laura j. moriarty, college of humanities and sciences y*-
TRANSCRIPT
College of Humanities and Sciences Virginia Commonwealth University
This is to certify that the thesis prepared by John R. Cencich entitled a Re-evaluation of the Criteria Used by JLARC in its Study on Including State Law Enforcement Officers in the State Police Officers Retirement System has been approved by his committee as satisfactory completion of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science.
Laura J. Moriarty, College of Humanities and Sciences
ndH ittee &hair, College of Humanities and Sciences
* - 4 y*- ~';iliam V. Pelfrey, Ph.D., ~[mmittee Member, College of Humanities and Sciences
, Committee Member, School of Business
, Department of Criminal Justice
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE CRITERIA USED BY JLARC IN ITS STUDY ON
INCLUDING STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE
STATE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University.
John Robert Cencich
Director: Laura J. Moriarty, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice
Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia
May, 1995
Table of Contents
Page List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
Purpose of the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Establishment of SPORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Extension of SPORS-like Benefits to Localities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Hazards and Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Uniform Crime Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Previous Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 lnsurance Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Law Enforcement Retirement in Other States 24 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Telephone Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Written Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Initial Survey Results 33
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis 38
Line of Duty Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers 40 '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disability Retirements 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Workers' Compensation Claims 40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alcohol and Drug Disturbances Handled 44 Stopping Vehicles/Individuals for Alcohol-related Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Domestic Calls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Encounters with Armed Individuals 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants 48
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medical Examinations 51
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions 53
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature Review 54 Law Enforcement Retirement in Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JLARC's Administrative Screening Criteria 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Telephone Interview 56
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Likert Survey 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Survey 57
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions 59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations 60
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References 62
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices 64
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vita 68
List of Tables
Tab1 e Page 1 . Law Enforcement Officers Killed
Type of Activity When Killed;1980 . 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 . Percentage of Convicted Jail Inmates Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs at the Time of Current Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
. . . . . . . . . . . 3 . Officers' Attitudes Towards JLARC's Administrative Criteria 34
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . Survey Instrument Sent to 10 Law Enforcement Officers 35
5 . Results of Initial Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Officers Killed in the Line of Duty 39
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 . Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers 41
8 . Disability Retirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
9 . Workers' Compensation Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . Alcohol and Drug Disturbances Handled 45
11 . Stopping Vehicles/Individuals for Alcohol-related Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
12 . Arrests From Bar FightsIFamily Trouble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Encounters with Armed Individuals 49
14 . Search Warrants. Arrest Warrants and Other Process Executed at Private Residences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
15 . Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Abstract
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE CRITERIA USED BY JLARC IN ITS STUDY ON INCLUDING STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN THE STATE POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM
By John R. Cencich, B.S.
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Virginia Commonwealth University, 1995
Major Director: Laura J. Moriarty, Ph.D., Department of Criminal Justice
The Commonwealth of Virginia legislatively provides enhanced retirement
benefits for members of the Department of State Police and members of local police
departments and sheriffs' offices whose officers perform work that is comparably
hazardous to that of the State Police. The only law enforcement groups that are
excluded from receiving enhanced benefits are members of other state law
enforcement agencies. These groups consist of Game Wardens, Alcoholic Beverage
Control Special Agents, Capitol Police, and state university police.
In 1987 the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC)
completed a study on this subject. The JLARC researchers concluded that the other
state law enforcement groups do not perform duties that are comparably hazardous
with the State Police and, therefore, recommended that they not receive enhanced
retirement benefits.
This thesis research sought to find valid measures of hazardousness by
interviewing law enforcement officers employed in the Commonwealth. Once it was
determined what these officers actually found to be hazardous in their duties, a survey
was sent to each law enforcement agency in Virginia that receives enhanced retirement
benefits through the state retirement system. The state law enforcement groups
excluded from receiving these benefits were also surveyed.
The survey sought to capture data for the six police activities that law
enforcement officers found to be the most hazardous. The results of the data analysis
showed that the state law enforcement officers excluded from receiving enhanced
benefits consistently performed duties that were comparably hazardous to the State
Police.
The study concluded that the results of this thesis research suggests that the
Commonwealth of Virginia take another look at including other state law enforcement
officers in an enhanced retirement program. It was further noted that the next study
should measure actual line of duty deaths, assaults and injuries. Moreover, the study
should examine activities that law enforcement officers actually find to be hazardous
rather than activities that are merely perceived to be dangerous by the researchers.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Law enforcement officers in Virginia face hazards and risks in the performance
of their duties on a daily basis. Investigating suspicious persons, arresting criminals,
conducting raids, and executing search warrants are all inherently dangerous activities.
To compensate for these hazards and risks, the Commonwealth of Virginia
legislatively provides for enhanced retirement benefits for certain classes of state and
local law enforcement officers. These benefits allow law- enforcement officers to retire
early at age fifty with 25 years of service,' and they provide an additional allowance
equal to $7,080 annually from the date of retirement until the age of sixty-five (Code
of Virginia, 1950). -
At the state level, the only law enforcement class that is provided with these
benefits are members of the Department of State Police ("VSP") under the State Police
Officers Retirement System ("SPORS") ( 6 5 1.1-200 et sea. of Chapter 2 of Title 5 1.1
of the Code of Virginia). At the local level, sheriffs, who are compensated by the
State, are given equivalent benefits. Their deputies, who are also compensated by the
State, are not automatically included. However, any county, city, town or any political
entity, subdivision, branch or unit of the Commonwealth or any commission or public
authority, may by resolution, elect to have its law enforcement officers covered under
' Other state employees must be fifty-five years of age with 30 years of service in order to receive normal retirement benefits.
2
retirement benefits equivalent to SPORS if their duties are coinparably hazardous to a
State Police officer. Therefore, virtually all law enforcement officers in Virginia,
including small town police departments, are eligible for enhanced retirement benefits
(Code of Virginia, 1950).
The only public law enforcement groups excluded from receiving enhanced
retirement benefits in Virginia are those employed by the State (other than VSP).
State law enforcement officers with general police powers in this group include Game
Wardens with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries ("DGIF"), State Capitol
Police, Special Agents with the Enforcement Division of the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control ("ABC"), and state university police. These officers are covered
under the same retirement plan as civiliai~ state employees under the Virginia
Retirement System ("VRS") (6 5 1.100 et sea. of Chapter 1 of Title 5 1 .1 of the Code
of Virginia). -
Frequently, these law enforcement agencies seek a legislative change to
provide their officers with hazardous duty retirement benefits. Officers from these
groups assert that their jobs are just as hazardous as the State Police, and members of
these groups have been assaulted and killed in the line of duty (JLARC, 1987).
In 1986, the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission ("JLARC") was
directed by the Virginia General Assembly to conduct a study to determine which
other state law enforcement groups should be included in SPORS. ltem 13 of the
1986 Virginia Appropriations Act (hereinafter the "Act"), provided JLARC with the
following charge:
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission shall review the State Police Officers Retirement System and identify the criteria for covered employees, implicit in establishing SPORS as a separate retirement system. The Commission shall determine by October 1, 1987, which if any other employees, either employed by the state or whose compensation is provided by the state, who are sworn officers with full police powers, and meet all the criteria originally established for coverage under SPORS or would meet appropriate criteria at the present time ( 8 1-4 of Chapter 643 of the Acts of Assembly, 1986).
The next section of this chapter will provide an overview of the JLARC study
The agencies studied will be examined. JLARC's method of excluding agencies from
receiving enhanced retirement benefits will also be discussed.
Overview of The JLARC Study
JLARC initially identified fourteen state agencies who employ sworn personnel.
These agencies are as follows:
DGIF Enforcement Division
ABC Enforcement Division
Department of Corrections Investigators
Department of Forestry
Department of General Services
Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
Department of Motor Vehicles
Division of Capitol Police
Division of Parks and Recreation
Marine Resources Commission
State Corporation Commission
State Museums
State university campus police; and
Virginia Port Authority
Sheriffs departments were also included, because their compensation is
provided by the State. After these agencies were identified, JLARC developed a set of
criteria used as a screening mechanism to determine which, if any other groups, should
be included in SPORS. The screening criteria are indicated below:
Sworn law enforcement officers;
General police powers;
Unlimited statewide jurisdiction; and
Face hazards and risks comparable to the Department of State Police
Each of these criteria are discussed below.
Sworn Law Enforcement Officer --
Groups that are sworn as "conservators of the peace" and not as law
enforcement officers were screened out under this criteria. These groups include:
Investigators for the Department of Motor Vehicles; park rangers in the Division of
Parks and Recreation; and institutional police for the Department of Mental Health and
Retardation; the various Virginia State Museums; and the Department of General
Services (JLARC, 1 987).
