Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in the case of Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591. The effect of the decision is that criminal defendants will now be able to compel the in-person testimony of criminalists who perform laboratory analyses of drugs, DNA, toxicology data, and so on. Previously, this evidence was submitted via a sworn written statement from the criminalist. This decision is very bad law, and a kick in the cojones for the criminal justice system.

The defendant's right to examine and confront (cross-examine) the evidence against him is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment, and is fundamental to a fair trial. Without this, a defendant could be convicted on sham evidence, or on no evidence at all, depending on how diligent the judge was in reviewing the evidence. An unfortunate truth is that cops and other witnesses sometimes lie, and the right to cross-examination is a check of their veracity.

If the defense bar used their new power to compel the attendance of criminalists at trial only to challenge evidence they truly found to be suspect, this would be good law. Those of us who have been called to court regularly as state witnesses know that this is often not the motivating factor. Many defense attorneys employ the "whites of the eyes" defense when they demand a trial and the attendance of all the state's witnesses. Knowing that the state has a winnable case and being without a valid defense, the accused's attorney demands a trial anyway, and waits to see if all the witnesses show up. If they do, he goes to the prosecutor and cuts a deal for his client. If not, he asks the court to dismiss the case outright, or uses the lack of a witness as a strong bargaining chip to get a deal.

Crime labs are already overwhelmed by too much evidence to analyze and not enough resources to do it. A story from a few days ago described the backlog of DNA evidence the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department had on hand, and how the statute of limitations would run on many cases before it could be processed. Even if these labs get more funding, their throughput will be gravely reduced if their criminalists spend most of their working hours sitting in the halls outside courtrooms, waiting to take the oath and answer perfunctory questions about how they performed the analysis of the evidence at hand.

Civil cases are often dismissed as "frivolous," when plaintiffs file with illegitimate grounds, or when no real harm has been suffered, or just to harass the respondent and cost him time and money (most inmate lawsuits fall into this category). We need a similar review process in criminal cases, where the defense is sanctioned for frivolous demands for the attendance of witnesses. Before the defense can compel the attendance of witnesses, require them to make a proffer of what is questionable about the witness' statement or actions, and what questions they will ask that can't be answered by the reports already filed with the court.

The trial process is supposed to be about getting to the truth of what happened and who is responsible. This goal has been supplanted by technical challenges as to what evidence may be admitted and heard, regardless of its probative value. Unless there are real articulable doubts about the veracity of a witness or a piece of documentary evidence, their sworn statement should be admitted as evidence without requiring teir attendance at trial. Contrary to the outcry of Jack Nicholson's Col. Nathan Jessep in A Few Good Men, we can handle the truth. We need to eliminate the barriers created to hide and distort it.

Today we featured the story of Sheriff Bob Skipper of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office in Portland, Oregon. Sheriff Skipper joined the MCSO in 1960 and rose through the ranks of the agency over the ensuing 34 years, eventually serving three terms as the elected sheriff before retiring in 1994. Last year, the incumbent sheriff resigned over an ethics scandal and Skipper was appointed to serve out his term.

The problem with having Skipper step in isn't one you might expect. He's well-respected by all, including the man he replaced. He acted quickly to solve internal problems in the sheriff's office. He's 70 years old, but looks like a 20-years-younger role model of a Western sheriff: rugged, wise, authoritative. The problem is that his police certification has expired.

The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training (DPSST), which trains and certifies all law enforcement, fire service, public safety communications and security officers in Oregon is not widely known for its flexibility. This is often a good thing. Escapades that would earn one only a snicker in other places will get you decertified in Oregon, cast out and never allowed to work in law enforcement ever again. The man who Skipper is replacing was found to have lied about having an affair with the wife on Oregon's then-governor while the then-Oregon state trooper was on the gov's protection detail. 20 years ago. Ticket pulled, unemployable, don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.

Sheriff Skipper has nothing like that to contend with. His problem is that he hasn't worked as a law enforcement officer for over five years, and that caused all of his police certifications to lapse. After the filing of much paperwork and letters of support from all sorts of high-placed people, DPSST has ruled that the sheriff must complete the four-month basic police course or be forced out of office for lack of meeting the basic requirements.

