AAMVANET: The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators' data services network contains the National Driver Register, Commercial Driver License Information System, and other information of interest to licensing, regulatory, and law enforcement agencies.

AASHTO: The American Association of State Highway Trans-portation Officials.

BAC: Blood Alcohol Concentration. This is measured in driving-while- intoxicated cases.

CAMPAIGN SAFE & SOBER: A two-year NHTSA program to reduce alcohol-related fatalities to 15,400 and increase safety belt use to 75 percent by 1997. These goals will be accom-plished through a combination of enforcement, public information and education, and legislative initiatives.

CARE: Combined Accident Reduction Effort. Operation CARE, a group of state police and highway patrol agencies who conduct unified and concentrated efforts in traffic law enforce-ment along interstate highways, particularly on holiday weekends.

CDL: A Commercial Driver's License issued by a state, entitling a person to operate a commercial motor vehicle weighing in excess of 26,001 pounds manufacturer's gross vehicle weight rating, carries 16 or more passengers including the driver, or carries hazardous materials.

CDLIS: The nationwide Commercial Driver's License Information System, which contains all commercial driver license information including driving histories of problem commercial drivers. It is typically on-line with the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) agencies in the various states.

CHEM-TREK: A 24-hour toll-free telephone service that provides law enforcement and emergency response agencies with information for identifying hazardous materials involved in spills, and recommends mitigation strategies. Chem-Trek is sponsored by the National Chemical Manufacturers' Asso-ciation.

CVSA: The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.

DARE: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, a copyrighted curricu-lum. The program, which trains police officers to present anti-drug programs in public schools, was started by the Los Angeles Police Department.

DOT: The U.S. Department of Transportation. Also applies to departments of transportation in various states, such as the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT).

DRE: A Drug Recognition Expert. Trained and certified in the IACP Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, a DRE is experienced in administering a battery of physical tests and clinical observations to suspected drug impaired drivers.

DUI: Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, a criminal offense in most states and provinces.

DWI: Driving while intoxicated; the same as DUI.

EVOC: Emergency Vehicle Operator's Course. A curriculum developed by NHTSA in cooperation with national police training professionals to teach proper techniques for operation of police and other vehicles in emergency conditions.

FARS: The Fatal Accident Reporting System, maintained by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The system gathers data on all fatal accidents in the United States through reports collected by state-level agencies.

FBINA: The Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy located at Quantico, Virginia. The academy offers a command training program for high-level officials of state and local law enforcement agencies, and police officials from foreign countries.

FEMA: The Federal Emergency Management Administration, located at Emmetsburg, Maryland, which provides federal emergency assistance at the scenes of catastrophes and national disasters, operates the National Fire Academy, and publishes the national model curriculum for first responders to hazardous materials accidents.

FHWA: The Federal Highway Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation, which administers federal highway trust fund expenditures to the individual states, and sets standards for the construction and maintenance of inter-state highways.

FMVSS: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

FOP: The Fraternal Order of Police, a national police organization sometimes involved in labor activities as a collective bargaining agent.

FRA: The Federal Railroad Administration is the entity within the U.S. Department of Transportation which monitors the safe operation of railroads. It develops and enforces rail safety regulations, investigates accidents, manages rail safety and highway-rail grade crossing safety programs.

GCCI: Grade Crossing Collision Investigation, a highway-railroad grade crossing safety awareness program, coordinated through a national railroad safety program, Operation Lifesaver. GCCI provides one to three-day training classes, at no cost to the agency, tailored to specific law enforcement agency needs.

HAZMAT: Hazardous materials, generally used in the context of hazardous materials regulatory enforcement.

HGN: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, which uses a phenomenon brought on by alcohol and other substances, to assist in determining the blood alcohol level or drug impairment of suspected drunk drivers by examining the angle of onset of nystagmus, a jerking of the eyeballs.

HSC: The Advisory Committee on Highway Safety of the Inter-national Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.

IACP: The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc.

IADLEST: The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (POST).

ICS: Incident Command System, the system used by fire departments and police agencies to organize and implement emergency measures to mitigate major incidents.

IPTM: The Institute of Police Technology and Management at the University of South Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, which conducts law enforcement training programs and operates a radar testing laboratory.

ITE: The Institute of Transportation Engineers.

IVHS: Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems, a system of computerized hazard detection and warning, trip routing and other capabilities, which interfaces on-board computers in vehicles with on-board radar and electronic roadside warning beacons. J. Stannard Baker Award: An annual award presented by the International Association of the Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association to state, county and local police officers and private citizens who have made outstanding contributions to the field of traffic safety. The award is named after the founder of the Traffic Safety Institute at Northwestern University. Winners are selected by the IACP Advisory Committee on Highway Safety and the National Sheriffs' Association.

MCSAP: The Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program, a system of federal funding of state agencies to assist the federal Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) in enforcing motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations at the state level.

NDLC: The National Driver License Compact, a program administered by AAMVA in which approximately 43 states participate.

NDR: The National Driver Register, a NHTSA program linked by AAMVANET and maintained by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.

NHTSA: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the entity within the U.S. Department of Transportation which provides federal grants to state pass-through agencies for the maintenance of innovative traffic safety programs, conducts research, and sets federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

NIST: The National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly the National Bureau of Standards.

NMSL: The National Maximum Speed Limit as adopted by Congress and the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-istration Federal Highway Administration, currently 65 mph on most interstate highways.

NSA: The National Sheriffs' Association.

NSC: The National Safety Council.

NTC: The National Troopers' Coalition.

NTSB: The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates major transportation accidents and makes recom-mendations for improved transportation safety.

NUTI: The Northwestern University Traffic Institute at North-western University in Evanston, Illinois, which conducts research and offers innovative traffic safety training programs, including the so-called “long course,” for commanders of police department traffic bureaus and divisions.

OL: Operation Lifesaver, a nationwide, nonprofit public informa-tion and education program dedicated to reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings.

OOT: Officer on the Train, a highway-railroad grade crossing safety awareness program coordinated through a national rail-road safety program, Operation Lifesaver. OOT places police officers aboard trains to radio traffic violations to other officers strategically located at or near grade crossings that have a history of collisions and traffic violations.

Operation Pipeline: An enforcement effort along major highway corridors to identify and intercept drug couriers. The operation commonly uses profiles of typical vehicles and driver behaviors that have been proven in the past to indicate a vehi-cle or driver is transporting narcotics or dangerous drugs.

OPUE: Occupant Protection Usage and Enforcement. A NHTSA program designed to provide police agencies with a model curriculum and programs to promote and enforce the use of safety belts and child safety seats.

OSHA: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, which sets standards in many occupational safety areas, including the allowable emissions of police traffic radar devices.

OUIL: Operating Under the Influence of Liquor, a criminal charge similar to DWI or DUI.

PBT: A Preliminary Breath Test, usually accomplished by means of an electronic or balloon-style device which determines at roadside whether or not a driver has consumed alcoholic bev-erages, and to what extent.

PMVI: Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection, generally a statewide program for the safety inspection of vehicles either at state-owned inspection stations or licensed private stations.

PTS: Police Traffic Services.

RSPA: The Research and Special Programs Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, which is responsible for promulgating the provisions of the Code of Federal Regula-tions pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials.

SACOP: The State Associations of Chiefs of Police, a division of the IACP.

SAFETYNET: Computerized nationwide data bank maintained by the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program for tracking commercial driver enforcement.

ST:Standardized Field Sobriety Testing, a model curriculum developed by the IACP Highway Safety Advisory Committee and NHTSA for performing uniform and standardized road-side physical tests on suspected drunken drivers, based on medically approved techniques.