General Police Powers
JLARC opined that with the responsibilities associated with general police
powers there is the potential to place officers in hazardous situations, and that the
police powers of agencies eligible for SPORS should be the same as those of the State
Police. Five agencies were excluded under this category, because they have only
limited police powers. These agencies include: Marine Resources Commission, State
Corporation Commission, Department of Corrections, Department of Forestry, and
Weight Enforcement Officers of the State Police (JLARC, 1987).
Unlimited Statewide Authoritv
This was a JLARC-supplied administrative category that was not included in
the Act's study mandate. JLARC stated that this was an important component as "it
appears to represent a current legislative consideration behind the separate retirement
system" (JLARC, 1987, p. 15). Because of this screening device, sheriffs, campus
police, Capitol Police, and the Virginia Port Authority police2 were excluded from
further study. The two remaining law enforcement groups that were subject to the
final evaluation criterion are ABC Special Agents and Virginia Game Wardens
(JLARC, 1987).
Virginia Port Authority police officers appear to be eligible for SPORS-like benefits pursuant to Virginia Code $4 5 1 .l-124.3 and 51 .I-138 B.
6
Hazards and Risks
The final evaluation criterion was "hazards and risks." JLARC stated that the
"hazards and risks of police work cannot be reduced to a single variable" (JLARC,
1987, p. 16). JLARC found that hazards and risks should be measured by three
factors. The first factor was actual job-related injury or death. The second factor was
the volume of arrest activity which JLARC said would be an indicator of the amount
of exposure to hazardous situations. Finally, JLARC measured high speed chases,
because these had been "mentioned by knowledgeable state officials as a reason for
the establishment of SPORS" (JLARC, 1987, p. 16).
Death in the Line of Dutv. JLARC researchers reported that the State Police
exceeded ABC and DGIF in this category:
Historically, the Department of State Police has had a higher incidence of death in the line of duty than the other two agencies [ABC and DGIF]. Since the creation of the Department [of State Police] in 1942, 32 State Police officers have been killed in the line of duty. Three game wardens have died in the line of duty since [DGIF] was established in 191 6. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control reports two line--of--duty deaths since its creation in 1934 (JLARC, 1987, p. 19).
It should be noted that JLARC's methodology did not take into account the
population size of the State Police, ABC Special Agents and Game Wardens since the
inception of the respective agencies in drawing its conclusions. Therefore, it is not
known whether the State Police had a significantly higher rate of in the line of duty
deaths than the other two agencies studied.
Disability Retirements. JLARC compared disability retirements between State
Police and ABC. The study results showed one line of duty disability retirement
7
(.0007) for VSP and no such retirements for ABC Special Agents and Game Wardens
(.0) for a 1 -year period. (JLARC, 1987).
Assaults. The JLARC study revealed that both Game Wardens and ABC
Special Agents were consistently assaulted more in the line of duty than were
members of the State Police. This held true for three distinct categories of assaults:
unarmed, armed and assaults with motor vehicles. Game Wardens were assaulted at a
rate of .46, ABC Special Agents at .43 and State Police at a rate of .15. ABC Special
Agents received medical attention as a result from the assaults at a higher rate than
State police or DGIF.
Arrests. JLARC's researchers reported that the State Police had far greater
arrest activity than ABC or DGIF. JLARC also indicated that State Police made more
custodial arrests, and concluded that this further illustrated the dangers faced by the
State Police. No distinction was made between criminal arrests and traffic (civil)
arrests. A closer analysis of the JLARC data indicates that only five percent of State
Police arrests were custodial; twenty percent of ABC arrests were custodial, and 9
percent of DGIF's arrests were custodial.
High Speed Chases. Virginia Game Wardens had the highest average number
of high speed chases per officer at a rate of 4.3. State Police reported an average of
1.7, and ABC had an average of I .2 high speed chases per officer. JLARC also
looked at the rate of officer injuries and property damage. The State Police was the
only agency reporting any injuries resulting from high speed chases with a rate of
.007. As for property damage, ABC had a rate of .OS1, DGIF with ,025 and State
Police with ,023.
Other O~erational Considerations
JLARC went on to examine other administrative operational considerations that
were not included in the Act's mandate and not related to hazards and risks. These
include the operating missions of the agencies; and recruitment, training and fitness
standards.
Operating Mission. JLARC noted that the mission of the State Police is the
protection of the public. Moreover, JLARC researchers also reported that while Game
Wardens and ABC Special Agents have full police powers, members of these two law
enforcement agencies do not ordinarily enforce laws other than game laws or liquor
laws (JLARC, 1987).
Recruitment. Training &Fitness Standards. JLARC noted that there are no
recruitment, training or fitness requirements for inclusion in SPORS, and that all three
groups currently exceed the training standards for law enforcement officers as
provided for by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. However, JLARC
researchers reported that the State Police exceed ABC and DGIF in all of these
criteria. JLARC researchers looked at written, physical and medical entrance
examinations, length of basic police training, length of field training, frequency of in-
service training, and frequency of firearms training.
JLARC Conclusions
The JLARC study concluded that the job-related hazards and risks of
Department of State Police were greater than other state law enforcement classes.
Some of the variables used to make this determination include high speed chases and
arrests. Because JLARC viewed only the State Police as working under such hazards,
only the State Police were to remain included in SPORS (JLARC, 1987).
Agencv Res~onses to the JLARC Studv
Some of the agencies studied that did not employ sworn law enforcement
officers with general police powers did not object to JLARC's conclusions and
recommendations. Agencies in this category included the Department of Forestry,
Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Conservatioil and Historic Resources,
and the State Corporatioil Commission. However, many law enforcement agencies
disagreed with JLARC relative to its ultimate recommendation.
Virginia Sheriffs. Because Virginia sheriffs' deputies were also included in the
study, the Virginia State Sheriffs' Association ("VSSA") reviewed the Exposure Draft
of JLARC's study, and it found many methodological problems with the study. First,
in a letter from John W. Jones, Executive Director of the VSSA (1987), it was noted
that the four sheriffs' offices chosen by JLARC for the study did not accurately
represent a sample of Virginia sheriffs:
Of the four sampled, two do not provide primary local law enforcement. The Emporia sheriff is primarily a chief of police and represents a very unique situation. The Emporia sheriff has only one deputy sheriff and that individual
primarily serves civil papers. The Fairfax County sheriffs office does not provide local law enforcement. Fluvanna and Dinwiddie do provide local law enforcement, but represent relatively small rural settings. No sheriffs offices were examined from Tidewater or Southwestern VA. No sheriffs offices representing medium to large cities with jails were examined and no sheriffs officers [sic] were examined which represent major local law enforcement service agencies.
In the VSSA memorandum, it was further noted that while JLARC reported
that sheriffs' offices had no line of duty deaths, eight deputy sheriffs had actually been
killed in the line of duty since 1981. VSSA also pointed out that sheriffs' offices are
the primary law enforcement agency in 87 of Virginia's counties. In 1985, sheriffs
deputies investigated 12 percent of the serious crimes in Virginia; State Police officers
investigated less than 1 percent.
State Game Wardens. In a letter to JLARC from R. H. Cross, Jr., Executive --
Director of DGIF (1987), noted the following regarding the study,
no mention is made [in the study] that many chases in which game wardens engage are on more treacherous secondary roads or in boats or on foot. In fact, our officers routinely engage in foot chases which are not necessarily hazardous but can become so if the officer involved is in his fifties. The operation of watercraft in inclement weather and often sub-freezing conditions is easily as hazardous as a high speed chase.
ABC Enforcement Division. A memorandum from then Chairman of the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board J. David Shobe, Jr. (1987) to the Honorable Hunter
B. Andrews, Chairman of JLARC, noted:
We consider the regular performance of the duties of our ABC law enforcement officers in their enforcement activities as hazardous. We contend that those agents in advanced age . . . should not be exposed to the associated hazards and risks, and should be retired from service with improved benefits.
[ABC Special Agents] encounter disorderly elements and violations associated
with illegal consumption of alcoholic beverages by underage andlor intoxicated persons. Substantial disorders occur in those situations . . .
Our agents often encounter functions of large gatherings and events where alcoholic beverages or controlled substances are illegally sold, possessed or consumed. Hazards and risks are associated with the apprehension of violators and hostile crowds, whether ABC officers are acting independently or in conjunction with local or State police officers.
In a memorandum from ABC Board member J. Younger Coggin to the
Director of JLARC, the following concerns were expressed:
We [ABC Special Agents] are . . . responsible for eliminating the illegal manufacture, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages, meaning that those places that sell and dispense alcoholic beverages without a license should be considered dangerous and extremely hazardous (JLARC, 1987, p. 53).
And in a memorandum from ABC Board Chairman Jay Cochran, Jr. (1988) to
the Honorable Robert B. Ball, Sr., member of the House of Delegates, the following
was also noted:
The JLARC report completely ignores the fact that ABC Special Agents police approximately 15,000 licensed operations that have the same illegal drug problems as society as a whole . . . and in general, the same enforcement problems in its area of responsibilities as any other law enforcement agency.