Is this necessary?
The sheriff's biggest concern isn't whether he can complete the course, although that would be the first point of order for most men of his age. I haven't met him, but he looks to be in terrific shape. His concern is that he has to leave his post for four months, at a time when leadership is critical for his agency. DPSST's academy is live-in, with the trainees allowed to go home most weekends. It looks as though the sheriff will enjoy no special treatment on that front.

Sheriff Skipper has acknowledged that rules are rules, and if he has to go through the academy again, so be it. For that, among other reasons, he has my respect, and this editorial is in no way critical of Bob Skipper. I'm more interested in Skipper's position that he shouldn't have to complete a basic police course because (1) he's been there, done that, done more of it than most working cops, and hasn't been shown to be forgetful of what's required, and (2) he's hardly a "working cop" anymore. Multnomah County is the geographically-smallest and population-largest county in Oregon, encompassing metropolitan Portland. There are over 1000 employees for whom Skipper is The Boss. His days have been and will continue to be filled with budget meetings, personnel decisions, project briefings, reports by division chiefs, and the other administrative tasks of any big agency sheriff or chief. It is extremely unlikely that he will ever again make a physical arrest, wrestle a drunk or drive a car in a pursuit. Should he have to show he can?

I think he should, but not necessarily by completing the full basic police course. For a man of this experience and ability, a showing of competence should be enough. Oregon, like many other states, has a provision for certification as a law enforcement officer when the officer hasn't received basic training in Oregon. A three-week (it was that long when I worked at DPSST, but it may have changed) "career officer development" course brings out-of-state cops up to speed in Oregon laws and procedures, and includes a test of basic skills. But, according to DPSST's rules, one can't be out of the saddle more than five years to take the COD course. I know this all too well, as they wouldn't let me take it when I worked for them. I had been teaching criminal justice courses and delivering police training during the time between my last police job and my application, but that span was more than five years, and they weren't going to hear of it. I wasn't happy about that, but as with Sheriff Skipper, them's the rules.

Walking the walk
I see a great many law enforcement agencies led by chiefs and sheriffs who are far less physically capable than Bob Skipper. In the rare circumstances when they appear in uniform, it's one of those Class A military-style blouses and shirts, not a working police uniform with a duty belt and sidearm. Maybe they're wearing a gun, maybe not—you can't tell. If you want to provoke a really good belly laugh from them, suggest they meet an annual competency requirement in physical fitness, firearms, defensive tactics, driving, first aid, and the other things that working cops generally have to stay current in. Where they are concerned, that is for the street grunts, not the great minds who make decisions and run things.

I believe that a law enforcement CEO who makes it a point to show he or she has the capacity to get back to the tools at any moment takes on an aura of leadership that is far beyond any number of great decisions they might make. That concept of leadership, as opposed to "management," is one that is often lacking in police agencies. People, including cops, are far more likely to do what they are supposed to do when they can identify with the person giving the orders. The chief doesn't have to go out and make arrests (although that's a wonderful idea now and then), but everyone has to know that they are willing and able if the need should arise.

The brass at one place I worked were called (among other unprintable terms) the "stars, bars and take-home cars," or, my personal favorite, the "Chairborne Rangers." We had no confidence whatsoever in them. Those who anyone could remember working the street did so for a very brief time before starting the series of preferential assignments that would bring them to power. They were not leaders. Sheriff Bob Skipper is clearly a leader. Sheriff, I regret that you have to complete the academy again, but you're a hell of a man for doing it.

Postscript
June 8, 2009

I now understand that the Oregon Legislature has now intervened and ordained that a sworn officer who performs primarily administrative functions does not have to complete another basic academy.

Owing to a number of unusual circumstances, including failures of personally-owned technology, poor planning, and various undertakings requiring my personal attention, I have watched the sun set and rise again while I prepared today's news and other features for your information and enjoyment. I've spent a good chunk of my working life in darkness, but I try to avoid that sort of thing these days. It messes with my circadian rhythm and I am less patient with people who call me on the telephone (wait until Monday). This time, however, the experience provided some inspiration for these words on Peace Officers Memorial Day.

This is the "other" Memorial Day, since the one that most people think of when they hear those words occurs on the last Monday in May. That one honors those who died fighting for this country in foreign wars—certainly a day and people worth remembering. These two days are unique in that they are the only regularly scheduled days when the flag of the United States is supposed to be flown at half-staff. If you're out and about today, my bet is that you'll see most U.S. flags flying at the top of their staffs. I don't think that's because people don't care about cops, but rather because they don't know this day is set aside to honor them.