STEP: Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs, targeted to the times of day, days of week, locations, and types of violations that cause accidents; an early form of directed patrol but specifically devised for traffic enforcement.

TITLE 49: Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which contains the regulations on the interstate transportation of hazardous materials.

UTCD: Uniform Traffic Control Devices Committee, a group of primarily engineers who maintain and revise the National Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

UVC: The Uniform Vehicle Code, a model code that is maintained by a standing committee of experts, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances.

VDP: Violator Directed Patrol.

The following is a listing of the associated groups currently active in the highway safety field, together with a brief description of their administrative organization and relationship.

AAMVA (The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators) This organization represents the driver license and motor vehicle registration agencies in the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian Provinces. The organization is regionalized, with a regional staff member living within each region. Its headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area has a salaried executive director with the full-time task of overseeing AAMVA functions and staff, including the following:

AAMVANET (The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators Network) is a teletype network that connects all member agencies and several federal agencies. The commercial driver license information system (CDLIS) and the National Driver Register (NDR) are connected to this network. Administrative messages, as well as driver license and registration checks, are available. The Driver License Committee is comprised of the various administrators involved in issuing driver's licenses. Many issues dealt with in this committee have a direct impact on law enforcement.

IRP (The International Registration Plan) is a prorating system of registering commercial vehicles between the states. AAMVA and the private sector work closely with member states to encourage and further enhance this concept. Under the concept, a commercial vehicle is registered in the homestate and issued a plate marked "APPORTIONED." At the time of registration, the applicant declares any other IRP member states in which he intends to operate, and a prorated portion of the registration fee is forwarded to each of these member states.

PTS (The Police Traffic Services Committee) is the only law enforcement group within the AAMVA. This committee is made up of representatives of many of the same agencies that belong to the Division of State and Provincial Police of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. It is impor-tant to maintain the law enforcement presence at AAMVA in order to have an impact on AAMVA's decisions in the driver licensing and registration areas. The additional benefit of having the support of both the IACP and AAMVA on law enforcement issues is positive. Because the motor vehicle administrators are the dues paying members of AAMVA, however, they generally have sufficient votes to affect any decisions within their own administrations, and the police input, from a practical standpoint, is mostly advisory. The Registration and Title Committee, as in the case of the Driver License Committee, affects law enforcement directly. The issues of whether one or two plates should be issued to a vehicle, what kind of plates should be issued, and how they should be displayed, as well as anti-theft issues affecting the titling of motor vehicles, receive serious consideration by this committee.

AASHTO (The American Association of State Highway Traffic Officials) This association consists mainly of the directors of the public works and highways or transportation agencies in the United States. Their main thrust is in Washington, D.C., where the federal highway trust fund monies are dispensed by Congress. This group is well-staffed and powerful as a lobbying group. Generally, the practical way for law enforcement to have input and dialogue with AASHTO is through a state member agency rather than through the association staff. The Traffic Safety Committee deals with traffic safety issues but mostly from the engineering standpoint. There is no representation from the area of law enforcement on this committee, nor is AASHTO currently represented in any law enforcement groups.

ASLET (The American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers) Headquartered in Lewes, Delaware, this fast-growing association is a loosely knit group of national law enforcement instructors, both free-lance and employed by state and local training institutions and police departments.

CSG (The Council of State Governments) This national organization has representation from the executive level of each state's government.

CVSA (The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) Made up of enforcement agencies in many of the United States and Canadian provinces, this federation is responsible for enforcing the state-level equivalence of the federal Office of Motor Carriers Rules, and the Hazardous Materials Regulations contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In some states, membership consists of the state police and highway patrol, while in others it consists of the agency that issues contract carrier operating rights, or the state transportation agency that operates the scales used for truck weight and size enforcement, or whatever agency handles the federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance (MCSAP) Program for that state. To join CVSA, a state must agree to conduct uniform roadside safety inspections of motor carriers and apply a sticker recognized by other member jurisdictions, so as to avoid putting interstate truckers through multiple roadside inspections in different states during the same time frame.

IACP (The International Association of Chiefs o f Police, Inc.) Headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, the IACP has a membership of nearly 14,000 police executives around the world, and operates with a salaried executive director and paid staff.

S&P (Division of State and Provincial Police) is comprised of 49 state police, departments of public safety, and highway patrol agencies in the United States, plus several provincial agencies in Canada and the Canadian Royal Mounted Police, who also provide traffic enforcement in some provinces in Canada. S&P has a division director and staff at the IACP headquarters. The division is divided into four US regions that also include the contiguous portions of Canada. These regions are the Mountain Pacific, North Central, Southern, and North Atlantic. Each region has a regional chairman, and one general chairman on a nationwide level represents the S&P Division on the executive board of the IACP.

HSC (IACP Advisory Committee on Highway Safety) consists of a cross-section of state and local police commanders who set policy and determine the IACP goals in the area of highway safety. The committee is appointed by the IACP president, and usually contains from 23 to 26 members. The members come from all types and sizes of law enforcement agencies, with consultants and representatives from the private sector as well. Other law enforcement groups, such as sheriffs, and government agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are also represented. The committee is staffed by S&P personnel.

DRE Section (Drug Recognition Experts) has been established with the IACP S&P Division to represent the DREs across the country. DRE training leads to a certification program that establishes minimum skills for detecting and prosecuting the drug-impaired driver.

TAP (Technical Advisory Panel), appointed by the chairman of the IACP Highway Safety Advisory Committee, contains representatives from various disciplines such as prosecutors, chemists, medical personnel, and police officers who are directly involved in the DRE and SFST programs. TAP advises the Highway Safety Committee and assists with keep-ing the DRE and SFST curricula and certification regulations updated.

RATS (Radar Advisory Technical Subcommittee), appointed by the chairman of the IACP Highway Safety Committee, consists of police officers, operators of testing laboratories, and manufacturers of traffic radar and LIDAR (LIght Detec-tion and Ranging) devices, along with a member from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). RATS advises the Highway Safety Committee on the radar testing program, which is overseen by the HSC and involves five testing laboratories across the nation and an established consu-mer product list (CPL) of acceptable radar units. State and Provincial Police Planners consists of planners from the state and provincial agencies, including state police, highway patrols, and departments of public safety, comprising the IACP S&P Division. The group meets annually to discuss mutual issues affecting their agencies. Staff is provided by the S&P Division.

SPADS (The State Police Academy Directors' Association) consists of the commanders and managers of the state police and highway patrol agencies in the United States and Canadian provinces who conduct training academies and are attached to the members of the IACP State and Provincial Division. Annual meetings are held and items of mutual concern are discussed. Staff is provided by the S&P Division.

SACOP (The State Association of Chiefs of Police) is an IACP division consisting of a coalition of state associations representing police chiefs in their states. State police agencies and major city chiefs may belong to some local SACOP associations in addition to being represented independently. SACOP is represented on the IACP Executive Board by a general chairman but has no dedicated staff. The Major City Chiefs is loosely knit group of chiefs from the larger metropolitan areas of the country. Meetings are called to discuss issues of mutual concern and seek solutions. This group has no dedicated representative of this group on the IACP Executive Board nor a dedicated IACP staff; however, because of their prominence and professional competence, individual members usually are represented as individuals on the IACP's Board of Officers.

IADLEST (The International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training) This group is composed of the staffs and directors of the states POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) councils, boards and commissions, and other regulatory agencies that set the standards for police officer certification and training. Membership is also extended to staffs of certified police academies in each state and to similar agencies in Canada and other nations. IADLEST commends model standards for POST agencies and police academies and develops model curricula in many areas, including police emergency driver training and the operation of electronic speed measuring devices, such as radar, photo radar, and LIDAR. The group is well-funded but has no permanent headquarters. The secretariat is located in the office of whoever is the president of the association in a given year.

