A 14 7 49 decertified, 18 suspended 49 revocations, 20 cancellations, 39 permanent surrenders - 108 total 17 One 12 5 in the year 2005 8 3 16 Question A – 8: Can your agency temporarily suspend certification? Question A – 7: Are revoked officers afforded due process through hearing or appeal? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 17 Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Question A – 9: Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Georgia Hawaii No Idaho Yes Illinois Yes Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Denver city and county sheriff deputies State Police, Marshall's, State's Attorney Inspectors Only sheriffs have enforcement authority and are exempt by the Florida constitution; Chiefs are not required to be certified but have no enforcement authority if not certified Any elected official (sheriff), deputies serving civil process, director of Idaho state police, parking or animal control officers Illinois State Police - Has own merit board. Sheriff's - are elected officials - not required to have basic training – However, most have a corrections or law enforcement background. Sheriffs are not required to be certified, but may choose to do so Chiefs and Sheriffs Heads of Law Enforcement Agencies, Deputy Head of Agency (eg Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Chief) N/A Elected Sheriffs Sheriffs, elected chiefs, constables Sheriffs Sheriffs Yes No Sheriffs of North Carolina's 100 counties No Yes Yes Yes South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Sheriffs- only the elected sheriff, all deputies must be certified Sheriffs Yes Yes Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island Elected officials are exempt, appointed members of the Governor's cabinet Yes No Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper's certification and training is conducted by the Superintendent with approval of the director of public safety. Chiefs of Police who do not function as peace officers. Reserve officers State Police, Sheriffs, Park Rangers Providence P.D. has their own Police Academy and specific certificate. R.I. State Police has their own Police Academy and specific certificate. R.I. Sheriffs (Court Security mostly) – they also train their own. Sheriffs State officers Training requirements are "optional" for elected officials. Heads of Law Enforcement Agencies Elected Officers (Sheriffs and Constables) 18 Question A – 10: Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Illinois State Police - Has own merit board No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No N.C. Sheriff's Education and Training Standards Commission 19 Question A – 11: Does your agency also certify: Correctional Officers Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Parole/ Private Communications Probation Security Personnel/ Dispatch Other Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Juvenile Corrections : Jailors Yes Yes Yes Yes Juvenile detention, Juvenile Probation Officers Yes Parole/Probation officers with sworn status Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Harbor Masters, Court Security Officers, Capitol Security, Shellfish Wardens Juvenile Justice Personnel Yes Private Security Officers with arrest authority only Yes Yes Local jail officers Yes Yes Yes Juvenile Probation, Livestock Brand Inspectors, Detention Officers, Motor Carrier Services Officers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Juvenile Justice Officers, Local Confinement Personnel (local jailors). (Sheriff's Commission certifies communications personnel) Yes Canine, Bailiff, Jailers Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Canine Handling Yes Yes Private security is in a different section of the agency which does licensing of companies and registering of personnel Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Yes Yes Wyoming 20 Local Jail/Secure (Juvenile) Detention Officers Detention Officers (County Jails), Coroners and Deputies Question A – 12: Additional information or comments: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia AZ Post approves correctional officer employment standards and basic curriculum, but does not "certify" correctional officers Since 1-1-04, we may not revoke/cancel certification. We may only annotate the record in our database "not eligible to be a peace officer in CA" and so inform the employing agency. This is the result of a change in the law. Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board certifies the following : Law Enforcement Officers - Full time and Part time, County Correctional Officers - Full time, Court Security Officers MCOLES has had discussions with stateholder groups regarding expanding revocation to certain misdemeanors - no action at this time. New Jersey requires compulsory training of law enforcement officers, which results in the issuance of a certification of training. We do not have the more comprehensive licensure requirement which includes certification and decertification. The state of New York does not license police officers or peace officers. State law does require successful completion or basic training for police and peace officers. State law also requires each police and peace officer to be registered with the DCJS. Officer discipline is handled by the employing agency. Rhode Island Department of Corrections does it's own training. All requests for de-certification must originate with the chief of police, sheriff, or regional jail administrator. We have no authority to initiate any such request on our own. Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 21 Question B – 1: What methods do you use to manage the certification/ revocation function? Card based manual system Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Commercial electronic data management system Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Crown Pointe Software Yes Yes Yes Yes Case File Yes Crown Pointe and Skills Management Yes Yes Skills Manager (Ed. Note: Crown Pointe) Created in-house in filemaker Yes Yes None at this point Pathlore Learning Management System Crown Pointe "Skills Master" Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Northup Grumman (Michigan Information and Tracking Network) Yes Crown Pointe Yes Yes Skills Manager and Crown Pointe Technologies Ingenium - CLICK2LEARN.COM Yes Skills Manager - Crown Pointe Yes Microsoft Access Independent vendor developed electronic data management system Certificate issued to graduates (copies kept on file) Law Enforcement Training System (LETS), Logicalis Division of Data Tech. - Washington State Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Agency Developed electronic data management system Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Crown Pointe/Training Manager Crown Pointe Yes Skills Manager by Crown Pointe Technologies. Yes Yes Yes 22 Question B – 2: Certification records are numbered using: SSN Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Modified SSN Non-SSN Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 23 Question B – 3: How long are records maintained? Alabama Indefinitely Alaska Indefinitely Arizona Indefinitely Arkansas Indefinitely California Indefinitely Colorado Connecticut Indefinitely Delaware Indefinitely District of Columbia Florida Indefinitely Georgia Indefinitely Hawaii Idaho Indefinitely Illinois Indefinitely Indiana Indefinitely Iowa Indefinitely Kansas Indefinitely Kentucky Indefinitely Louisiana Indefinitely Maine Indefinitely Maryland Indefinitely Massachusetts Michigan Indefinitely Minnesota Indefinitely Mississippi Indefinitely Missouri Indefinitely Montana Indefinitely Nebraska Indefinitely Nevada Indefinitely New Hampshire Indefinitely New Jersey New Mexico Indefinitely New York Indefinitely North Carolina Maintain for 5 years from date of separation, then sent to Archives; decertified officer's records are kept indefinitely North Dakota Indefinitely Ohio Indefinitely Oklahoma Indefinitely Oregon 75 years for officer files Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina 40 years by Rhode Island law Indefinitely South Dakota Indefinitely Tennessee Indefinitely Texas Indefinitely Utah Indefinitely Vermont Indefinitely Virginia Indefinitely Washington Indefinitely West Virginia Indefinitely Wisconsin Indefinitely Wyoming Indefinitely Electronic records maintained for length of officers career - life. Most routine paper records are returned to department 24 Question B - 5: Does your agency maintain records of denial of initial certification? Question B – 4: Does your agency issue wallet cards or other pocket proof of certification? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Question B – 6: Additional information or comments: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming If the officer fails the Basic exam these records are maintained indefinitely. Our Information System has the ability to issue wallet cards. We currently issue Basic Training Certificates as licenses. Statute requires the return of the certificate upon demand. Under # 4, wall diplomas are issued Cannot deny initial certification as long as requirements of law are met. Certification records are available at www.wilenet.org (A secure web site) 26 Question C – 1: Is your agency legislatively proscribed from sharing revocation information? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Question C – 2: Does your agency publish revocation actions? No No No No Unknown Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming No Unknown No No No No Unknown No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No 27 No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Question C – 3: Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification Database (NDD)? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 28 Question C – 4: If your agency does NOT contribute to the IADLEST NDD, please state the reason. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming We are checking on how to start this now Legal advice (being reviewed again now) is such that disclosure violates CA peace officer confidentiality laws. We were told to wait by IADLEST Unaware of the database. Never proposed. Initially provided information, but compatibility issues arose & no more has been provided We have never been asked to contribute. Approximately 7 years ago we shared info about our data but that was it. Participation if optional Moving in that direction. Not a good reason - been too busy doing other things - poor excuse! Haven't been asked / didn't know Unsure of the process. Concern about the current system. Insufficient records, MD "non-certification" upon termination of employment may confuse database We are interested and considering participating The issue is on the agenda for the July 2005 POST board meeting Working on web based system; state law allows revoked officer a new hearing after 2 years. I plan to look into contributing to NDD in near future. Council recommendation. Choice and preference of legal counsel and administrative leadership Use of previous member identification and password not available. Because we can't currently decertify-we are working to get rules in place to allow same! The individuals have been imprisoned and unavailable for any employment. Legislative prohibition Database info could easily be confused with decertification for other reasons. (Beyond Wisconsin decertification) Final clearance not gained - working on it. 29 Question C – 5: Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Never Never Never Routinely Never Occasionally Never Never Never Never Routinely Never Occasionally Occasionally Never Never Never Never Never Never Occasionally Never Routinely Occasionally Routinely Occasionally Occasionally Occasionally Never Occasionally Routinely Never Never Routinely Never Never Never Routinely Never Occasionally Never Never Never Never Never Occasionally Never Question C – 7: In your personal opinion, should query access to the database be made available to law enforcement hiring entities? Question C – 6: Would you consider participation in an improved national revocation database? Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 31 Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Question C – 8: Additional information or comments: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Most agencies work out "deals" with officers to just go away. Consequently a database is only going to be of minimal use. Have not yet queried the database, we will in the future FDLE does not query the database because in FL the local agencies are responsible for their own backgrounds. That is why we need #7 above. Should only be available to state certifying entity Access to database that does not require full IADLEST membership fees and annually renewed It may be beneficial to require a query of the NDD as part of the background process Rhode Island is still in the dark ages! Although Washington State would like to participate, we are still working to resolve legal issues regarding the privacy of decertification files. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The incident survey provided a comprehensive view of current certification and revocation practices. Based on the survey data, several important insights have been gained. The following conclusions and recommendations are offered in furtherance of additional research, development and operational enhancement. CONCLUSIONS • • • • • • • • • • Most states have the authority to both certify and decertify for cause law enforcement officers and other criminal justice personnel. A significant number of POST agencies additionally certify other public safety personnel. A significant population of officers sanctioned for misconduct exists and continues to expand. Basis for revocation varies greatly among the states. Use of the revocation sanction varies greatly by state. POST agencies generally believe that due process is afforded in the revocation process. In most cases, POST agencies are generally not prohibited from sharing revocation information. POST agencies often certify additional, non-police personnel. Disparate information management systems are utilized by U.S. POST agencies. Generally, responding POST personnel do not oppose the availability of database information by law enforcement hiring entities. RECOMMENDATIONS • • • • • • • Reporting of revocation actions to the NDD should be contingent upon the availability of due process. The NDD should consider inclusion of records of initial denial of certification as well as those of temporary suspension. In addition, consideration should be given to the inclusion of decertified, non-police personnel such as correctional officers and parole/probation agents. The NDD should either provide a minimum detail of the basis of the revocation action specifying felony conviction, misdemeanor commission, etc., or include an effective disclaimer regarding variability of possible basis of action. NDD query results should clearly establish the exclusion of certain personnel from the state certification and thus revocation sanction. Secondary use of Social Security Numbers should be maintained by all POST agencies to assist in identification of prior certification. Given the large number of revocation actions by certain states, a method of bulk data entry should be provided. Alternatively, state controlled linking of existing state databases with the central index should be considered. A standards based data management model should be proposed for use by POST agencies. Establishment of a web based XML conformance plan would simplify data entry, data communications and query operations. 33 • • All POST agencies should routinely query the NDD prior to certification as a law enforcement officer. Query access by law enforcement hiring entities, such as police departments, should be considered. 34 APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST) Police Officer Certification Revocation Information Sharing National Public Safety Officer Decertification Database 2005 Survey of POST Agencies June 1, 2005 Dear POST Director, I am pleased to inform you of our success in securing funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the US Department of Justice for the further development of our National Decertification Database. The new project will maintain our current effort and result in an improved and more secure decertification pointer system. An essential task of the current project is this survey of all state POST agencies regarding current certification and revocation practices, policies and procedures. A summary report will be prepared and made available to all IADLEST member agencies. Please take the time to complete the survey and return to me by June 30 at: Raymond A. Franklin IADLEST Project Director Public Safety Education and Training Center 6852 4th Street Sykesville, MD 21784 A stamped and pre-addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience. Should you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me directly at 410-875-3606 or mail@rayfranklin.com. With best regards, Raymond A. Franklin Project Director 35 2005 Survey of POST Agencies Regarding Certification Practices Definitions Certification The state licensure or accreditation of peace officers, without which an individual may not legally perform the duties of a law enforcement officer. Revocation The permanent removal for cause of law enforcement officer certification. Often referred to as decertification or cancellation. Section A – Certification and Revocation Authority and Activity 1 2 3 Does your agency certify law enforcement officers? Yes No Does your agency have the authority to revoke certification for cause? Yes No What are the bases for revocation? Please check all that apply. Felony conviction Misdemeanor conviction Administratively for misconduct Failure to meet training/qualification requirements Termination of employment Other ............................................................................................................... 