I wasn't able to make it to DC for Police Week this year. Our editor-in-chief Dale Stockton did, and devoted his considerable skills to produce some stunning photos Iincluding the one above). He sent me almost 200, but I only had time to post about 50 of them today. I hope you'll take a few moments to look through them, and the rest are coming

For cops, Police Week in DC is a little like Mecca for Muslims—you really ought to get there at least once in your lifetime. It's an experience you won't forget, and one that will make you better appreciate your place in the fraternity of law enforcement.

One of the truly sad things about those low walls in DC's Judiciary Square is that the longer you're in this line of work, the more names on the wall you will know. It's sobering to see row after row of those names, but even more so when you come across one you associate with a face, a voice, a call you worked together. For me, there are six of those. I hope there won't be any more.

When I'm working in my office, I usually listen to jazz or classical music streamed over the Internet. A couple of weeks ago, I came across a free application for my iPhone, one that allows me to listen to real-time public safety radio traffic from various communities around the country (search for "Emergency Radio" at the iTunes Store). One of the places on the list is the city where I was a police officer. Because one of the aforementioned failures of technology was the loss of my streaming music, I spent last night listening to the police radio.

I was surprised (since we must have gone through at least four call sign schemes while I worked there) to find that the system of call signs is the same as when I left, 18 years ago. I was able to keep track of every unit as they responded to alarms, stopped drunk drivers, and quelled domestic disputes. The officers associated with those call signs have most likely never heard of me. Yet, they sounded to me just like the people I worked with almost a generation ago.

When the sun came up, I went outside and lowered the flag on my front lawn to half staff.

Part of the lesson: life goes on. The job doesn't change all that much. These cops have different tools, different training, maybe different expectations of their careers and of life, but policing is still the same. The thin blue line extends back to those names on the wall, and those folks I was listening to through the night comprise this end of it. That's the other half of the lesson: death goes on, too. Some of the officers I eavesdropped on may get their place on the wall. I will do my best to keep that from happening, and I hope you do the same.

Earlier this week, the Spring Lake (NC) Police Department was stripped of its arrest and investigation powers. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office has taken over law enforcement duties for the town of around 10,000, near Pope AFB and Army post Ft. Bragg. I can't say with authority that this is unprecedented, but I can't remember it ever happening before. I understand, as well as anyone can from reading the press about this, how it came to pass. The more tragic aspect is that I think I understand why it happened, too.

The Cumberland County district attorney has not permitted the Spring Lake PD to investigate felony offenses since 2007. This came about when an infant death was reported to the police department, but was never investigated. Since that time, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation has been working a case on the department, looking into allegations of misconduct and malfeasance of official responsibilities. The latest development of removing the agency's law enforcement powers came about when two sergeants were arrested at the PD, led handcuffed out the back door. The list of indictments against them is long and serious. It includes charges of embezzlement of department funds, including money in the evidence room, home invasions with thefts by officers, and unlawful orders to officers, directing them to lie about smelling marijuana coming from inside an apartment in order to justify a raid.

Spring Lake PD has about 20 officers. The ones remaining aren't sure what they're supposed to do. They can drive around in their patrol cars and "show the flag," but if they come across something that requires police intervention, they have to call one of the four sheriff's deputies assigned to the town. The sheriff has placed a mobile command center in town, foregoing the police department building.

This kind of thing can't occur in a vacuum. Cops are inquisitive by nature and training, and when misconduct of this magnitude is going on, everyone knows about it. They may not know every detail, but the broad strokes are there for everyone. I suppose it's possible for all 20 of the Spring Lake cops to be corrupt and complicit, but that's unlikely. Someone wanted to say something, and I bet more than one of them did or tried to. I also suspect I know what happened when they did.

Police department politics are brutal. Internal politics forces more good people out of law enforcement than injuries, misconduct, or frustration with the criminal justice system. The problem is aggravated in small agencies, where there is no place to hide. If you work for a big agency, it's possible to move to another assignment far away from someone who has a special animus toward you. You aren't totally out of reach, but you are out of mind. You can't do that in a small outfit.