NAGHSR (The National Association of Governors ' Highway Safety Representatives) These are the state-level administrators who control the federal funds entering each state from NHTSA and, in some instances, the FHWA. Each state is required to have a governor's highway safety representative so that it is represented in this group.

NATIONAL ALERT A nationwide organization of police emergency driver training instructors, NATIONAL ALERT meets periodically, usually at the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia, to discuss matters of mutual interest.

NCSL (The National Conference of State Legislators) This group is composed of speakers of states houses of representatives, presidents of state senates, majority and minority leaders and whips, and influential committee chairmen and members of the various state legislatures. They meet periodically to discuss trends in legislation and to share resources and ideas.

NCUTLO (The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances) This group is responsible for maintaining the cutting edge of legislation and for publishing the uniform vehicle code (UVC), a recommended model code used by law enforcement agencies, motor vehicle administrators, and legislators to formulate new traffic laws and ordinances. The goals of the group is (1) to have uniformity among the traffic laws and ordinances of the various states and jurisdictions, so that persons traveling from one state or community to another will not unwittingly find themselves in violation of some unique law that exists only in one jurisdiction; and also (2) to address traffic safety problems with innovative and effective legislation. This group is comprised of a cross-section of voting members, including officials of state agencies, nonprofit organizations, and dues paying private sector representatives, who serve indefinite terms. The secretariat is currently located at the Traffic Institute of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. The group meets at least biennially to debate proposed changes to the Uniform Code.

NGA (The National Governors’ Association) This organization consists of the governors of the 50 states and the premiers of the Canadian provinces and their top staffs. Members meet periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern among the states, and to support, propose, or endorse legislation in many areas, including criminal laws and highway safety.

NOBLE (The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives) Headquartered in the Washington, D.C., area, NOBLE is comprised of African American command officers in law enforcement agencies. It conducts training programs in areas such as cultural diversity and domestic violence, promotes proactive policies to end discrimination in law enforcement agencies, and takes positions on legislation.

NSA (The National Sheriffs' Association) Comprised of the elected law enforcement officials at the county level throughout the United States, NSA has a Traffic Safety Committee and is also represented on the Highway Safety Advisory Committee of the IACP with special consultant status.

NSC (The National Safety Council) This large nonprofit safety organization focuses on the prevention of home and industrial accidents and, in part, on traffic safety. It also franchises a nationwide model defensive driving curriculum, including one targeted at police driver training.

UTCD (The Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) This working committee is composed mainly of traffic engineers employed by state highway departments and departments of trans-portation. It maintains the Manual on Uniform Control Devices, the engineer's bible for the installation of traffic lights, signs, striping, and other traffic control devices. The IACP has one member (and alternate), who represents the law enforcement point of view on the issues discussed. The discussions are lively, and law enforcement has one vote.

Are Effective Traffic Officers an Endangered Species?

Sometimes effective traffic enforcement in certain localities appears as though it has gone the way of the Dodo bird. The next time you take a trip for an hour or more, count how many police you see who have stopped violators or whose vehicles are parked where they can strategically observe the traffic flow. Better yet, observe how many officers pass a stranded motorist without stopping to assist. And when was the last time you noticed an officer in a marked patrol car watching an intersection for stop sign violations, or surveilling a stretch of road for motorists passing over solid lines?

Inconsistent, Untargeted Enforcement

Too frequently, when enforcement does take place, it consists of issuing a batch of citations at a location where motorists may be exceeding the speed limit but accidents are minimal, instead of targeting a location where unsafe actions are contributing to crashes. This type of inconsistent, "here today and gone tomorrow" enforcement only arouses ire and disrespect on the part of the public. Motorists driving at legal speeds tend to be passed as though they were standing still, and traffic control devices are routinely disregarded by some motorists. Is it any wonder that criminals in some jurisdictions no longer hesitate to ply their trade for fear of being stopped by an alert traffic officer? Or that some motorists whose aggressive driving mirrors an aggressive personality are increasingly settling traffic disputes with gunfire? Why should license revocations be a deterrent if the odds against being stopped are so great? And is it any wonder that despite improvements in vehicle and roadway safety and public crusades, the deaths, suffering and lost productivity from traffic crashes still make them America's number-one public health hazard?

Accountability Problems

If you ask your officers how they can drive around for eight hours without making a traffic stop, they will say they are busy running from call to call. Yet more creative use of whatever uncommitted time is available would yield major dividends in the fight against traffic deaths and injuries. Some departments have raised a generation of officers who rely on moving radar for all their traffic activity—if, indeed, they regard traffic work as real police work at all. Officers with this attitude lose the many opportunities presented when serious crimes are detected through a supposedly random traffic stop. They also miss out on the public relations benefits accrued by them personally and by the department from providing a variety of services and a sense of security to the traveling public.

Policy Considerations

Reversing this trend needs to start at the top. As administrators, through our written policies, public pronouncements and personal examples, we need to demonstrate that we believe traffic work is an important part of every uniformed officer's job. We should insist that line supervisors accompany traffic officers on their shifts occasionally, and call them to task if they fail to stop vehicles for not only moving traffic violations but also equipment violations, or if they fail to spend part of each shift on visible traffic patrol.

Making Use of Data

Systems should be in place to review the traffic productivity of our officers, focusing on the number of contacts per hour rather than setting a quota for citations. We need to look at the quality and variety of citations and warnings issued and match them up through an effective traffic records system to be sure the traffic laws are being enforced at the times and places where they can reduce collisions. We must be responsive to public complaints about dangerous traffic conditions. And we need to retrain our field training officers to be sure they acquire the skills that good traffic officers should have, and pass them along to the new officers on the department.

Conclusion

If we allow good traffic work to go the way of the Dodo bird, we will eventually consign the entire patrol function to the same fate, because traffic is such an integral part of visible, alert patrol tactics. Once this type of police work makes it to the endangered species list, it will take more than a couple of additional accredita-tion managers sitting in the office to restore sanity to our troubled streets and highways.

In practice, Arizona found that a VDP project in a given area virtually eliminated collisions, thereby realizing the traffic safety objective. The criminal investigative objective required more time, because the skills being taught were new. Training dealt with a myriad of subjects. Officer safety was stressed, particularly in situations requiring searches or arrests. The fundamental cautions were reemphasized: Wear gloves, watch for needles, and call for backup.
Time was invested in teaching probable cause. A few of the basics: Is the driver the registered owner? Is the driver's ID valid? Are vehicle and driver from the same location? Does the driver know where and when the car was last serviced? Is the car a rental? If so, did the driver rent it? Is the driver authorized on the rental agreement? Is luggage in the vehicle? How long is the trip? Plus many more. As training progressed, one thing became clear; there is no profile of the “typical criminal” or “typical drug trafficker.” Indicators, certainly, but no-cut-and-dried formula. Experience reveals that people and vehicles of every description can be criminally involved.
Any stop begins with a traffic infraction, observed and identifiable. Development of probable cause for suspected criminal activity starts only after the legitimate traffic stop. And very often, it ends with a consent search, another critical element in many investigative sequences. Consent is the key word. The subject must consent, preferably in writing.