State Capitol Police
In a 1987 letter from Capitol Police Captain H. F. Lang to the Director of
JLARC, Captain Lang requested JLARC to review the evaluation criteria, "as I could
not understand the relationship of unlimited statewide jurisdiction as opposed to a
given jurisdiction . . . In summation, I would like to say that the threat of death or
injury exists for this Division as well as it does for other law enforcement agencies."
State University Police
Raymond M. Haas, Vice President of the University of Virginia, noted in his
1987 letter to the JLARC director:
Geographic jurisdiction may not be the best criterion for judging the need for a retirement system . . . I suggest that your Commissioli compare the SPORS-like benefits provided to the 48 local police departments in Virginia through VSRS to those provided under VSRS to the limited jurisdiction state agencies.
The methodology and screening devices employed by JLARC researchers have
been seriously questioned by some of the law enforcement agencies studied. Many of
the agencies studied appear to be dissatisfied with the objectivity of the JLARC study.
Changes Since the 1987 Studv
It has been almost eight years since JLARC conducted its study concerning the
exclusion of other law enforcement agencies from SPORS. Since that time, many
operational and public policy changes have occurred which may warrant another look
at the issues and concerns relative to enhanced retirement benefits for other state law
enforcement groups.
Data Collection d A n a l v s i s . JLARC (1987) recommended that law
enforcement agencies maintain data and appropriate documentation to more accurately
study this issue in the future. According to ABC enforcement officials, ABC has
since computerized all of its criminal records with the Criminal Records Information
System (CRIS) and now participates in the State UCR program. information relative
to custodial arrests and assaults are now captured as the activities occur which may
13
enhance analysis of data for purposes of future studies. Other agencies may also have
improved their data collection capabilities.
Exvansion of Duties. The General Assembly has since added drug trafficking,
drug conspiracies, drug paraphernalia and money laundering to the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act. And in response to the Virginia Firearms Clearinghouse Act and an
amendment to the ABC Act, ABC Special Agents now face illegal weapons and
weapons violators more frequently. A legislative change relative to the presumptive
level of blood alcohol content has also given Virginia Game Wardens increased
responsibilities in connection with the operation of a motorboat while under the
influence of alcohol (Code of Virginia, 1950).
Exvansion &Jurisdiction. Since the 1987 JLARC study, the jurisdiction of
state campus police officers was extended. Campus police officers now have
jurisdiction on the campuses of any public or private institution of higher learning in
Virginia at the request of the sister institution. Additionally, state campus police
officers can now receive concurrent jurisdiction in designated areas with county, city
and town police officers in which the institution, its satellite campuses or other
properties are located (Code of Virginia, 1950).
New Groups Included &SPORS. In 1989, the Virginia General Assembly
amended Virginia Code 8 5 1 .1-1 38 to allow sheriffs, who are compensated by the
State, to receive SPORS-like benefits (Code of Virginia, 1950). This was a major
change in public policy and contrary to many of the criteria considered in the 1987
JLARC study. First, it allows a class of state-compensated employee, other than the
14
State Police, to receive enhanced retirement benefits. Secondly, because many sheriffs
in Virginia do not provide direct law enforcement se r~ ices ,~ this legislative change has
provided some officers with SPORS-like benefits who are not responsible for the
prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of penal, traffic or highway
laws of the Commonwealth."
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this thesis research is: 1) to conduct further research that
attempts to get a consensus view of the variable "hazardousness" by asking law
enforcement officers what the term means (conceptualization) to them; 2) to gather
data from various law enforcement agencies to measure the amount of hazardousness
in their officers' daily activities; and finally, 3) to determine if ally other state law
enforcement agencies fit the new definition of hazardousness and should be eligible
for SPORS or SPORS-like benefits. It should be noted that the author is an ABC
Special Agent, and is interested in seeing if any of the state law enforcement groups
that are presently excluded from receiving enhanced retirement benefits should be
included in such a program.
The sheriff only provides courtroom security, service of civil process and jail functions in cities and in counties where there is a police department.
"hese types of law enforcement duties were identified in a 1980 Revort of the Virginia Retirement Study Commission as a prerequisite for inclusion in SPORS.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Historical Background
Establishment of SPORS
The State Police Officers Retirement System was established in 1950 to allow
members of the State Police to retire early. In a 1944 report concerning enhanced
retirement benefits for members of the State Police, i t was noted:
Usefulness of a member of the State Police as such is ended at the age of fifty to fifty-five . . . it would be contrary to the best interests of the Commonwealth of Virginia . . . to have the majority of the members of the State Police rendered unfit for the duties of their service on account of age (JLARC, 1987, P 2).
The 1944 report also states:
Because of the many hazards and risks incident to the duties of the State Police such members should be afforded further protection than is now provided by the Virginia Retirement Act . . . the duties of the State Police require strenuous service under conditions often of great danger to the Police . . . more adequate provision should be made to cover disabilities resulting from performance of duty . . . the retirement age of such persons should be lowered (JLARC, 1987, P- 3).
Moreover, JLARC (1987) reported that the primary reason for providing
enhanced retirement benefits to members of the State Police was the hazardous nature
of their duties. This reason was also supported in a 1987 memorandum from Glen D.
Pond, Director of VSRS, to the Director of JLARC (JLARC, 1987).
16
Extension of SPORS-like Benefits @Localities
In 1970, the Virginia General Assembly extended SPORS-like benefits to law
enforcement officers employed by localities who participated in VSRS (now VRS).
The 1969 Revort of the Virginia Advisorv Legislative Council ~ P r o ~ o s a l s
Imvrove the State's Retirement Programs discussed the issue of permitting Virginia
localities to provide SPORS-like benefits, at their option, to their law enforcement
officers whose duties were "comparably hazardous" to the State Police (JLARC, 1987).
Forty-eight of Virginia's localities provide SPORS-like benefits to their law
enforcement officers. These include police departments and sheriffs' offices of cities
and counties. Also included are small town police departments (JLARC, 1987).
Moreover, the legislation also authorizes commissions and public authorities which are
political subdivisions of the Commonwealth to authorize their law enforcement officers
to receive SPORS-like benefits (Code of Virginia, 1950).
Hazards and Risks
The review of the historical background behind the establishment of SPORS
for the State Police and the extension of SPORS-like benefits to Virginia's localities
identified one primary theme: hazards and risks. When the SPORS-like benefits were
extended to local police, the only requirement was that the local officers performed
comparably hazardous duties of the State Police. No specific criteria were set forth in
making the determination whether their duties were comparably hazardous. There was
no analysis of the number of deaths, assaults or high speed chases for the individual
17
local law enforcement agencies. In fact, the Code of Virginia only requires that the
local governing body certify to VRS that their officers do in fact perform duties which
are comparably hazardous (Code of Virginia, 1950).
Additionally, there was no study to determine whether local police had
comparable recruitment, training and fitness requirements. There was also no
requirement that these local officers have unlimited statewide jurisdiction. In short,
the requirements imposed upon state law enforcement officers in the 1987 JLARC
study were not imposed on local law enforcement officers and did not relate to
hazards and risks (Code of Virginia, 1950; JLARC, 1987).
Uniform Crime Reports
Each year the Federal Bureau of Investigation collects and analyzes data
relative to the hazards faced by law enforcement officers in the United States. The top
three activities engaged in by law enforcement officers resulting in assaults are
indicated below:
1 . Disturbances: 3 2%
2. Attempting Arrests: 2 1 %
3. Handling Prisoners: 12% (FBI, 1992b)
The top three categories for assaults on Virginia law enforcement officers in
1993 are as follows:
1 . Attempting Arrests: 29%
2. Disturbances: 26%
18
3. Handling Prisoners: 12%
When Virginia law enforcement agencies submitted the above data, the time of
the assaults was also noted. The majority of the assaults occurred between 10 P.M.
and 2 A.M. (Dept. of State Police, 1993).
According to the FBI (1992a), the top five circumstances at the scene of the
killing of law enforcement officers in the United States for an eleven year period
(1 980-1991) are as follows:
Table I
Percent of Law Enforcement Officers Killed by Type of Activity
(Top 5 Activities) 1980-1991
Previous Studies
Fridell and Pate (1994) report that there have been numerous studies relative to
the hazards of police work; all of which have come up with different results. In some,
as indicated above, robbery-related calls were found to be the most dangerous
TYPE OF ACTIVITY
Investigating Suspicious Persons or Circumstances
Robbery Arrests
Arrests for Crimes Other Than Robberies, Burglaries and Drug Offenses
Traffic Pursuits and Stops
Bar Fights, Person5 With Gun, etc.
The Uniform Crime Report categorizes this activity as "man" with gun.