4 Any Certain In what year did your agency gain the authority to revoke certification? ................................................................................................................................. 5 How many officers have had certification revoked since authority was granted? ................................................................................................................................. 6 How many officers had their certification revoked in 2004? ................................................................................................................................. 7 8 Are revoked officers afforded due process though hearing or appeal? Yes No Can your agency temporarily suspend certification? Yes No 36 9 Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements, e.g. Chiefs, Sheriffs, State Patrol? Yes (Identify below) No ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. 10 Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers? Yes (Explain below) No ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. 11 Does your agency also certify: Yes No Correctional Officers ......................................................................... ................ Parole/Probation Officers .................................................................. ................ Private Security Officers ................................................................... ................ Communications Personnel/Dispatchers .......................................... ................ Other ....................................................................................................................... 12 Additional information or comments: ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. Section B – Certification Information Management 1 What methods do you use to manage the certification/revocation function? Please check all that apply. Card based manual system Agency developed electronic data management system Commercial electronic data management system Software name/manufacturer ........................................................................ Other .............................................................................................................. 37 2 Certification records are numbered using: Social Security Number (SSN) A variation or modification of SSN A non-SSN related number 3 How long are records maintained? Indefinitely ......................................................................................................................... 4 Does your agency issue wallet cards or other pocket proof of certification for officers? Yes 5 No Does your agency maintain records of denial of initial certification? Yes 6 No Additional information or comments: ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. Section C – Revocation Information Sharing 1 2 3 4 Is your agency legislatively proscribed from sharing revocation information? No Yes Unknown Does your agency publish revocation actions? Yes No Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification Database (NDD)? Yes No If your agency does NOT contribute to the IADLEST NDD, please state the reason(s). ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. 38 5 6 7 8 Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database? Routinely Occasionally Never Would you consider participation in an improved national revocation database? Yes No In your personal opinion, should query access to the database be made available to law enforcement hiring entities? Yes No Additional information or comments: ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................. Section D – Respondent Information Name Agency Telephone E-Mail Address Please return the completed survey to: Raymond A. Franklin IADLEST Project Director Public Safety Education and Training Center 6852 4th Street Sykesville, MD 21784 39 APPENDIX B – SURVEY DISTRIBUTION LIST R. Alan Benefield, Chief Alabama Police Officers Standards and Training P.O. Box 300075 Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0075 Jim Meehan, Acting Director Alaska Police Standards 4500 Diplomacy Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99508 Thomas Hammarstrom, Executive Director Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training 2543 East University Drive Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Terry Bolton, Executive Director Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy P.O. Box 3106 East Camden, Arkansas 71701 Kenneth J. O'Brien, Executive Director California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training 1601 Alahambra Blvd. Sacramento, California 95816 John Kammerzell, Executive Director Colorado Police Officers Standards and Training 1525 Sherman Ave., 5th Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Thomas Flaherty, Director Police Standards and Training 285 Preston Avenue Meriden, Connecticut 06450-4891 Joan Weiss, District of 300 Indiana Washington, Executive Director Columbia Police Training and Standards Board Avenue, NW, Suite 5031 DC 20001 Harry W. Downes Director of Training Delaware State Police Training 1453 North DuPont Highway Dover, Delaware 19901-0430 Bill Hutson, Director Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Council 5000 Austell Power Springs