Arizona's results have been rewarding. The Highway Patrol Bureau (500-plus officers) recovered 600 to 700 stolen vehicles per year before VDP. The figure doubled to 1,413 with VDP. Drug seizures and felony arrests reflected similar increases. All of this was achieved while maintaining the desired emphasis on traffic safety objectives; in fact, Arizona's traffic fatality rate stood at an all-time low. The California Highway Patrol initially became involved in Operation Pipeline because several Pipeline highways traverse the state, notably Interstate Routes 5, 8, 10, 15, and 40. Officers working these highways learned the pertinent identification skills and legal latitudes. So did commercial officers, whose investigative abilities were upgraded through a program known as CONET (Commercial Officer Narcotic Enforcement Team). CONET also counts as full partners the 20 drug-sniffing dogs now fielded by the CHP. Next came training of all field officers, bringing the number of skilled patrol observers to approximately 5,000. The results describe the payoff. The CHP makes more in-custody arrests than any other California police agency, and many of the arrests are of suspected felons.

How VDP Works

The new sensitivity imparted by the training boosted drug seizures and drug arrests, but the trigger mechanism remains a traffic stop. The seemingly minor infraction can start a chain of events leading to a narcotics find. Here are examples:

1. The driver of a vehicle stopped for a broken windshield could produce neither a driver's license nor vehicle registration. Prior to storing the vehicle, the officer made a routine inventory. The trunk contained 227 pounds of marijuana.

2. An officer issuing a citation was approached by another motorist seeking help to arrange a tow because his car engine was misfiring. The officer noticed that the vehicle displayed no registration stickers. He checked the plate number and discovered the vehicle was listed as stolen. He arrested the ver. A subsequet vehicle search uncovered drug manufacturing equipment, aphphetamine and marijuana.

3. Two men aboard a tractor-trailer stopped for a traffic violation exhibited what the CHP calls indicators—not a definition, but a suggestion to investigate further—of possible criminal association. Written consent to search the truck led to the discovery of 1,452 pounds of cocaine, valued at $57 million on the street.

4. Cocaine proved to be secreted in a passenger car searched with the driver's consent after being stopped for a traffic violation. A drug-sniffing K-9 quickly located a metal box, disguised as a gas tank, attached to the rear undercarriage. Inside: 20 pounds of the drug.

5. A freeway beat officer, going off-duty and heading toward his office, spotted a wrong-side driver on a city street. He made the stop, found the subject was under the influence; a vehicle inventory turned up a hypodermic containing a brown liquid. Interrogation led to an admission that the subject was on parole. The patrol office authorized a search of the subject's home, which uncovered several drug caches, including one in the wife's purse. She also was arrested for possession of narcotics.

6. Occasionally, the evidence simply presents itself. Investigating a crash, officers found an Uzi machine gun had been ejected from one vehicle. That dramatic clue led to a search of the suspect's clothing, revealing marijuana and a bundle of cash.

7. Finally, a traffic stop of a man driving a rental truck led to a consent search. This time the contraband was not drugs but stolen furniture worth $13,000.

Go Where the Problem Is

Thirty years ago, traffic enforcement emerged from the dark ages of hit-and-miss deployment to the logical and effective strategy of selective enforcement. Go where the biggest problem is; attack the major causes. That's the basic reason drunk driving became such a high enforcement priority and why safety belt enforcement is emphasized today. Effort applied in those two areas produces proportionately greater benefits. Criminal enforcement in those earlier years was mostly a bonus. Felony arrests were infrequent, not because criminals weren't using cars, but rather, the importance of emphasizing criminal enforcement had not yet made itself widely felt within traffic work. The necessity for combining skills began to overtake all police agencies, as phrases such as “cut-back management” and “doing more with less” became familiar. The urgency to run tighter ships is never more obvious than now, when governments at all levels are short of funds. The tendency to expect more of public employees is common and police agencies are not exempt. Criminal investigators now look to road patrols for help in both gathering intelligence and intercepting criminals on the streets and highways.
The reaction of state police and highway patrols has been positive, but their response was restrained because the resource equation seemed out of balance. Shifting emphasis always means shifting resources from one priority to another—or does it? That ultimately proved the key—finding a way to absorb a new responsibility without undermining existing duties. Officers working traffic enforcement, fulfilling a critical safety mission, can undertake the criminal identification task as long as they can handle it in parallel with the basic traffic assignment. History now declares that they can and they do, and that's why the new program works so well.
It also provides an answer to the challenge sometimes issued by irritated motorists reacting to a traffic stop: “Why aren't you out arresting criminals?” We are, but in addition to, not at the expense of, the traffic law enforcement responsibility. Patrolling our streets and highways remains the vital task of protecting public safety, through the proven deterrence of aggressive, intelligent traffic law enforcement. That won't change. What has changed is the level of police officers' capabilities. They just got better. And the public is reaping the benefits.

Let's examine these principles and see how community policing strategies can be applied.

Admitting the Need for Citizen Help

Although our streets and highways have grown relatively safer over the past decade, with the death toll per 100 million miles dropping, an increase in licensed drivers and registered vehicles, as well as congestion, is clogging both our arterial and our city streets. Traffic crashes remain the leading accidental cause of death in the U.S., and are responsible for a major negative impact on our economy. Most state, county, and local police departments are understaffed, and can use all the help they can get. Just as Neighborhood Watch programs have helped discourage residential burglaries and led to the apprehension of criminals, so can group and individual action by citizens lead to the identi-fication of unsafe streets and highways and the apprehension of drunken and drugged drivers, as well as those whose total disrespect for law and order leads them to drive after their licenses have been suspended or revoked. A few states have experimented with REDDI (Report Every Drunk Driver Immediately) toll-free telephone lines where citizens can report drunk drivers, but we have only begun to scratch the surface of available citizen assistance and involvement. Our crime prevention officers need to team up with our traffic officers and let participants in Neighborhood Watch know how to report dangerous drivers. Taxis, public utility vehicles and others with commercial two-way radio communications, drivers with cellular phones and truckers with CB radios can all be enlisted in the war on dangerous driving.

Having Our Customers Identify Problems

Social scientists have discovered that, in terms of its effect on the quality of life in the United States, the fear of crime is perhaps as important as the presence of crime itself. Similarly, practitioners of community policing have found that helping residents clean up neighborhoods of such nuisances as abandoned cars and dilapidated buildings allows people to feel safer on the streets, instills more pride in communities, and gets citizens in the habit of working with the police. Just as people fear a gang of roughnecks on the street corner or the presence of a neighborhood drug hangout, so do they fear for the safety of their children playing near the street if their neighborhood is plagued by screeching tires at all hours.

Thanks to interstate speed limits and monitoring criteria, traffic enforcement effort in recent years has been diverted to the interstate system. Citizens who do not respect the arbitrary 55 mph speed limits posted in areas selected because of population figures rather than traffic hazards, have come to regard speed violations as trivial. We must try to restore respect for traffic laws by deploying more officers to the locations where the citizens themselves are troubled by dangerous drivers. We must teach our officers to rely on more than just a radar gun. People will feel safer—and those prone to disobey the law will be more effectively deterred—if some of the low-profile radio cars now sitting at crossovers could spend more of their time in high-visibility activities, such as monitoring solid lines, stop signs and school bus stops; sitting in locations where neighbors complain about careless drivers; and frequently checking vehicles with defective lighting equipment while patrolling an area characterized by licensed drinking establishments.

Targeting Proactive Enforcement

As police departments move away from the notion that all calls for service, regardless of their nature, require an immediate response by uniformed officers in radio cars, and adopt differential response strategies that permit the use of directed patrols designed according to crime analysis, we need to examine our traffic records systems, as well. Do our traffic records adequately identify the times of day, days of the week, locations and violations that are causing the most serious traffic crashes? Do the traffic citations issued indicate adequate enforcement against these types of violations, or are our officers simply looking for easy targets?
In developing directed patrols, we need to be sure that traffic enforcement is one of the priorities, and that it is targeted toward the known causes of crashes and the traffic problems of most concern to our citizens. We must also encourage our officers to stop and direct traffic whenever possible at locations where congestion poses an annoyance to the traveling public.