This gets even worse in a small town. When the opposing political element has power in the community—and they usually do—even quitting your police job won't end your grief. You may find it difficult to get other work, your family may be harassed, and you have no choice but to move. People from small towns tend to stay in the same small towns. The thought of moving away is terrifying, unthinkable. It's like cutting off a body part.

People who speak up when they see something amiss in the workplace are sometimes called "whistleblowers." It's a label that most people find pejorative. Cops and military types have another term for it: "shit disturber." Officially, you're supposed to speak up when you see something improper. Realistically, you're expected to keep your mouth shut. Whistleblowers are supposed to be protected. There are even criminal statutes ensuring this, but they don't work the way they're supposed to. A whistleblower usually has to leave their employment, and they'll find it difficult to secure another job. Few employers want to have a tattletale in their midst.

Occasionally, a whistleblower is recognized for their courage, like Frank Serpico and Karen Silkwood. They're the central character in movies, played by actors like Al Pacino and Meryl Streep. But remember that Serpico got shot when his fellow officers failed to back him up on a drug bust, and Karen Silkwood died of radiation poisoning, introduced by mysterious circumstances. There are exceptions, but whistleblowers seldom live happily ever after. There are no unflawed people, and their detractors will make sure we hear about every one of their flaws.

Law enforcement officers are supposed to investigate and report wrongdoing. It causes considerable conflict and grief when they see it within their own organizations and can't act on it. People who rise to positions of greater responsibility in police work are often not the ones who acted the most honorably, but rather those who developed selective blindness to acts that would injure their careers.

I don't have a patent solution to this problem. I do have a theory: if we were to devote more basic police training time to the why of law enforcement as opposed to the how, we would see a reduction in acts of looking the other way. The police culture can inculcate a new officer to develop that selective blindness so as to be more quickly accepted by the group. We need to train officers to resist that indoctrination and instead do what they have sworn to do, and which they know to be fundamentally and morally right.

In his testimony before the Knapp Commission on police corruption in the NYPD, Frank Serpico said

"I hope that police officers in the future will not experience the same frustration and anxiety that I was subjected to for the past five years at the hands of my superiors because of my attempt to report corruption...We create an atmosphere in which the honest officer fears the dishonest officer, and not the other way around...The problem is that the atmosphere does not yet exist in which honest police officers can act without fear of ridicule or reprisal from fellow officers."

He said that 38 years ago. Almost two generations of cops have passed since then, and the situation is no better. When will it change?

• As of Tuesday, May 5 at 1100 EDT, there were 403 laboratory-confirmed cases of H1N1/swine flu in the United States, and one fatality. The fatality was an infant boy in Texas who was visiting from Mexico.
• According to the CDC, swine flu is sensitive to zanamivir (trade name Relenza®) and oseltamivir (trade name Tamiflu®). It is resistant to amantadine (Symmetrel®) and rimantadine (Flumadine®). This means that zanamivir and oseltamivir are useful in treatment and prevention of swine flu, while the others are not.
• The Wold Health Organization (WHO) has upgraded their worldwide pandemic alert to Phase 5 (Phase 6 is the top) for the swine flu/H1N1 virus outbreak. Phase 5 is defined as "a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and the that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short."
• As of 0300 hourts EDT, May 5, 2009, 21 countries have reported 1124 cases of H1N1/swine flu infection, with 26 fatalities. All fatalities have been in the United States and Mexico.
• Most cases have been associated with travel in Mexico.
• The U.S. government has taken the position to refer to the current outbreak as the "H1N1 virus" instead of "swine flu." This came about when the pork producers lobby pressured officials to drop the term, as they feared people would come to believe the virus could be contracted by eating pork.
• There are web sites offering "swine flu vaccine" on the internet, as well as outlets for the drugs named above. There is no such thing as "swine flu vaccine." It would take, at a minimum, four to six months to produce a vaccine in any useful quantity. Drugs available through web sites are likely to be counterfeit, and may or may not contain any of the medications they are labeled to contain. Their contents may even be harmful.
• Similarly, there are opportunists offering "swine flu protective kits" and similar gear. Your best defense against infection remains with washing your hands thoroughly and often. If you feel the need to wear some kind of protective mask (and you probably don't need to), a clean bandanna will work about as well as a surgical or respirator mask for this purpose, and you can get them at most clothing and variety stores.
• If you are in a state affected by the outbreak, preventive medications may be available for you. Contact your state emergency management agency or department of health for information.
• Viruses (not necessarily swine flu) can survive for up to two hours on common surfaces such as counters, door knobs and desks.
• 11 million courses of medications effective in treating and preventing swine flu have been distributed to the affected states. All should be in place by Sunday, May 3.
• The official, correct name for swine flu is swine influenza A (H1N1).
• A victim of swine flu is infectious from one day prior to the onset of symptoms until seven days after onset.
• "Close contact" is defined as being within six feet of a person who is infectious.
• Persons 18 and under who have swine flu should not be given aspirin or aspirin-containing products, such as Pepto-Bismol. Administering aspirin to this group while they are suffering from viral infections increases the risk of Reye's syndrome. Reye's syndrome is a potentially fatal disease that causes swelling of the brain and/or fatty liver. Other anti-pyretic (fever-reducing) drugs such as acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) are safe for these groups.
• Symptoms of swine flu are as for most other types of flu: coughing, wheezing, fever, sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue.
• There are several interactive maps available online which track and document the spread of swine flu infections. One of these is located here. Because of the number of sources of information, numbers and reports may be inconsistent or delayed.
• Unless you absolutely must travel to Mexico, don't. Keep in mind that the borders may be ordered closed while you are gone. If this happens, you may not be able to come home until the borders open again.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Swine Flu Information Page