Road, Suite 261 Austell, Georgia 30106 Michael Crews, Program Director Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Robert Prasser Honolulu Police Department 801 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 40 Michael N. Becar, Executive Director Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training P.O. Box 700 Meridian, Idaho 83680-0700 Thomas J. Jurkanin, Ph.D. Executive Director Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board 600 S. Second Street, Suite 300 Springfield, Illinois 62704-2542 E. A. "Penny" Westfall, Director Iowa Law Enforcement Academy P.O. Box 130 Johnston, Iowa 50131-0130 Scott C. Mellinger, Executive Director Indiana Law Enforcement Training 5402 Sugar Grove, P.O. Box 313 Plainfield, Indiana 46168-0313 Ed H. Pavey, Director Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center P.O. Box 647 Hutchinson, Kansas 67504-0647 John Bizzack, Commissioner Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training 521 Lancaster Rd., Funderburk Bldg. Richmond, Kentucky 40475-3137 Michael Ranatza, Executive Director Louisiana Police Officers Standards and Training Council 1885 Wooddale Blvd., Room 208 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806 John B. Rogers, Director Criminal Justice Academy 15 Oak Grove Road Vassalboro, Maine 04989 Patrick Bradley, Executive Director Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions 6852 4th Street Sykesville, Maryland 21784 Dennis Pinkham, Executive Director Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council 484 Shea Memorial Drive South Weymouth, Massachusetts 02190 Raymond Beach, Jr., Executive Director Commission on Law Enforcement Standards 7426 North Canal Road Lansing, Michigan 48913 Neil Melton, Executive Director Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training 1600 University Ave., Suite 200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825 Robert D. Davis, Executive Director Board of Law Enforcement Standards and Training 3750 I-55 Frontage Road, North Jackson, Mississippi 39211 41 Jeremy Spratt, Program Manager Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training P.O. Box 749 Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0749 Allen Horsfall, Executive Director Montana Police Officers Standards and Training P.O. Box 201408 Helena, Montana 59620-1408 Steve Lamken, Director Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center 3600 North Academy Road Grand Island, Nebraska 68801-0403 Richard Clark, Executive Director Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training 5587 Wai Pai Shone Avenue Carson City, Nevada 89701 Keith H. Lohmann, Director Police Standards and Training 17 Institute Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301-7413 Donald McCann, Chief New Jersey Police Services Section P.O. Box 085 Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0085 Thomas D. Lyon, Director Department of Public Safety Training and Recruiting Division 4491 Cerrillos Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507-9721 James R. DeLapp, Deputy Commissioner OPS New York Division of Criminal Justice Services 4 Tower Place Albany, New York 12203-3764 D. Scott Perry, Director North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training P.O. Box 149 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mark Gilbertson, Executive Secretary North Dakota Police Officers Standards and Training Board P.O. Box 1054 Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-1054 Steve Schierholt, Executive Director Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy P.O. 309 London, Ohio 43140 Jeanie Nelson, Ph.D., Director Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training P.O. Box 11476 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73136-0476 John Minnis, Director Department of Public Safety Standards and Training 550 North Monmouth Ave. Monmouth, Oregon 97361 42 John Gallaher, Executive Director Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission 8002 Bretz Drive Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-9748 Glenford Shibley, Acting Director Police Academy Flanagan Campus 1762 Louisquisset Pike Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865 William R. Neill, Deputy Director South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy P.O. Box 1993 Blythewood, South Carolina 29206-1993 Bryan Gortmaker, Training Administrator Rol Kebach Criminal Justice Training Center East Highway 34, 500 East Capitol Pierre, South Dakota 57501-7070 Mark Bracy, Director Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Academy 3025 Lebanon Road Nashville, Tennessee 37214-2217 Jim Dozier, J.D., Ph.D. Executive Director Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education 6330 U.S. Hwy 290 East, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78723 Robert W. Morris, Acting Director Peace Officer Standards and Training Post Office Box 141775 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1775 R.J. Elrick, Executive Director Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council 317 Sanatorium Road Pittsford, Vermont 05763 George Gotschalk, Chief Standards and Training Department of Criminal Justice Services 805 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Michael Parsons, Ph.D., Executive Director Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission 19010 1st Ave. South Burien, Washington 98148 Chuck Sadler, Executive Director Criminal Justice and Highway Safety 1204 Kanawha Blvd. East Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Dennis Hanson, Director Wisconsin Training and Standards Bureau P.O. Box 7070 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7070 Donald Pierson, Executive Director Wyoming Peace Officers Standards and Training 1710 Pacific Ave. Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 43