Using Nontraditional Approaches

Saturation enforcement and the issuance of traffic tickets have traditionally been the primary means used by police to make our streets and highways safer. However, just as proponents of community policing have employed a broad range of strategies and involved other government and private agencies to attack the crime problem, these strategies will also alleviate traffic problems. If available manpower does not permit adequate enforcement at a location where illegal left turns are causing accidents, why not team up with the Public Works Department to erect temporary barricades or some other solution? Why not convince the city to condemn and tear down a vacant building to make room for a left-turn storage lane? The possibilities are limitless, just as they are in any other form of community policing.

Delegating Authority

In these days when risk management and national accreditation are moving us closer to a painting-by-the-numbers style of law enforcement, we must find new ways to empower our employees to work on innovative solutions within the community and make it clear that they will not be penalized for doing so. We must replace enforcement strategies that too often lead to officers sporadically “swooping down out of nowhere” to ticket citizens in response to a commander's once-a-month concerns about activity, or a loud complainer who gets the right ear at headquarters. Enforcement can be efficient and still not be effective, but effective enforcement by its very definition is always efficient. We need to move our officers out into the community, both to perform high-profile stationary observation at strategic times and locations and to make them available and approachable to citizens who wish to exchange valuable information on neighborhood problems, crime and otherwise. It is no longer a viable excuse to say that our officers “don't have the time”; indeed, we cannot afford not to develop this type of interactive policing.

Conclusion

Near the beginning of the twenty-first century, it appears that any economic recovery may be shallow and gradual, and that police departments will find it difficult to obtain the resources they need for the demanding jobs that lie ahead. With deaths, injuries and property damage from traffic crashes eclipsing all other accidental causes of human suffering and economic loss, we cannot afford to neglect the traffic problem. By adapting community policing strategies to traffic enforcement, we can “work smarter” and obtain more community support for our efforts.

Setting Policy For Successful Traffic Enforcement

As the head of a law enforcement agency, you have the responsibility to provide guidance and direction to your employees in accomplishing the goals of your organization. As well, you should encourage them to participate actively in establishing a standard of professionalism that will bring credit to them as individual officers and to you and your organization. Deaths, injuries, and economic losses from traffic crashes consti-tute the number one public health problem in nearly every country in the free world. A successful police administrator will use the “bully pulpit” of policy making to ensure that his officers place the proper priority on traffic enforcement activities.

Defining Your Agency's Mission

Begin at the very basic level of your agency's mission statement, and make a value statement as well. Make certain that the mission and value statements contain strong wording that clearly tell both the public and the members of the department that traffic enforcement is seen as a vital component of any community or service-oriented policing effort, and the responsibility of every uniformed officer, regardless of rank or assignment. Run your department according to a management-by-objectives or total quality management approach that includes a long-range strategic plan, and that traffic is represented in this plan. To emphasize this perspective at the operational level, traffic productivity should be an aspect of the periodic personnel evalua-tions of all uniformed officers. Data should be collected on which to base these evaluations. To avoid accusations of setting a quota for enforcement, base your evaluation criteria on all self-initiated contacts, and do not overemphasize citations. First-line supervisors should take corrective action whenever an officer spends an appreciable amount of time on the road without making a reasonable number of self-initiated traffic contacts. Likewise, mid-managers should hold first-line supervisor's feet to the fire to ensure they're carrying out their responsibilities. A component of each field training officer program should include sufficient emphasis on traffic activities. When writing policies for your department, consult the standards contained in the manual of the Commission for Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc (CALEA). That way, even if your department is not presently accredited, should you desire to become accredited at some future date, you will have a lot less work to do to conform your policies to CALEA standards.

Concentrating Your Efforts

When you begin reviewing or developing traffic policies, concen-trate first on the highest liability areas, which include pursuits, high-risk vehicle response, road blocks and forcible stopping tactics, and drunk and drugged driver enforcement. Other important areas affecting traffic safety operations include fleet accident review, transportation of prisoners, fuel economy, and vehicle specifications and equipment. Liability for you and your department arises either when you do not have a policy or when a existing policy is inadequately explained through training or is not enforced. The policy and procedure manual should consist of procedural guidelines your members will use to perform their daily duties, as well as the policies themselves, which will be short descriptions of agency goals in particular situations. Detailed procedures for carrying out the policies should be explained clearly and concisely. When writing policies, make sure you focus on the expected results, not just the methods to be used in performing the task.

Operation of Emergency Vehicles

Training in the operation of emergency vehicles is one of the most important issues currently facing police administrators. Adequate training must be maintained to ensure that your officers are able to operate department vehicles competently during the response to an emergency and in pursuit situations. In addition, it is essential to develop a comprehensive emergency vehicle operations policy that is specific to your particular agency, not simply borrowed from elsewhere. Train each member of your department within the parameters of your particular agency's policy regarding both emergency response and pursuit. Make sure your instructors are well acquaint-ed with the policy and that their lesson plans conform to it. Do not have an unwritten response or pursuit policy—your members need to know where you stand on the issue and what guidelines they must follow in these situations. Your pursuit policy, when developed, should describe specifically how your department members are to conduct themselves when faced with a pursuit situation. The policy must address such issues as a clear, concise definition of the term “pursuit,” because a realistic definition encourages compliance.

Provide a precise description of the conditions under which your officers may initiate a pursuit. Pursuit should be discouraged for minor nonmoving violations. Limited pursuit is acceptable for moving violations. Pursuit is generally acceptable for serious moving violations. The policy should indicate how a pursuit is to be initiated, including the emergency warning devices to be utilized, and notification of a supervisor and/or communications center.

The duties of the primary and other available units should be spelled out in the policy. The primary unit should focus on the pursued vehicle, and other units should focus on obstacles and other motorists. Your policy should prohibit the operation of several police vehicles in a convoy fashion during a pursuit. When more than one vehicle is involved in a pursuit, the additional vehicles should follow along at near-legal speeds and merely position themselves to be of assistance once the pursuit is terminated. Depending on the size of your department, the number of street supervisors and watch commanders available, and the size and capability of the communications center, you should consider making a supervisor responsible for monitoring the progress of a pursuit. This supervisor should have the authority to terminate the pursuit at any time he feels the dangers inherent in the pursuit outweigh the value of apprehending the pursuit vehicle. Factors to be considered by both the supervisor and the driver of the pursuit vehicle should include the nature of the original violation, road and weather conditions, the nature of the pursuit locale, and the likelihood of success compared with the danger to the public. Reasons for discontinuing the pursuit should include loss of visual contact, increased danger to the public, or obtaining enough identification to apprehend the violator at a later date. Forcible stopping techniques should only rarely be used to terminate a pursuit, because the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Brower v. Inyo County that they constitute deadly force under some circumstances. Deadly force should only be used in the apprehension of someone who has committed a felony involving force or violence and all other means to effect their apprehension have failed, or when reasonably believed necessary to save the lives of other innocent citizens.