• World Health Organization Swine Flu page

• Google interactive swine flu infections map

• An alternate map version

• Additional information and prevention tips

• Swine Flu Top Ten--Tips for EMS Providers (JEMS.com)

• Protect Yourself and Your Patients from Swine Flu (JEMS.com)

Multiple instances of shootings over the past month or so have brought renewed attention to the ever-ongoing gun control debate. Because guns were involved in all of these crimes, there is a common tendency to blame the guns and call for greater regulation of them, if not for a complete ban. This can't happen. In this context, I don't mean "can't" as in "I don't want it to." I mean "can't" as in "impossible."

Because guns—especially handguns—are designed as weapons and not for hunting or varmint control, it's much easier to condemn them as instruments of death. This is why the argument comparing guns to cars doesn't hold up. Cars are instrumental in more deaths than guns, but cars weren't designed to kill. Nearly everyone in America owns or has access to a car, but only about a quarter own a firearm, and the distribution is very uneven; 10% of the adults own 77% of the firearms. Few car owners have more than two cars.

While firearms injuries are the second most common cause of injury-related deaths (traffic accidents are first), most people don't know that more than half of firearms fatalities are from suicide and that firearms-related deaths have generally declined over the past 40 years. Auto accident fatalities have declined similarly. A possible factor for both is the improvement in delivery of emergency medical services and advances in treatment.

Guns have a serious public relations problem. Many people find them to be offensive. They won't permit one in their home. I have several friends who subscribe to this prohibition who have, unknowingly, allowed one or more guns in their home while I was visiting. Like many Law Officer readers, I rarely leave my home without being armed, although I take considerable care to make that as unobvious as possible. As a police officer, homeowners occasionally demanded that I disarm before entering their homes (their demands were not met—I had to convince them that that the only available policeman model did not come in an unarmed version). If we could get Al Gore or Bono to make an appearance with a .45 on their hip, it might improve things, but I'm not optimistic about that happening.

Our own Paul Laska wrote a recent article called Carry On focused on the "open carry" practice, where people take advantage of state laws permitting the carrying of unconcealed firearms. His intent was to educate law enforcement officers as to the lawfulness of this practice and caution them against overreacting to a situation which often involves no crime. Unfortunately, several readers took exception to the article, choosing to see it as anti-gun or pro-gun control. Paul is certainly not anti-gun, and Law Officer takes no official position on the issue. People on both sides of the gun debate are highly polarized and sensitive to any message which they see to be in conflict with their own.

Paul's wisdom in bringing this issue was borne out earlier this week in Wisconsin. J.B. Van Hollen, Wisconsin's Attorney General, issued an advisory opinion to the state's district attorneys that open carry of a firearm is not a crime. Wisconsin has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country. There is no such thing as a concealed weapons permit there. If you want to carry a concealed firearm, your only option is to get a job as a cop. But after several people were arrested for disorderly conduct—a catch-all statute that can cover everything from being obnoxiously drunk to taking a swing at a cop—when their only "crime" was to carry a handgun in plain view, the DAs asked for guidance. Now they have it, and not everyone is happy about it.