PERCENT
14.6
13.9
13.8
13.5
9.6
19
(Margar-ta, 1980; Konstantin, 1984; and Little, 1984). Chapman (1 976) found that
attempting arrests other than burglary and robbery were the most dangerous. Geller
and Karales (1981) found that responding to "gun" or "shots fired" calls as the most
dangerous, and Cardarelli (1968) reported that making arrests or transporting prisoners
was the most dangerous.
According to Fridell and Pate (1994), the high percentage of police officers
killed during robberies requires closer analysis. These researchers are currently
conducting a study that is revealing that a large number of incidents classified as
robbery arrests actually are situations in which the victim officer was intervening in
his or her own robbery while off duty. Fridell and Pate also point out that this
preliminary conclusion is consistent with a study by Geller and Karales (1981) which
found that although armed robberies constituted 113 of all shootings of police officers,
only 7 percent involved on duty police officers.
Domestic Calls. So-called "domestic" or "family trouble" calls have long been
believed to be one of the highest categories of hazards for police officers. This belief
can be attributed to the fact that the FBI categorized "disturbance calls" inclusive of
"bar fights," "man with a gun" and "family trouble" (Fridell and Pate, 1994). The FBI
now separates bar fights from general disturbance calls. Table 1 shows that "bar
fights" and "man with gun" calls were in the top five categories for line of duty
deaths, and "family trouble" calls were not.
In 1992, the Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted a thorough study of
fifty-one selected felonious killings of law enforcement officers in the United States
20
for the period covering 198 1-1 990. This study analyzed many circumstances
surrounding the killings such as characteristics and the activities of the offenders and
the victim officers. The FBI study noted that while many studies utilizing Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) data were well documented, the focus is normally on
quantitative data. Missing from most studies is an integrative approach which
examines the officers, the offenders and the circumstances that brought them together
(FBI, 1992a). The following is a summary of the environment and circumstances
involved in the killings.
1. Firearms were involved in 94 percent of the slayings.
2. A higher proportion of officers were killed during the 6:00 pm to midnight range than any other time period.
3 . A disproportionate number of law enforcement officers are killed in the South.
4. A large number of killers had a criminal history of violent crimes, drug violations or weapons violations.
5 . Seventy-six percent of the offenders were engaged in the buying, selling or use of alcohol or drugs at the time of the killing of the law enforcement officer.
6. Officers working alone or on special assignment represent the highest proportion of officers killed.
Alcohol and Drugs. As noted above, 76 percent of the killers were engaged in
drug or alcohol activity at the time of the killing. A 1988 profile of jail inmates by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics also indicates the potential violence faced by law
enforcement officers when confronted by persons under the influence of alcohol or
drugs (BJS, 1991). The followiilg data were excerpted from this profile:
Table 2
Percentage of Convicted Jail Inmates Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs at the Time of Current Offense
Officer Errors. Frequently, many supervisors and peers will choose to make
only positive and noncritical statements relative to the slain officers (FBI, 1992a). In
fact, in the JLARC study it was noted that "all [Virginia] State Police deaths are
.
investigated by an internal review board. The review board found that no [emphasis
- Total
58.7
46.5
59.2
Offense
Assault
Weapons Offenses
Obstruction of Justice
supplied] errors had been committed by the slain officers in any of these deaths"
(JLARC, 1987, pp. 18-19). The FBI study reluctantly points out that there are many
factors relative to the victim officer that need to be examined (FBI, 1992a).
Drugs Only
4.5
16.3
7.9
Some of the most frequently occurring behavioral descriptors of victim officers
provided by peers and supervisors include:
Alcohol Only
44.3
21.4
35 .O
1. Tends to use less force than other officers under the circumstances
Both
9.8
8.8
16.3
2. Does not follow all of the rules, especially in regard to: - arrests - confrontation with prisoners - traffic stops - does not wait for backup (FBI, 1992a)
The FBI study identified several other procedural and training issues that need
to be addressed. Some of the primary issues that were identified in the study include
2 2
failure to search a suspect fully and completely; improper or no use of handcuffs; and
positioning of vehicles and approaches during traffic stops (FBI, 1992a).
The perspectives of the offenders regarding the police officers's demeanor at
the time of the incident also revealed two predominate themes. Fifty-seven percent of
the offenders perceived the victim officers as unprepared or surprised during the
confrontation. Secondly, 39 percent of the offenders characterized the demeanor of
the officer as menacing or loud (FBI, 1992a).
Arrests. When examining the assaults on law enforcement officers, the FBI
study identified arrest activities as the number two hazard category for assaults on
police officers and the number one hazard category for line of duty deaths. Burglary
arrests accounted for 1.5 percent of the assaults, robbery arrests 1.4 percent, and all
other arrests accounted for 20.7 percent. Arrests constituted 39.9 percent of all law
enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. Burglaries accounted for 4.4
percent of the killings, robberies 13.9 percent, drug-related crimes 7.4 percent, and all
other crimes accounted for 13.8 percent. No distinction was made in the "other
crimes" categories of assaults or deaths between felony and misdemeanor arrests (FBI,
1992a).
The JLARC study indicated that most arrests made by Virginia Game Wardens
and ABC Special Agents were for misdemeanors, and the volume of misdemeanors
implies the infrequent use of full police power. Thus, the arrest activities of these two
groups are not as hazardous as the State Police (JLARC, 1987). The distinction
between felony and misdemeanor arrests can be misleading. For example, the vast
majority of offenses in Virginia are misdemeanors. The Code of Virginia classifies
offenses such as carrying a concealed weapon, brandishing a firearm, assault and
battery, drunk in public, disorderly conduct, and curse and abuse as misdemeanors.
On the other hand, offeilses such as credit card fraud, grand larceny, public employee
embezzlement, bribery, perjury, and cable television tampering are classified as
felonies (Code of Virginia, 1950).
JLARC's researchers also noted that the "comparative" dangers are further
illustrated by the average number of custodial arrests made. In its definitions JLARC
defines "custodial arrest" as the only true arrest, and that a "citation" is not technically
an arrest (JLARC, 1987). It must be noted that in Virginia, a person is first arrested
for a misdemeanor (Virginia Code 5 19.2-81), and afterwards pursuant to Code 5 19.2-
74, the "arresting officer" shall release the arrestee on a summons to appear in court
(Code of Virginia, 1950).
Insurance Ratings
Life insurance companies classify certain occupational groups in specific risk
categories for the purpose of assessing eligibility and proportionate rates. According
to Mark Clark of Mutual of Omaha (1994), all law enforcement officers fall within the
"6-A" (highest rated designation) if they are involved in arresting criminal suspects.
Included within this "6-A" rating are detectives, sheriffs deputies and state highway
patrol officers. Liquor control agents who only check licenses and minors have a
lesser rating. If the liquor control agent's authority exceeds license inspections and
24
makes arrests, he will be rated as a "6-A." Moreover, any officer who performs
narcotics, vice or undercover duties is classified as "not rated," and the company home
office must be consulted before issuing the policy.
As with life insurance, disability insurance companies also rate occupational
classes relative to risks and hazards. The Virginia State Farm Insurance Company's
lowest classification rate for disability insurance is "1" with the highest rating being
"4." All law enforcement officers are rated as a "4."
Law Enforcement Retirement in Other States
With the exception of Tennessee, all of the contiguous states provide enhanced
retirement benefits for certain classes of state law enforcement officers. The primary
reason cited by the vast majority of states for providing these retirements benefits are
related to hazardous duty: hazardousness, age effectiveness, strenuous duties, job
burnout, law enforcement duties, and public safety. Other less cited reasons include:
effective lobbying, recruitment and no Social Security coverage (JLARC, 1987).
All of the states employ a class of "state police" or "highway patrol," and 98
percent of the states provide enhanced retirement benefits for law enforcement officers
for these classes. JLARC's study also indicates that 46 percent of the states provide
game officers with enhanced retirement benefits, alcoholic beverage control agents
receive similar benefits in 33 percent of the states, capitol police 21 percent and state
campus police 15 percent (JLARC, 1987).
The JLARC researchers note that they did not collect information concerning
25
the responsibilities of law enforcement groups in other states, and that the duties of
these law enforcement groups may not be comparable to those of their counterparts in
Virginia (JLARC, 1987). The differences in duties and responsibilities may be shown
by a recent study by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control where it
was found that only twenty-three states have their liquor law enforcement housed in
the state's liquor authority (ABC, 1994). Many of these states do not confer law
enforcement status to their ABC officers. A survey of sixteen states who belong to
the National Liquor Law Enforcement Association (NLLEA) indicated that five states,
Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington, do not confer full
police powers on their ABC agents; and two other states, Michigan and Maryland, do
not even confer limited police powers on their ABC agents (Hunt, 1992).
The 1987 JLARC study also showed that in some of the states, the state police
perform the functions of the other law enforcement groups. For example, alcoholic
beverage control ellforcement is performed by state police in one state and capitol
police functions are performed by state police in three states. Thus, the state officers
performing capitol police and alcoholic beverage enforcement functions receive
enhanced retirement benefits in these states (JLARC, 1987).