The technique of boxing in the pursuit vehicle between two patrol vehicles is extremely dangerous, not only to the suspect but to the operators of the patrol vehicles. Apprehending a motorist for traffic violations is seldom worth risking a whiplash injury, or worse, to a police officer. Under no circumstances should forcible stopping techniques such as rolling roadblocks or ramming be used, unless the officers have specifically received classroom and hands-on training in these techniques. When stationary roadblocks are set up, ample advance warning should be given to other motorists, and an escape route should be allowed for the pursued vehicle. Otherwise, if the pursued vehicle becomes involved in a crash at a road block and its driver or passenger is killed, the question will always arise as to whether or not deadly force was authorized. The use of hollow spikes sold by various police supply houses may be an acceptable alternative, but only when the use of such a technique is legally justified and the officers have been trained in its use. Once a fleeing motorist has been apprehended, additional use-of-force considerations come into play. An unfortunate incident can happen when police officers, high on adrenaline after a lengthy high-speed pursuit, confront an errant motorist. An instance that occurs all too frequently involves a police officer who attempts to remove a motorist forcibly from a vehicle at gunpoint and accidentally discharges his weapon. It is always preferable to wait for sufficient assistance before removing a motorist from a vehicle at the scene of a high-risk stop and to use the “contact/cover” principle, where one armed officer provides the firepower and an unarmed officer conducts the handcuffing and search. Because of the ease with which modern semiautomatic weapons will discharge, it is extremely important that officers be trained in the “on target-on trigger, off target-off trigger” principle of handling firearms. By exposing officers to scenario-type training with periodic retraining in these techniques, officer self-discipline will be attained. It is also necessary to have a supervisor proceed to the scene as quickly as possible and assume control of the situation.

3-1-6 Response to Emergency Calls

Every police department should develop a response policy that provides assistance to officers when they are responding to various calls for service. For instance, when responding to an accident, a call for assistance, or any emergency requiring officers to arrive at the scene as quickly and safely as possible, they should be required to activate their emergency warning devices and pay attention to state motor vehicle laws, including the conditions under which they may legally ignore traffic signals, the procedure to be followed when they do ignore the signal, and conditions under which they may exceed the maximum posted speed limits or disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified areas. Stress to the officers, both in the policy and during training sessions, that the emergency vehicle exemptions do not relieve the driver of an emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons; nor do these provisions protect a driver from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Operating a police vehicle either in pursuit or in response to an emergency call is extremely dangerous under conditions where the vehicle will be going the wrong way down a one-way street, entering a freeway entrance ramp from the opposite direction, or otherwise disregarding normal traffic flow conditions. Due to the extreme dangerousness of these tactics, they are seldom permissible. Policies should also provide that responses to non-injury crashes, service calls not involving a crime in progress, and other non-emergency situations should be accomplished at or below the speed limit, with regard to existing roadway and traffic conditions.

Mandatory Report On Pursuits
Your policy should require police officers to make a written report on every pursuit, whether successful or unsuccessful. These reports should be entered into a data bank to determine the extent to which your officers are engaging in high-speed pursuits, and the percentage of these actions that result in crashes. The report should also be reviewed by supervisors to ensure that departmental policy was followed.

Fleet Accident Review

Officers should be given the opportunity to have their peers and supervisors review the events surrounding any fleet accidents in which they are involved. Also, they should be allowed to be present at that review and offer any explanation of the event they think is necessary. When preparing an accident review procedure, you should specify how the accident is to be investigated. In some instances, it may be appropriate to have the accident investigated by another law enforcement agency having jurisdiction in the area. On occasion, however, it may be appropriate for your department to conduct its own internal accident investigation. Your policy should address the various situations, and clearly describe under which option the investigation is to be conducted, as well as the routing of any investigative reports for supervisory review. In the event that not all of your department fleet accidents are reviewed routinely by an accident review board, your policy must clearly describe the procedure for reviewing the reports and the protocol to be followed for convening an accident review board if deemed appropriate.

The policy should provide a framework for the members of the accident review board to be empaneled, including membership of the panel, and inclusion of peers, supervisor participation, and testimony from the involved officer and an accident reconstruc-tionist, as well as the time frame for preparation of the report, notation of any training deficiencies or employee negligence and violations of the law. The policy should emphasis that any disciplinary action taken as a result of the report will be separately considered and is not the responsibility of the board. The duty of the board is simply to determine whether or not the accident was avoidable and if there are training or retraining implications.

Transportation Of Prisoners

The purpose of a prisoner transportation policy is to provide guidelines to your employees when they are moving prisoners or persons in custody from one place to another. The following are several issues that should be addressed by such a policy. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the policy should explain the procedures to follow when taking into custody persons with a physical disability. Include the inspection of the department vehicle for possible presence of weapons at the beginning of the shift, following the transportation of a prisoner, and at the conclusion of the shift. A policy on the transportation of juveniles and female prisoners should be developed. If a prisoner of the opposite sex must be transported and no officer of the same sex is present, require the transporting officer to contact communications and have the name of the prisoner recorded, along with the time the transport began and the mileage, time and location at the conclusion of the transport.

Your prisoner transport policy should require that the safety screen be in place and the rear seat door handles deactivated. The policy should also cover situations when it is unavoidably necessary to transport prisoners in a vehicle without a cage. All prisoners should be handcuffed with the handcuffs double-locked, with their hands behind their backs and palms facing outward. Exceptions to this are special situations such as transporting a prisoner obviously in a state of pregnancy, with a physical disability, or with injuries that could be aggravated by standard handcuffing procedures; or handling one who is violently resisting arrest or manifests mental disorder such that he poses a threat to himself or to the public. In the latter case, other devices such as strait jackets are required. Prisoners should never be handcuffed to any part of the vehicle, and the procedure of “hog tying” prisoners by handcuffing their arms through their legs should never be utilized because of the problem of prisoners dying from positional asphyxia.

If any type of chemical weapon has been used on a prisoner at the time he was taken into custody, the prisoner should be decontaminated prior to transport, if possible, and monitored closely by the transporting officer for any signs of illness.

Seat Belt Use

All departments should have a mandatory seat belt use policy for the protection of the officers, the prisoners they transport, and the welfare of the general public, as well as for the purpose of reducing worker's compensation claims and injuries by members of your work force. The law enforcement cop-out that safety belts “prevent me from exiting my vehicle quickly at an emergency situation” is a myth that portrays safety belts as unsafe and should not be tolerated. Officers can get in and out of a car using the seat belt almost as quickly as those who do not. Seat belts hold the driver in place so that he is less likely to lose control in a minor collision or during a pursuit. In a vehicle equipped with automatic shoulder harnesses, it is doubly important that the lap belt be fastened because of instances where motorists wearing only the shoulder harness have been decapitated in a crash. Even if a vehicle is equipped with air bags, the seat belts are important to hold the driver behind the wheel and prevent injuries in side and rear collisions. The legal ramifications of allowing your officers to disregard the seat belt in a police vehicle are far-reaching and generally negative. Any decision to implement a non-mandatory seat belt policy should be made only after consultation with the department’s legal advisor.

Fuel Economy

In times of budget restraints, fuel economy is essential for efficient operation of the department. You need to plan for those events that may require a cutback on active patrol.

Computerized records of the fuel mileage of various vehicles will indicate drivers whose uneconomical driving habits may make them candidates for additional training in economical driving. Various policies, such as “park, talk and walk,” as well as those that encourage an officer to avoid excessive idling of the vehicle's engine, are important to be in place and enforced. Even in states with a cold climate, devices are available that will recirculate the heat from the heater core of the vehicle and keep the interior of the vehicle warm for a period of time even with the engine shut off.

Vehicle Purchase Policy

In many cases, your vehicle purchase policy will be dictated by a centralized purchasing agency, which may have little or no knowledge of police vehicle requirements.