The same day the AG's opinion was published, the chief of police in Milwaukee issued a memo to his officers to handle people carrying guns openly by putting them on the ground, taking the gun away, then inquiring further as to whether they are in lawful possession of it. The AG's opinion indicated that a law enforcement officer could stop and question someone carrying a gun, but from where I sit the Milwaukee chief's policy oversteps that. It's a difficult situation. As a cop, I would be apprehensive of someone I didn't know carrying a gun in plain view in a public place if for no other reason than it's contrary to the cultural standards I have some to expect. I think that's what Paul Laska was alluding to when he mentioned in his article that open carry was considered by some to be rude behavior.

On April 10, ABC News aired a program that focused on gun violence, availability, and the practicality of carrying a gun for personal protection. The pro-gun camp has advocated that one student or instructor lawfully carrying a concealed handgun could have put a quick end to the massacres at Columbine, Virginia Tech or other places you can name. ABC News sought to illustrate how this might play out in a mock classroom, where one of the student role-players was carrying a concealed Simunitions-type firearm. The shooter role-player entered the room and started popping off shots, "killing" the armed student every time. Most of the shots fired by the "students" missed, and none of them were placed where the target would have been neutralized.

This was anything but objective reporting. I expect the typical TV viewer bought the message that carrying a gun might do more harm than good, but I didn't. First, the students mostly had little or no experience with firearms prior to undergoing a brief range experience, and none of their experience included dealing with targets that moved, the use of cover and concealment, or the drawing of a weapon that is concealed by clothing. Their performance under fire reflected this.
The experiment was also skewed in that the shooter (one of their range instructors) knew who was carrying the gun, and where they were seated. Most active shooter types wouldn't have this kind of intel. If you go in by surprise, knowing exactly where to aim to neutralize your biggest threat, you have a huge advantage.

Most any tool can be put to harmful use, and the more complex the tool, the more training is required to use it properly. Only a fool would try to drive a car in freeway traffic with a couple of hours of instruction and no experience, but ABC wants us to believe that this doesn't hold true for firearms handling. I can engage a moving target, seek cover, and reload under fire, but I've practiced at it. The first time I tried it, I didn't do so well, either.

True, it's easy to buy a gun, either through a regular retail channel or at a gun show, but every study I've read indicates that most guns used unlawfully are obtained unlawfully. There will always be exceptions, but that's also the case with most everything else.

One of the responsibilities of gun ownership is to ensure the guns are secured properly. Most people who buy a gun for personal protection keep it in their nightstand drawer or in the glove box of their car, where a child can find it or it is easily stolen. There are many secure storage solutions where the gun is quickly accessible in an emergency, but only to those who know how to get to it.

Every one of the most recent gun violence episodes can be traced to either a failure to enforce existing laws or inadequate access to mental health services. Lovell Mixon, who killed four Oakland police officers, was a predicate felon on parole who still acquired and used firearms. He had an outstanding no-bail warrant and was a suspect in at least two other violent felonies when he shot it out with the cops. Richmond, Virginia has a model program of near-zero tolerance for gun-related crimes that has resulted in their homicide rate reduced by half. Detractors point to other factors unrelated to the firearms prosecutions, but I doubt that the program's effect has been negligible.

Most of the other mass shooters exhibited clear indicators of mental illness or severe emotional stress that could have been treated, had services been easily available and the stigma of seeking treatment was removed. But mental health programs are viewed by many as non-essential, nice-to-have services and are being gutted nationwide. That's going to have another undesired effect. People with chronic mental illnesses are going to move from residential and outpatient care to jails and prisons when they act out. Some of them may obtain access to guns.

There is no way, legally, politically or logistically, to disarm America. We have a recent Supreme Court decision interpreting the Second Amendment to mean that Americans do have a right to own firearms. Any official silly enough to order the seizure of privately-owned firearms would be fortunate to avoid being lynched (remember how well this worked in New Orleans after Katrina?). Logistically, the attempted wholesale seizure of guns would provoke insurrection, and the bad guys will still have them. This is what I meant at the start of this essay when I said it's impossible to ban guns.