JLARC (1987) also noted that the retirement systems in most states are funded
in part by employee contributions, and "since state employees in Virginia do not
contribute to their retirement, a more meaningful comparison would be among the ten
states with non-contributory earlier retirement of law enforcement personnel" (p. 41).
It must be noted, however, that Virginia state employees contributed 5% of their
2 6
salaries to the retirement system up until 1984 when the Commonwealth began paying
the "employee's contribution" in lieu of the normal 4.5% across the board salary
increase. This is not the "employer's" contribution; it remains an "employee"
contribution (Code of Virginia, 1950).
Reyional Considerations. According to the FBI, the Southern states had a
significantly disproportionate number of felonious law enforcement killings (49%)
compared to other regions in the United States (FBI, 1992a). Fridell and Pate (1994)
also point out that other studies (Cardarelli, 1968; Lester, 1978; and Peterson and
Bailey, 1988) have consistently shown that there is a disproportionate number of
police officers killed in the South compared to the rest of the United States. Of the
five Southeastern states other than Virginia (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North
Carolina, and South Carolina) that employ game wardens, four (80%) provide this law
enforcement class with enhanced retirement benefits. All five states (100%) provide
state police and ABC agents with enhanced retirement benefits. ABC agents in these
states, as in Virginia, have full police powers, but Virginia is the only state in this
region that does not provide enhanced retirement benefits to its ABC agents (Hunt,
1992).
Summarv
All of the studies discussed in this report attempted to determine which of the
various police activities were the most hazardous. Most of the studies identified
different activities as being the most dangerous. This identification of hazards was not
made due to the nature of the activities per se, but was made based upon two distinct
measures: assaults on police officers and line of duty deaths. In other words, the
researchers did not look to see if police officers were engaging in activities which
were traditionally perceived to be hazardous. Rather, they determined which activities
were hazardous based upon the number of assaults and deaths.
JLARC (1987) looked at the number of assaults and deaths as well, but JLARC
researchers, without respect to the number of assaults and deaths, also examined
activities that were perceived to be dangerous. These variables include the mission of
the agency, citations vs. custodial arrests; misdemeanor vs. felony arrests; property
damage resulting from high speed chases; and response to bomb complaints, hostage
situations, strikes and riots, and chemical spills. Fridell and Pate (1994), citing Gamer
and Clemmer (1986), point out that to assess the relative danger of types of activities
requires base rate information on the frequency of the activities. For example, a
hostage situation could be more hazardous than tracking an illegal game poacher.
However, the rarity of the hostage situation must be considered against the number of
illegal poachers to validly measure the day to day risks faced by the individual
officers.
The next chapter will describe the methodology used in an attempt to
accurately measure the relative hazards and risks of police work. Rather than
attempting to measure what is perceived to be dangerous, law enforcement officers
will be asked to identify those activities they engage in that are actually hazardous.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology and evaluation plan used in the present
study. The chapter identifies the design that was chosen to gather necessary data and
the specifics of the data collection plan. This chapter also describes the statistics used
to analyze the data and the limitations of the research.
The purpose of the research is to conceptualize hazards and risks, and then
measure such hazards and risks faced by law enforcement in Virginia. The
conceptualization process will involve gathering data from various law enforcement
officers in Virginia in an effort to find out what they think are actually job-related
hazards and risks.
Telephone Interview
A telephone interview will be conducted with ten law enforcement officers in
Virginia. One officer from each of the following agencies will be interviewed:
1. Virginia State Police 6. Stafford Sheriffs Office
2. Richmond Police Department 7. Federal Bureau of Investigation
3. Henrico Police Department 8. Goochland Sheriffs Office
4. Pittsylvania Sheriffs Office 9. VA. Commonwealth Univ. Police
5. ABC Enforcement Division 10. Virginia Game Wardens
29
These officers will be asked what they believe to be the best measurement of
hazardousness in the line of duty for law enforcement in general. The responses will
be listed and compared for similarities and trends. All responses will be included in a
structured survey to be sent to the same officers.
Written Surveys
Two surveys will be sent to the officers indicated above. The first will ask
whether the administrative screening devices used by JLARC, which were not related
to hazards or risks, should be considered in determining whether a particular agency
should be considered for enhanced retirement benefits. The question will be: please
indicate whether you agree or disagree that any of the following criteria should be
used in determining whether law enforcement officers should receive enhanced
retirement benefits:
Unlimited Statewide Jurisdiction Yes/No (Agreemisagree)
Written Entrance Examination Yes/No
Physical Agility Test Yes/No
Medical Examination Yes/No
Physical Fitness Standards Yes/No
Length of Field Training Yes/No
Length of Basic Police Training Yes/No
Frequency of In-service Training Yes/No
Frequency of Firearms Training Yes/No
3 0
The respondents will not be questioned relative to the first two administrative
criteria examined by JLARC: sworn law enforcement officer and general police
powers. This is because these criteria were specifically included in the Act, and
because none of the agencies studied by JLARC took exception to them.
The second survey will deal with hazards and risks. The respondents will be
asked to indicate whether they strongly agree, agree, have no opinion, disagree or
strongly disagree with each of the following as being an accurate measure of duty
hazards and risks. A Likert scale from 1 - 5 with one indicating strong disagreement
and 5 indicating strong agreement that the indicator measures hazardousness will be
used. The data will be analyzed to determine what law enforcement officers believe to
be a valid measurement of the hazards and risks associated with their duties. The
activities or categories included in this survey will come from the telephone
interviews, JLARC criteria and those identified in the literature review.
Once this first step is complete, a survey which attempts to measure the top
five ranked hazards and risks will be sent to the 47 law enforcement agencies6 in
Virginia who participate under SPORS or receive SPORS-like benefits through V R S . ~
These agencies are listed in Appendix 1 .
This survey will also be sent to the following state law enforcement agencies
Sheriffs' offices which do not provide direct law enforcement services are not included in this number.
7 A number of localities such as the cities of Richmond, Charlottesville, Norfolk, and Roanoke are not included here, because the localities provide their own enhanced retirement programs for their officers.
3 1
with full police vowers who are excluded from receiving enhanced retirement benefits:
1. ABC Enforcement Division 4. VA. Commonwealth Univ. police8
2. DGIF Enforcement Division 5. University of Virginia Police
3. State Capitol Police
If the rate within the specific categories by any of the five state law
enforcement agencies is at least equal to the lowest ranking agency afforded SPORS
or SPORS-like benefits, then it will be concluded the agency or agencies face
comparable risks and hazards of members of the Department of State Police. This will
hold true because localities provided SPORS-like benefits have been previously
determined by their governing body9 to face comparable hazards and risks of VSP. If
any of these state law enforcement agencies face comparable hazards and risks of local
police who receive SPORS-like benefits, then it must logically follow that they also
face comparable hazards and risks of the State Police.
Included in the survey sent to the 47 law enforcement agencies receiving
SPORS or SPORS-like benefits and the five state law enforcement agencies
enumerated above who are excluded from receiving similar benefits will be additional
questions. These questions will seek to capture some of the current data that was
originally used in the 1987 JLARC study relative to hazardousness. The respondents
will be asked to provide the following information for calendar year 1994:
As in the 1987 JLARC study, Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of Virginia will be used as a sampling of all state campus police departments in Virginia.
As authorized by the Virginia General Assembly. See Virginia Code 5 51 .l-138.
32
1 . Number of sworn officers employed
2. Number of officers killed in the line of duty since the department was created in its present form (excluding heartllung deaths)
3. Number of assaults on officers
4. Number of officers retired on disability (excluding heartilung disabilities)
5 . Number of officer-related worker's compensation claims (excluding heartllung claims)
Once the rate for each category is determined, the agencies will be ranked in
order of frequency of occurrence. Again, if the rate within the specific categories for
any of the five state law enforcement agencies excluded from receiving enhanced
retirement benefits is at least equal to the lowest ranking agency that receives SPORS-
like benefits, then it will be concluded that the agency or agencies face comparable
hazards and risks of members of the Department of State Police.
Research Question 1
Are the duties of some or all of the state law enforcement agencies excluded
from receiving SPORS or SPORS-like benefits comparably hazardous to those of the
Department of State Police?
Research Ouestion 2
Are the duties of all of the state law enforcement agencies excluded from
receiving SPORS or SPORS-like benefits not comparable to those of the Department
of State Police in terms of hazardousness?
Initial Survey Results
Televhone Survey
The following are the responses from the ten officers surveyed over the
telephone.
HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES
State Police: Handling disturbances where subject (s) are under the influence of alcohol
DGIF: Encounters with persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs
ABC: Stopping vehicles and individuals for alcohol-related criminal violations
Stafford Co.: Encounters with intoxicated persons
Henrico Co.: Uniform officers: domestic situations; Investigators: executing search warrants for narcotics violations
FBI: Executing search warrants for narcotics violations
Richmond P.D.: Encounters with armed individuals
Goochland Co.: Entering a private residence to execute search warrants, arrest warrants and other process
VCU Police: Encounters with persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs
Pittsylvania Co.: Working undercover vice and narcotics assignments
34
Written Surveys
Two surveys were then sent to the officers indicated above. Of the ten officers
surveyed, nine responded to both surveys. Table 3 reflects the results of the first
survey that deals with the administrative screening criteria used by JLARC in its 1987
study.
Table 3
Officers' Attitudes Towards JLARC's Administrative Criteria
The information gained from the telephone interviews was placed in a second
survey using the Likert scale. Also contained in this survey instrument were
categories that were developed from the literature review to include the 1987 JLARC
study.
CRITERIA
Unlimited Statewide Jurisdiction
Written Entrance Examination
Physical Agility Test
Medical Examination
Physical Fitness Standards
Length o f Field Training
Length o f Basic Police Training
Frequency o f In-Service Training
Frequency o f Firearms Training
YES (Percent)
0
1 1 . 1
22.2
88.9
3 3 . 3
1 1 . 1
33 .3
1 1 . 1
22.2
NO (Percent)
100
88.9
77.8
1 1 . 1
66.7
88.9
66.7
88.9
77.8
Table 4
Please Indicate Below Whether You Agree or Disagree That the Indicated Activities are
~
Valid Measures of
Hazardous Activity
Making Narcotics Arrests
Executing Narcotics Search Warrants
Entering a Private Dwelling to Execute Search Warrants, Arrest Warrants and Other Process
Stopping Vehiclesflndividuals to Make Alcohol-related Criminal Arrests
Handling Disturbances Where Subject (s) are Under the Influence of Alcohol
Strike Duty or Civil Disturbances
Encounters with Armed Individuals
High Speed Chases
Rate of Property Damage From High Speed Chases
Rate of Medical Attention from High Speed Chases
Making Traffic (non-criminal) Arrests
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments (Vice: Prostitution, Liquor and Gambling)
Working Night Shifts (6 P.M. to 2 A.M )
Handling Domestic Situations
Making Custodial Arrestsmandling Prisoners
Hazardousness
Strongly Agree
Duty for
Agree
Police Officers
No Opinion
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Results
Because there were only nine respondents, the highest possible score was 45.
Table 5
Handling Disturbances Where Subject (s) are Under the Influence of Alcohol andfor Drugs
Handling Domestic Situations
Encounters With Armed Individuals
Results of the Initial Survey
HAZARDOUS ACTIVITY SCORE
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments (Vice: Prostitution, Liquor and Gambling)
11 Stopping Vehiclesflndividuals to Make Alcohol- I 11
1 Entering Private Residences to Execute Search Warrants, Arrest Warrants and Other Process
11 related Criminal Arrests ! 41 11 I
Making Narcotics Arrests 1 40 I1 I Executing Narcotics Search Warrants 1 40 11 I I( Making Traffic (non-criminal) Arrests 1 37 11
High Speed Chases 1 40 I1 I Making Custodial ArrestsRlandling Prisoners 1 40 11
11 Working Night Shifts (6 P.M. to 2 A.M.) 1 34 11 Strike Duty or Civil Disturbances
Rates of Medical Attention from High Speed 11 Chases 1 25 11 Rates of Property damage from High Speed I Chases I 24 11
35
A survey was then sent to the 4 7 law enforcement agencies whose members
1
receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits and to the five state law enforcement agencies
who are excluded from receiving enhanced retirement benefits. Initially this survey
3 7
was only to include the top 5 categories as measured by the Likert scale. However,
because four categories received the same score of 41, six categories are included in
the survey. The survey also seeks to obtain information necessary to properly
determine rates such as number of officers employed.
Additional information sought includes data on assaults, line of duty deaths and
disabilities. In regard to the line of duty deaths, disabilities and worker's
compensation claims, the respondents were asked to exclude data in these categories
which resulted from claims under the "Heart and Lung" ~i1l.l ' This exclusion was
necessary because the five state law enforcement agencies excluded from enhanced
state retirement benefits are not eligible for claims for heart and lung disabilities.
Finally, the survey also sought to determine which agencies require a pre-employment
medical examination. This was asked because it is the only .%ARC administrative
screening criteria that the surveyed officers agreed should be used in determining
whether law enforcement officers should receive enhanced retirement benefits. The
survey questions are listed in Appendix 2, and all information requested was for
calendar year 1994. L
-
lo State legislation that creates a presumption that death or disability of a law enforcement officer due to hypertension or heart disease was work related.
CHAPTER FOLR
DATA ANALYSIS
Surveys were sent to 52 agencies. One agency (VSP) receives SPORS, and 46
receive SPORS-like benefits. Five state law enforcement agencies do not receive
enhanced retirement benefits. There were a total of 22 responses as of the cut off date
for this research. Of the 47 agencies that receive enhanced retirement benefits, 19
responded. Two of those 19 did not identify their agency, and they are listed as
unknown in the tables. Of the five state law enforcement agencies that do not receive
enhanced retirement benefits, 3 responded: DGIF, ABC Enforcement and VCU Police.
Line of Dutv Deaths --
The first category examined was line of duty deaths. The rate of line of duty
deaths does not take into account the years the agency has been in existence, or the
fact that the size of the agency may have varied throughout the years. The rate is
based solely upon the current number of officers employed and the actual number of
line of duty deaths. Reflected in Table 6 is the reported rate since the law
enforcement agency was created.
I/ Table 6 About Here I/
Nineteen agencies reported less frequent deaths than DGIF. Eleven agencies
had less frequent deaths than ABC Enforcement, and 2 other agencies reported at the
same rate as ABC. VCU Police and 7 other agencies reported no deaths.
Table 6
Officers Killed in the Line of Duty
I1 Law Enforcement Agency Rate
11 Mecklenburg Co. S . 0 1 .I43
1) Unknown 1 .063
1 DGIF I .050
11 Petersburg P.D. 1 .043
(1 Salem P.D. 1 .034
)I State Police 1 .025
Colonial Heights P.D.
Martinsville P.D.
ABC Enforcement
Unknown
Henrico P.D.
Loudoun Co. S.O.
Chesapeake P.D.
Virginia Beach P.D. .006
VCU Police 0
Pearisburg P.D.
Radford P.D.
Warrenton P.D.
Luray P.D.
Narrows P.D.
Essex Co. S.O.
Winchester P.D. 0
40
Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers
Table 7 shows that ABC Enforcement agents were assaulted more frequently in
the line of duty than 17 other law enforcement agencies including the State Police.
VCU Police were assaulted more frequently than 11 agencies, and DGIF more
frequently than 4 agencies that receive SPORS-like benefits through VRS.
/I Table 7 About Here //
Disability Retirements
Disability retirements were believed to be a good measure of the relative risks
and hazards faced by law enforcement officers. As Table 7 shows, disability
retirements are a rare occurrence. In fact, DGIF officers, VCU Police and ABC agents
are joined by 12 law enforcement agencies (who receive SPORS-like benefits) who
reported no disability retirements for 1994.
/ I Table 8 About Here //
Workers' Com~ensation Claims
Out of 22 agencies, DGIF ranked fourth on the list of workers' compensation
claims. Table 9 shows that twelve agencies that receive SPORS-like benefits ranked
less than ABC Enforcement personnel and 10 less than VCU Police in workers'
compensation claims.
// Table 9 About Here 11
Table 7
Assaults on Law Enforcement Officers
Table 8
Disability Retirements
Table 9
Worker's Compensation Claims
Warrenton P.D.
11 Pearisburg P.D. 1 .500
11 Perersburg Beach P.D. 1 ,470
11 DCIF 1 .389
I( Radford P.D. 1 .385
VCU Police
Unknown
Mecklenburg S.O. .095
Narrows P.D.
Winchester P.D.
State Police
Essex Co. S.O.
ABC Enforcement
Henrico Co. P.D.
11 Loudoun Co. S.O. 1 ,093
.333
.286
.283
.250
,200
,171
11 Chesapeake P.D. 1 .087
1) Unknown 1 .063
Colonial Heights P.D.
Salem P.D.
Virginia Beach P.D.
Martinsville P.D.
.023
.O 17
NA
0
44
Alcohol and Drug Disturbances Handled
State Police and DGIF could not provide an estimate of the number of alcohol
or drug-related disturbances handled by their respective agencies. VCU Police
exceeded at least 8 other agencies and ABC at least six other law enforcement
agencies in this category.
// Table 10 About Here I/
Sto~ping. Vehicles/Individuals forAlcohol-related Crimes
Table 11 reflects the number of arrests for driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI) and liquor law violations. Equal weight was given to each type of
alcohol crime in determining the rate. ABC Enforcement personnel ranked third out
of 22 respondents. VCU Police ranked 14th and DGIF ranked 20th, which was still
higher than the lowest ranking law enforcement agency that receives SPORS-like
benefits.