Develop a rapport with people in the centralized purchasing agency to make them more aware of your needs and requirements. You might even invite for a purchasing agent to go on a ride-along with an officer to gain a fuller appreciation of how the police vehicle is the officer's “place of business” for eight or more hours a day, as well as the fact that the exposure to high-speed driving conditions in all kinds of weather makes police officers more likely than the general public to be exposed to a crash. The size and weight of a vehicle is still an important factor in surviving a crash. This fact, in addition to the need to transport prisoners, is more than ample justification for the purchase of full-size police vehicles.

When deciding the type of vehicles to be purchased, a state police or highway patrol may require a different type than those driven by city police. The size of the engine will also depend on your individual needs. Certain units, such as K-9 or SWAT teams or vehicles that must patrol country roads, may have special requirements such as those met by vans, four-wheel drive vehicles, and station wagons.

Despite the unfavorable collision record of motorcycles, with proper vehicle selection and intensive training, motorcycle patrols can be extremely effective in rapidly transporting officers through congested traffic conditions to the scene of an emergency. They also provide an extremely low-profile way to apprehend habitual traffic violators who have acquired the knack of spotting a conventional cruiser, as well as a means of escorting dignitaries or leading parades.

If unmarked vehicles are utilized in your fleet, your policy should provide that totally unmarked vehicles driven by plainclothes officers should never be used to stop a motorist except under extreme emergency conditions. Likewise, they should undertake a pursuit only under the most extreme conditions, and then should relinquish the pursuit at the earliest possible opportunity when a marked unit is available.

When an unmarked unit stops a motorist, especially a female motorist late at night, it may be advisable to dispatch a marked unit to the scene as soon as possible to take over the situation.

Vehicle Specifications

You should analyze the needs of your department before preparing vehicle bid specifications. You will want to survey departments of similar size and demographic makeup to determine how they rate specifications for their vehicles. You may wish to look at items such as fuel economy, acceleration, the availability of air bags, and top-end performance.

The protocol for acceptance or nonacceptance of bids should include developing a formula that considers not only the bid price but also the performance capabilities of the vehicle. For example, the formula might give 100 points for the base price, meaning the bidder with the lowest price gets 100 points in the bidding process. Then, vehicle dynamics could account for up to 20 points, acceleration, 30 points, braking deceleration, 10 points, top speed, 30 points, ergonomics and capability of accommodating communications gear, 10 points, and fuel economy by city EPA standards, 10 points.

You may want to specify certain items of equipment such as undercoating, gas shocks, a power seat, power door locks, wiring and ignition main power, ashtray relocation for radio equipment, cruise control, silicon radiator hoses, bumper guards front and rear, locking gas caps with three keys, power windows, power disconnect for the rear windows, an anti-theft system, and built-in radio wiring in your acceptance formula.

Suspension Systems

Suspension systems in police package vehicles are conducive to fast cornering and turning, and allow the driver to take severe bumps without interfering with the control of the vehicle. If you do not specify a police suspension on your vehicles, you sacrifice ease of driving, officer comfort, ability to pursue and apprehend, and good tire wear characteristics.

Ease of Maintenance

Although a minor consideration in most instances, maintenance might cost you a lot of money if you bid a foreign or non-standard vehicle. An inconvenience such as an inaccessible oil filter can be an expensive proposition when you have a fleet of several cars with the same problem.

Studies and Testing

The Michigan State Police testing program is probably the best in the nation for testing police vehicles from every U.S. and some foreign manufacturers. Copies of these studies are available on an annual basis from the Michigan State Police and from the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Technology Assessment Program.

Vehicle Equipment

The following cautions and concerns apply to the purchase of police vehicle equipment.

Strobe Lights.
If you will be patrolling areas afflicted with a lot of fog, rain or other inclement weather, you should give consideration to using strobe lights mounted on the exterior of the vehicle. Strobe lights also draw less current and are easier on the battery. However, unless strobe lights are properly set up, they can be extremely blinding to both motorists and the officers themselves, and there have been concerns that strobe lights flashing at a certain frequency may trigger seizure-type disorders in some individuals. Devices are available to control the intensity of strobe lights.

Radar.
If your vehicle is equipped with radar, certain safety precautions should be provided to prevent unnecessary expo-sure of the officer to microwave radiation. Current information indicates that modern radar sets emit less radiation than a cellular phone or a portable radio. However, it is still advisable to make sure that the radar antenna is always pointing away from the driver or passengers, and if a hand-held radar set is utilized, that it is turned off and stored on the seat when not in use, never in the lap of the driver. All radar equipment within the vehicle should be properly secured to protect the officer in the event of an accident or high-speed emergency operations.

Siren.
A siren should be placed in a location to the front of the vehicle to minimize noise levels when broadcasting on the car radio.

Color.
Studies have shown that a white color is the most visible for patrol vehicles. There are many schools of thought regarding the painting, striping and coloring of police vehicles. The key here is distinctiveness: You want your vehicles to be readily identified by the public and to instill a sense of pride in the department and the community.

Cage.
Equipping your patrol vehicles with a cage and roll bar will provide safety for both the officers and any prisoners that are transported.

Tires.
Tires should be the type that is speed rated for highway patrol or city work, as is appropriate. With the advent of air bags in both the passenger and driver side of modern patrol vehicles, the mounting of needed equipment becomes more difficult. Under no circumstances should these safety devices ever be disconnected. The radio and other equip-ment needs to be placed in a location where the officer can readily access it without taking his eyes off the road. If that is not possible, then position them a little lower so that the sense of touch can get the officer into the system or using controls that he needs in order to function properly. Many police equipment manufacturers now produce mounting racks that are compatible with air bags. We hope this brief outline of items to be taken into consideration in the area of traffic enforcement policy will be of value to you. Additional information may be obtained by reading the periodic model policies issued by the IACP Policy Center and the Citizens for Effective Law Enforcement.

Unmarked Vehicles

Advantages:

Unmarked patrol cars offer, to some degree, stealth and anonymity. Within a police fleet, they can be valuable for travel, inconspicuous transport details, and non-line and supervisory or command transportation, as well as traffic functions.

As a traffic enforcement tool, unmarked vehicles may expose the officer to more frequent as well as more flagrant violations.

They can be especially valuable when used in the capacity of an “emphasis patrol” where chronic violators are being targeted.

Excessive speed, truck violations, radar detector reliance and erratic drivers can all be targeted with the unmarked patrol vehicle.

As previously noted, improved performance and economy are also a benefit of the patrol vehicle operated without the light bar.

Oddly enough, according to one Illinois survey, the semi-marked vehicle (no light bar) actually holds one safety advantage over the fully marked vehicle. This survey indicates that not only were proportionately fewer semi-marked vehicles involved in collisions, but they averaged less damage than their marked counterparts. The explanation suggested for this phenomenon was that police officers assume that roof-mounted emergency lights project unchallenged authority. When the light bar is removed, the officer has to become a more cautious driver.

Disadvantages:

Among the concerns with the totally unmarked vehicle are that they offer less visibility when responding to an emergency or when protecting an accident scene or traffic stop, especially when 360- degree protection or visibility on a high-speed highway from some distance down the road is required. Some argue, however, that the difference in safety at an accident scene is not as statistically significant as one might assume.

The unmarked vehicle does not immediately project the authority that the fully marked vehicle does. This reality may present particular problems in certain situations, such as a pursuit, where it is necessary to warn oncoming traffic of the presence of the police vehicle, or when stopping lone female occupants or persons who are carrying valuable cargo. The possibility of someone impersonating a police officer is greater in jurisdictions where unmarked units are used for traffic patrol.

The incorporation of unmarked vehicles into a police fleet also decreases the uniformity of the fleet, and makes it more difficult to investigate citizen complaints of officer misconduct with official vehicles.