Instead, focus on the factors in gun-related injuries and deaths that we can do something about. When people use guns to commit crime, slam 'em hard and consistently. Insist that people who own guns secure them properly and know how to use them skillfully and responsibly. Acknowledge that mental illness is common, treatable and shouldn't be anything shameful. And start paying attention to people like retired LTC Dave Grossman, who has been telling us for years that the glorification of violence and its incorporation into everyday recreational activities desensitizes young people to killing and makes morality an abstract concept.

Taking away the guns would be simple, but it's not a simple problem.

Yesterday was April 15, the deadline for all wage-earning Americans to file their income tax returns with the federal government and most states. This year, it was celebrated with "tea parties" protesting new and increased taxes and the recent spending promised and enacted by our current presidential administration.

I don't like income taxes any more than most other Americans. The part I dislike most is that the tax code is so arcane and complex that no one can tell you definitively how much tax you owe. At best, you get an opinion. Every year, one consumer magazine or another takes the same set of statements and receipts to different preparers, and they always come up with different answers. I'd personally favor a flat tax or abolition of the income tax completely in favor of a national sales tax, where calculation of anyone's taxes could be done by anyone capable of long division. But that's not what I wanted to write about today.

It seems to me most people hate taxes because they don't like losing that money to the government, and they don't like what the government does with it. I feel your pain on that one. I also get angry when I hear about government funded research on pig flatulence or payments to contractors in Iraq for buildings that fell down or never even got built. Today, I was thinking more about the things that taxes do pay for that we may be taking for granted.

Until relatively recently, I was a public employee, working for a city government or state college or training agency. I receive a pension check each month from a public employee retirement system. Because of a legislatively-mandated policy that was implemented while I was a cop, I paid about $3300 into that public employment retirement system during my entire tenure there. To date, I have collected over $95,000 in pension payments from that system, and will continue to collect those benefits until I die. Thanks, taxpayers.

I drive my car on the most extensive system of highways in the world, where government employees patrol to ensure my safety. When I turn a faucet handle, I don't even consider whether the water that comes out of it is safe to drink. When I flush my toilet, I don't have to be concerned about how the sewage will be dealt with. I wasn't around to see the construction of the house I'm living in, but I know that building inspectors signed off on the quality of the work and the adherence with building codes, so I don't worry about the roof caving in or that the wiring will short out.

When I travel by airplane, I know that government flight controllers are monitoring the progress of the trip and making sure that other airplanes don't come too close to mine. They do this by operating a nationwide system of radar and other navigational aids that is dated and overwhelmed, but they make it work anyway. Both my car and my cell phone contain inexpensive receivers that communicate with a constellation of satellites overhead, and can tell me precisely where I am, anywhere on the planet, and how much longer it will take me to get home.

I learned to read, write and calculate in public schools, which also supplied me with textbooks, paper, pencils, and other supplies (yes, I know many students have to buy their own now). I earned college degrees from two state-run schools. During my entire career as a student, I doubt if I paid more than $5000 in tuition and fees. My return on investment there has been even better than the $3300 I paid into PERS.

The postal service may be quasi-privatized now, but the network was built with public money. For $0.42, I can send a document to anyone in the nation, and it will usually be delivered within three days--sometimes overnight--with a reliability factor that approaches certainty.

When I hear someone grouse about taxes, I wonder if they have ever invested $0.42 to write a letter to their congressman, senator, governor, or city councilman. When I conducted informal polls of my students, it was rare I could find one who even knew who those people were.

It's also good to remember that taxes have paid for soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, and the equipment they've used to protect our right to hold "tea parties" and write to our elected representatives about things with which we find fault--even if it's the representatives themselves. So, protest all you want and exercise your write to speak out for what you believe. At the same time, don't forget that all that has a price tag. I, for one, am thankful for the privilege of paying my share of it.

Earlier this week, the Austin, TX Police Department (APD) announced they would not seek re-accreditation when their current certification expires at the end of 2009. It's about freaking time.

My highly-biased view of law enforcement agency accreditation has little to do with Austin PD. I've never been there, don't think I know anyone who works there, and for all I know, it's a truly warm and wonderful place to live and work. APD was just the first place I was aware of that made a public declaration they weren't going to re-up on accreditation.