/I Table 11 About Here /I
Domestic Calls
Virginia law enforcement agencies report state UCR data on disturbances by
grouping family trouble calls with similar disturbances such as bar fights. Table 12
reflects data in this combined group. ABC agents exceeded at least 4 agencies that
receive SPORS-like benefits, and VCU Police ranked 19th.
I/ Table 12 About Here 11
Table 10
Alcohol and Drug Disturbances Handled
Table 1 I
Stopping Vehicles/Individuals for Alcohol-related Crimes
Table 12
Arrests from Disturbances/Domestic Calls
Law Enforcement Agency
Chesapeake P.D.
Mecklenburg Co. S.O.
Martinsville P.D.
Warrenton P.D.
Radford P.D.
Pearisburg P.D.
Petersburg P.D.
Rate
10.038
9.762
8.245
7.500
7.500
5.000
4.965
VCU Police
Virginia Beach P.D.
DG IF
State Police
.65 1
NA
NA
NA
4 8
Encounters with Armed Individuals
In an attempt to measure the amount of encounters Virginia police officers
have with armed individuals, two groups of data were sought: weapons arrests and
weapons seizures. Each were given equal weight. It is likely that some of the
weapons arrests accounted for a corresponding weapons seizure. However, seizures
can occur without an arrest. Table 13 shows that DGIF exceeded 14 other agencies
under this category including the State Police. VCU Police exceeded 5 agencies and
ABC four other law enforcement agencies that receive SPORS-like benefits.
I/ Table 13 About Here /I
Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants
The execution of search warrants, arrest warrants and other process at private
residences were identified as hazardous police activities. Table 14 shows that DGIF
exceed at least 10 other law enforcement agencies under this category including the
State Police. ABC Enforcement exceeded at least 9 other law enforcement agencies
and VCU Police exceeded at least 2 agencies that receive SPORS-like benefits.
// Table 14 About Here //
Table 13
Encounters With Armed Individuals
Table 14
Search Warrants, Arrest Warrants and Other Process Executed at Private Residences
Law Enforcement Agency
Mecklenburg Co. S.O.
Unknown
Radford P.D.
Colonial Heights P.D.
State Police
Warrenton P.D.
DGIF
Rate
829.048
56.250
46.154
23.256
6.600
5.000
4.629
5 1
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments
Undercover narcotics and vice assignments were identified by Virginia law
enforcement officers as highly dangerous work. For purposes of this research, the
term "vice" was defined as prostitution, gambling and liquor. In order to measure the
amount of undercover work performed by officers in each agency, data in the
following categories were collected. Narcotics and liquor were measured by the
number of actual undercover buys. Prostitution and gambling were measured by the
number of arrests. Each was given equal weight in order to determine the final rate.
Table 15 shows that ABC Enforcement agents exceeded all but two of the other
respondents relative to the performance of undercover work. Based upon the data
provided, VCU Police exceeded at least two other agencies. While the data from
DGIF were not available, DGIF still performed at least at the rate of another agency
which reported no activity under these categories.
I / Table 15 About Here 11
Medical Examinations
All respondents reported that they required pre-employment medical
examinations of applicants for sworn positions.
Table 15
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments
Law Enforcement Agency
Essex Co. S.O.
Martinsville P.D.
ABC Enforcement
Radford P.D.
Unknown
Unknown.
Warrenton P.D.
State Police
Petersburg P.D.
Mecklenburg Co. S.O.
Virginia Beach P.D.
Chesapeake P.D.
Narrows P.D.
Henrico Co. P.D.
Salem P.D.
Colonial Heights P.D.
Pearisburg P.D.
VCU Police
Loudoun Co. S.O..
DGlF
Winchester P.D.
Luray P.D.
Undercover Drug Buys
25.000
3.925
1.157
1.269
2.143
1.563
1.250
1.304
.5 74
.952
NA
.5 02
,500
NA
,424
,349
,250
.032
NA
N A
NA
0
Prostitution and Related Sex Crimes (Arrests)
0
0
.I21
.769
0
0
,250
.024
,278
0
.648
.010
0
,467
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
- Gambling Arrests
0
0
.050
0
.071
0
,150
0
,043
0
,013
.007
0
,002
0
0
0
0
,006
NA
0
0
Undercover Liquor Buys
0
,057
1.478
,385
.I43
.25
0
.004
,165
0
N A
0
0
NA
0
0
0
0
NA
N A
0
0
Total Rate
25.000
3.982
2 306
2.423
2.357
1.813
1.650
1332
1.060
.952
,661
,519
,500
,469
,424
.349
,250
.032
,006
NA
0
0
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The Commonwealth of Virginia provides enhanced retirement benefits for
members of the Department of State Police under the State Police Officers Retirement
System (SPORS). These benefits are primarily based upon the risks and hazards of
police work. The Commonwealth also allows Virginia localities, who participate in
the state retirement system, to authorize SPORS-like benefits for their law enforcement
officers who perform comparably hazardous duties.
The Commonwealth excludes state law enforcement groups (other than the
State Police) from receiving enhanced retirement benefits. These groups include Game
Wardens of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Special Agents of the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Capitol Police officers, and state
university police. Each year some form of legislation is introduced to include one or
more of these law enforcement groups in an enhanced retirement program.
In 1987, the Virginia General Assembly directed the Joint Legislative Audit
and Review Commission (JLARC) to conduct a study to determine which if any other
employees, either state law enforcement officers or sheriffs deputies, who have full
police powers should be included in SPORS. JLARC's study ultimately recommended
that no other law enforcement group be included in SPORS. This conclusion was
based on two factors. First, a set of administrative screening criteria was applied to
54
eliminate all but two state law enforcement groups from further consideration. The
two final groups, Game Wardens and ABC Special Agents, were ultimately eliminated,
because JLARC researchers determined that their duties were not comparably
hazardous to the State Police.
The purpose of this thesis was to conduct further research in an attempt to get
a consensus view of the variable "hazardousness" by asking law enforcement officers
in Virginia what the term means (conceptualization) to them. Secondly, data were
gathered from law enforcement agencies in Virginia to measure the amount of
hazardousness in various law enforcement agency daily activities. Finally, once the
data were gathered, a comparison between the law enforcement agencies in Virginia
that receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits and those state law enforcement agencies
that are excluded from the program was made relative to frequency of exposure to
hazardous police activities.
Literature Review
The literature review revealed that there have been numerous studies on
hazards of police work. Many of these studies have reached different conclusions as
to what is the most hazardous activity the police engage in. These conclusions vary
from domestic calls to robberies in progress. A closer analysis of these activities by
previous researchers produced some interesting results. For example, Fridell and Pate
(1994) point out that many of the killings of police officers during robberies actually
involved an off-duty officer intervening in his own robbery. These researchers also
5 5
point out that when the FBI separated bar fights and man with gun calls from the
general category of "disturbance"calls, it was found that family trouble or "domestic"
calls actually accounted for less attacks on police officers than the former.
In 1992, the FBI conducted a thorough study of 51 selected felonious killings
of law enforcement officers in the United States. This study noted that although other
studies using Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics were well documented,
missing from most studies was an integrative approach that examines the officers, the
offenders and the circumstances that brought them together. The study revealed that
94 percent of the killings were with firearms, many of the killers had a history of
violence and 76 percent were engaged in the buying, selling or use of alcohol or drugs
at the time of the killing (FBI, 1992a).
Law Enforcement Retirement in Other States
Numerous studies have consistently shown that there is a disproportionate
number of law enforcement officers killed in the South. Of the five southeastern
states other than Virginia (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina) that employ game wardens, four (80%) provide this law enforcement class
with enhanced retirement benefits. All five states (100%) provide their state police
and ABC agents with enhanced retirement benefits. Capitol police and state university
police are not provided enhanced retirement benefits in these states. However, capitol
police receive enhanced retirement benefits in 21 percent of all states, and state
university police in 15 percent. These figures are not entirely accurate, because in
56
many states these law enforcement groups do not exist or perform different duties.
JLARC's Administrative Screening, Criteria
A survey was sent to ten law enforcement officers in Virginia; nine responded.
The respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with nine of the
administrative screening criteria used by JLARC to determine whether law
enforcement officers should receive enhanced retirement benefits. As Table 3 shows,
the only criterion that the respondents agreed with was the pre-employment medical
examination. In another survey sent to all law enforcement agencies who receive
SPORS or SPORS-like benefits and the state law enforcement groups excluded from
the benefits, all respondents reported that officers do receive pre-employment medical
examinations.
Televhone Interview
The same ten officers were interviewed by telephone and asked what they
believed to be the most hazardous police activity in the performance of their duties.
Five of the respondents identified encounters with persons under the influence alcohol
or drugs as the most dangerous. Encounters with armed individuals, working
undercover assignments, and executing search warrants for narcotics violations were
also identified as being the most dangerous police activity.