Additional Considerations

When comparing the marked to the unmarked vehicle, one must consider to what degree the patrol vehicle will actually be “unmarked.” “Totally marked” would suggest full, uniform markings, light bar, A spotlight, door seals and official plates. “Semi-marked” vehicles would be the same BUT with light bar removed—“low profile” vehicles. The “traditional” unmarked car could be considered a vehicle with a standard police package and equipped with no light bar or markings, with varied color but official plates. “Totally unmarked” vehicles are those with varying make, style and color; no markings; and undercover plates. These have tradi-tionally been limited to undercover, investigative, or administrative use. Departmental philosophy, goals, and objectives should all be addressed when considering the use of unmarked cars as well as the percentage of their inclusion in the fleet.

The expense considerations regarding fleet selection are many. They include, but are not limited to, purchase price, resale value, operating expense, economy, uniformity of servicing, outfitting expense, and safety and liability. Each individual department, considering its specific philosophy, goals, and objectives must evaluate the pros and cons of each traffic enforcement tool and select the vehicle that best serves its specific needs.

Concealed vs. Visible Patrol Tactics

Attractively marked police vehicles can be an important component of a community policing or service-oriented policing effort. Through the use of color schemes, logos and slogans, they can be used to project a professional, or even caring, image for the police department. Many police departments have even gone to the expense of establishing “store front police stations” at various locations within their jurisdictions. Such departments, who also park a fully marked police vehicle in a strategic location, where it can surveil vehicular and pedestrian traffic and be seen by motorists and pedestrians, will often find that people will stop and report crimes or suspicious circumstances to the officer. Moreover, the more visible police officers are as they go about their everyday duties, the more they create an impression of “omnipresence” and the more they are likely to slow down speeders and deter both traffic and criminal violations. In many cases, it seems to make little sense for an agency to go to great expense to bedeck a police vehicle with art work and markings, and then encourage hidden enforcement tactics that undo the deter-rent effect of the markings.

The public also sometimes tends to resent what they consider unfair tactics on the part of the police, particularly in a jurisdiction where enforcement efforts are more sporadic than consistent. Unmarked cruisers and “in-the-hole” enforcement techniques making use of concealed or hidden observation may leave a bad taste in the public's mouth. Even the most solid citizen may drive down the road flashing their headlights on and off to warn approaching motorists that a police vehicle is parked in a concealed location. Citizens also sense a double standard when they see police vehicles parked in the breakdown lane at night and running radar with their lights off; they instinctively know that, in most jurisdictions, there is no traffic code exception that legalizes such tactics.

When a law enforcement agency deviates from highly visible tactics, they may adopt either “concealed” tactics—in which the vehicle is not parked in a highly visible location but is nevertheless visible if the motorist is sharp-eyed—or “hidden” tactics whereby a deliberate effort is made to conceal the police vehicle from view. Concealed or hidden tactics may be justified when on the lookout for a wanted person or in an area where regular, visible patrols have been ineffective in getting a particular traffic problem under control. If unmarked cars are to be used as a regular component of traffic enforcement, the agency should consider posting signs that advise motorists that the police patrol with unmarked cars. The agency should also adopt operating procedures that inform the officers how to identify themselves when making traffic stops, and how to handle situations where the person they are attempting to stop may doubt the identity of the officers.

Related Articles and Studies

Hardnett, Cynthia. Review of Monocolor and Bicolor Emergency Vehicle Warning Lights. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Law Enforcement Unpublished Report, September 1984).

“Illinois Police Study Finds: Fewer Accidents, Lower Costs Without Roof-Mounted Lights.” NAFA Bulletin, (December 1984) 12-35.

Raub, Richard A. Removal of Roof-Mounted Emergency Lighting From Police Patrol Vehicles: An Evaluation. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Law Enforcement (Unpublished Report), November 1984.

Stoica, Ted L. Evaluation of Semi-marked Police Vehicles. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois Department of Law Enforcement, April 1983.

Stoica, Ted L. “Police Vehicles: Visabars on State Police Cars.” The Police Chief, September 1984, pp. 24-32.

The Police Allocation Manual

How many officers do you need for your patrol function? Most chiefs would like to answer this question by saying, “As many as I can get.” Unfortunately, with the fiscal restraints facing law enforcement today, few chiefs are likely to be offered as many officers as they want. In fact, in addition to being asked to justify the number of additional officers being requested, chiefs are often being asked to account for the number they already have. Justifying the number of officers needed for patrol is not an easy task. Agencies serving jurisdictions with similar populations may have very different patrol officer needs based on the geographic size of the community, community demographics, the number and size of adjacent communities, the road network, and the historical role of the police in the community. What chiefs need is a formula or model that can take local circumstances into account and provide justification for staffing levels.

Development and Use of the PAM

Recognizing the need for chiefs to justify patrol personnel needs, the Northwestern University Traffic Institute, under contract to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has developed means for providing that justification. The result was the develop-ment of the Police Allocation Manual and its companion, the Police Allocation Manual User's Guide (referred to hereafter as the Manual and the Guide, respectively, and collectively as the PAM). There are three sets of these volumes, one each for state, county and municipal-level law enforcement agencies.

Purpose of the Manual

PAM is designed to be used by law enforcement agencies whose mission includes the delivery of patrol and traffic services. The Manual may be used to determine staffing levels for a traffic division with limited patrol coverage or for a patrol division with traffic responsibilities. The Manual is designed to help agencies address the following questions:

What is the total number of officers, field supervi-sors, and command personnel required to provide acceptable levels of patrol and traffic services?

How should a total number of patrol officers be allocated by geographic regions or time periods to maximize agency productivity?

Field Usage

Based on field experience, the PAM has been found to provide both immediate and long-range benefits. The procedures in PAM provide agencies with a logical and explicit format in which to frame requests for additional staff and/or staff deployment. In addition, it is anticipated that the manuals will serve as catalysts for stimulating further discussion and research in staffing and allocation for law enforcement agencies. The most recent version of the Manual is derived from earlier editions that were based on a review of procedures used by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. The framework and rationale presented in the Manual are the result of a distillation process that identified the “best” procedures, and then modified and blended those procedures into a comprehensive model for determining appropriate patrol staffing levels and deployment patterns. The PAM model uses time-based procedures. The model deter-mines staffing and allocation requirements based on the time required for four major officer activities:

Reactive Time. Time spent on Calls for Service (CFS) activities. The major CFS activities for many agencies are traffic accidents and reports of criminal incidents.

Proactive (Self-Initiated) Time. Time spent on self-initiated activities—such as traffic enforcement, motorist assists, or completing field interrogation cards.

Proactive (Patrol) Time. Time spent patrolling highways and neighborhoods to provide “visibility” for general deterrence and “availability” for self-initiated activities and timely response to reactive time activities.

Administrative Time. Time spent on activities that are not reactive or proactive—on-duty court time, meals, auto maintenance, training, or agency administrative duties.

The central formula in the PAM model determines the average number of on-duty officers required per day. The formula is:

Avg. No. of Officers Officers Req'd + Avg No. of Reactive Patrol On-Duty Activities (Nr) Activities (Np) Officers = Required Min. Avg No. of Min Per Day Per Hr Per Ofr for - Per Hr Per Ofr for Self-Int. Act. (ms) Admin. Act. (ma)

Many of the procedures in the PAM model are used to determine appropriate values for N , N , m , and m . r p s a

How To Use the Manual

The Police Allocation Manual consists of four chapters and one appendix. Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to the purposes and uses of the Manual. Chapter 2 describes the PAM patrol staffing and allocation model. Chapter 3 contain