Accreditation of law enforcement agencies came into vogue in the 1980s, when I was an active cop. The Commission on Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) was formed to administer this process. CALEA developed a long list of over 400 standards that had to be met by agencies desiring the certificate. The list varied slightly, depending on the size and function of the agency. Later on, they expanded their role to accredit communications sections and law enforcement training academies as units independent of any department with which they were associated. Agencies that achieved accreditation got to display a blue-and-gold seal on their buildings, vehicles and uniforms--and display it they did. Chiefs and sheriffs were sometimes so proud of their status that the grunts would rather come to work without their badges than without their CALEA pins because of the wrath it would bring down on them.

An agency looking to attain accreditation would first obtain the list--a medium-size book-- of standards that applied to them, and then set about refining, aligning, and creating policies that were in conformance with the standards. This usually required the full-time attention of several officers, and took many months. Once the chief or sheriff felt he had his ducks lined up, he would ask a team of assessors to visit and inspect. This took a week or two, and the experience was a little like being at Grandma's for Thanksgiving. You had to take special care not to get dirty, smile and be polite at all times, and generally be on your best behavior. More often than not, the assessors would depart with smiles all around, and the good news would follow.

Accreditation was supposed to bring reduced liability insurance rates and cause agencies to catch up with the rest of the planet with policies that might have been outdated. That part, at least, was a good idea. In some cases, it appears to work that way. On its web site, CALEA has a list of insurers which offer reduced rates to certified agencies, along with several papers that support accreditation. The underlying problem has to do with policy and practice, which are not necessarily the same thing.
My former agency made a run at accreditation in the late 1980s, and devoted five to seven officers and a deputy chief to the initial "self-assessment" effort for almost two years before they discarded the idea. Do the math on that, and it comes out to about a million bucks spent for nothing.

I was briefly detailed to the accreditation unit and saw what we were up against. One standard required that every member of our tactical team undergo a skills qualification, medical and psychological exam before they could join the team, and every year thereafter to remain on the team. It was common knowledge that if some long-term members of that group were subjected to a psychological exam, they wouldn't be released until they had a Haldol drip going. Others were desperately out of shape, but were retained because they had been on the team for years. Had this gone forward, there might have been a policy written, but where organizational culture conflicts with written policy, culture wins.

When a naysayer comes along and attacks an accredited agency, claiming the agency isn't what they say they are, one might expect CALEA to have their back. Not so, apparently. Not long after APD was designated a "flagship agency" by CALEA, the U.S. Department of Justice investigated the agency and criticized their use of force polices. APD Cmdr. Sean Mannix said, "We didn't find the knight in shining armor in the form of CALEA coming in and saying, 'No, Austin PD is doing everything right.'" In fact, CALEA didn't say anything at all.

This process isn't cheap. The $1 million I alluded to earlier was 1989 money. Austin PD had five detectives assigned full-time to an "inspections" detail that ensured they remained in compliance with CALEA standards and kept ready for the every-three-years on-site assessment. The CALEA web site lists their fees for initial accreditation as between $5,425 and $25,200, with an annual "continuation fee" ranging from $3,435 to $5,730, all depending on the size of the outfit and whether the money is paid in a lump or installments.

In addition, "the agency is invoiced for the estimated cost of the on-site [assessment]" (emphasis CALEA's) the first time around. This is the cost of travel, lodging, expenses and a stipend for however many (usually five or so) assessors to come to the agency seeking accreditation and wander around for a few days. They are supposed to look under the hood, kick the tires, talk to people, and generally ensure that the agency hasn't blue-skyed their paperwork. Malcontent employees who might blow the whistle are encouraged to take some time off, sent to a distant assignment, or locked in a basement until the assessors are back on the plane.

Assessors don't have to be employees of an accredited outfit, but the qualifications listed on the CALEA web site make it clear that those who are have a strong advantage. This is another incentive for senior management to achieve accreditation. This group is often fond of taking trips at someone else's expense, and if they can get some extra cash from CALEA for so doing, so much better. You probably won't get into the club unless you've completed your own initiation, but someone else pays for that and does the work, too.

For me, the acid test comes from the troops. Is it better to work for an accredited agency than for one that isn't? The people I know who have the benefit of experience tend to be of one mind on this topic: accreditation is a crock. It doesn't change things, and it doesn't make a difference in how good the agency is or how well it accomplishes the mission. That requires excellence in leadership, and no amount of paperwork, inspection or assessment will replace it.

Do you agree with me, or am I a crock, too? I welcome your comments.