5 8
Line of Dutv Deaths. Assaults &Disabilities. Members of all three of the
respondent agencies who do not receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits were killed,
assaulted and received work-related injuries consistently at a rate equal to or higher
than other agencies that receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits. For example,
Virginia Game Wardens were killed in the line of duty at a rate higher than 18 other
law enforcement agencies, including the State Police, which receive enhanced
retirement benefits. AI3C agents were killed at a rate higher that 11 other agencies.
ABC Special Agents were assaulted at a rate higher than 17 other law enforcement
agencies including the State Police, and VCU police officers at a rate higher than 11
other agencies. Virginia Game Wardens experienced job-related injuries at a rate
higher than 17 other law enforcement agencies that receive SPORS or SPORS-like
benefits including the Virginia Department of State Police. VCU police officers
received injuries at a rate higher than at least 9 other agencies.
Hazardous Activities. Based upon the responses provided by the 22 law
enforcement agencies that responded to the final survey, DGIF, VCU Police and AI3C
Enforcement engaged in hazardous police activities at a rate equal to or higher than
other law enforcement agencies that receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits. For
example, Virginia Game Wardens encountered armed individuals at a rate higher than
14 other law enforcement agencies including the State Police. AI3C Special Agents
engaged in undercover vice and narcotics assignments at a rate higher than 18 other
law enforcement agencies including the State Police, and VCU Police handled alcohol
and drug disturbances at a rate higher than at least 8 other law enforcement agencies.
59
In all other categories such as encounters with individuals under the influence
of alcohol or drugs, stopping individuals for alcohol-related crimes, responding to bar
fights and family trouble calls, and executing search warrants and arrest warrants,
ABC Special Agents exceeded other law enforcement agencies that receive enhanced
retirement benefits. Game Wardens also exceeded other law enforcement agencies in
stopping vehicles or individuals for alcohol-related crimes and executing search
warrants and arrest warrants at private residences. VCU Police met or exceeded the
rate of other agencies in all categories.
The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries could not provide data on
undercover vice and narcotics activities, bar fightstfamily trouble or alcohol and drug
disturbances. However, two other law enforcement agencies including the State Police
could not provide data relative to arrests for bar fightstfamily trouble. Four other
agencies including the State Police could not provide data on the number of
disturbances involving alcohol or drugs that were handled. Two other law
enforcement agencies reported no activity for undercover narcotics and vice
assignments. Therefore, Virginia Game Wardens met or exceeded the level of activity
in hazardous police functions of other law enforcement agencies that receive enhanced
retirement benefits.
Conclusions
The law enforcement divisions of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the VCU Police were the only
state law enforcement agencies, which are excluded from receiving enhanced
60
retirement benefits, that provided data to complete this thesis research. Members of
these three law enforcement groups are vested with full police powers for the
protection of the public, but do not receive enhanced retirement benefits.
Based upon the data provided by the State Police and other law enforcement
agencies that receive enhanced retirement benefits in Virginia, VCU police officers,
Game Wardens and ABC Special Agents perform duties that are comparably
hazardous to the State Police. This is true, because VCU police officers, Game
Wardens and ABC Special Agents met or exceeded the levels and frequency of
hazardous police activity of other Virginia law enforcement agencies who receive
SPORS or SPORS-like benefits. Moreover, in terms of actual job-related assaults,
injuries and deaths, these three agencies also met or exceeded the frequency
experienced by other Virginia law enforcement agencies that receive enhanced
retirement benefits.
Recommendations
It has been several years since the last time the State has studied the inclusion
of other state law enforcement agencies in SPORS or a SPORS-like program. The
results of this thesis research suggest, that at a minimum, the problem should be
studied again. The next study should focus in terms of actual job-related deaths,
injuries and assaults and compared with all law enforcement agencies in Virginia who
receive SPORS or SPORS-like benefits. If comparisons are made relative to specific
law enforcement functions, these comparisons should not be made in connection with
6 1
police activities that are perceived by the researchers as being hazardous. Rather, a
cross-section of law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth should be queried as
to what they actually find to be hazardous in the course of their daily duties. Further
studies should include all state law enforcement agencies in Virginia whose members
have full police powers and without regard to geographical jurisdiction.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1991). Profile of Jail Inmates 1989. Special Report NCJ-129097. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Cardarelli, A. P. (1 968). An Analysis of Police Killed by Criminal Action: 1961 - 1963. -Journal of Criminal Law. Criminologv, and Police Science 59(3): 447-453.
Chapman, S. G. (1976). Police Murders &Effective Countermeasures. Santa Cruz, CA: Davis Publishing Co.
Code of Virginia. (1950, as amended). Vols. lB, 4, 4A, 5A and 7A. Charlottesville, -- VA: The Michie Company.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1992a). Killed in the Line of Dutv: A Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement Officers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1992b). Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Fridell, L. A. & Pate, A. M. (1994). Death on Patrol--Killings of American Law Enforcement Officers. In Roger G. Dunham and Geoffrey P. Alpert (Eds.), Critical Issues in Policing: Contemvorarv Readings (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Gamer, J. & Clemmer, E. (1986). Research in Brief Danger to Police in Domestic Disturbances--A New Look. Washington D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November.
Geller, W. A. & Karales, K. J. (1981). Split Second Decisions: Shootings of and bv Chicano Police. Chicago: Chicago Law Enforcement Study Group.
Hagan, Frank E. (1993). Research Methods incriminal Justice d c r i m i n o l o g ~ (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Hunt, Kristen. (1992). =Utilization of Sting Operations bv Special Agents of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Richmond, VA.
Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission. (1987). &Assessment of Eligibility for State Police Officers Retirement Svstem Benefits. Richmond, VA. (House Document No. 2, 1988).
Konstantin, D. (1984). Homicides of American Law Enforcement Officers. Justice Quarterly l(1): 29-45.
Lester, D. (1978). A Study of Civilian-Caused Murders of Police Officers. International Journal of Criminolonical Penolonv 6:373-378.
Little, R. (1984). Cop-Killing: A Descriptive Analysis of the Problem. Police Studies: -International Review of Police Develo~ment 7(2): 68-75.
Margarita, M. (1980). Killing the Police: Myths and Motives. Annals of the American Society of Political and Social Science 452 (November):63-7 1
Peterson, R. D. & Bailey, W.C. (1988). Structural Influences on the Killings of Police: A Comparison with General Homicides. Justice Ouarterlv 5(2): 207- 233.
Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. (1994). &Evaluation of the Options &Transfer ABC Enforcement Functions. Richmond, VA.
Virginia Department of State Police. (1993). Crime in Virginia. Richmond, VA.
APPENDIX 1
Law Enforcement Agencies Surveyed
State Agencies
1. Virginia State Police
Counties
1 . Albemarle Co. P.D
2. Appomattox Co. S.O.
3. Augusta Co. S.O.
4. Campbell Co. S.O.
5. Chesterfield Co. P.D.
6. Essex Co. S.O.
7. Goochland Co. S.O.
8. Hanover Co. S.O.
Cities
1 . Bedford P.D.
2. Bristol P.D.
3. Chesapeake P.D.
4. Colonial Heights P.D.
5. Fredericksburg P.D.
6. Franklin P.D.
9. Henrico Co. P.D.
10. Henry Co. S.O.
11. Loudoun Co. S.O.
12. Mecklenburg Co. S.O.
13. Prince William Co. P.D.
14. Pulaski Co. S.O.
IS. Roanoke Co. P.D.
16. York Co. S.O.
1 1 . Martinsville P.D.
12. Petersburg P.D.
13. Poquoson P.D.
14. Radford P.D.
1 5. Salem P.D.
16. Staunton P.D.
APPENDIX 2
Survey Instrument
Officers Em~loved
Number of sworn officers employed
Line of Dutv Deaths --
a Number of officers killed in the line of duty since your department was created in its present for (excluding heartllung deaths
Assaults onofficers
Number of assaults on officers
Job-Related Disabilities
Number of officers retired on disability (excluding heartllung disabilities)
Number of officer-related worker's compensation claims (excluding heartllung claims)
Pre-Employment Medical Examination
Do officers receive a pre-employment medical examination?
Handling Disturbances Where Subiect (s) are Under the Influence ofAlcohol andlor Drugs --
Approximate number of alcoholldrug related disturbances Handled
Sto~ping Vehicles/lndividuals to Make Alcohol-related Criminal Arrests
Number of arrests for DUI
Number of arrests for liquor law violations
Handling Domestic Situations
Number of arrests from bar fightslfamily trouble (disorderly, breach of peace, assault & battery)
Encounters With Armed Individuals
Number of arrests for weapons violations
Number of weapons seized
Entering &Private Dwelling, &Execute Search Warrants. Arrest Warrants and Other Process
Number of search warrants, arrest warrants and other process executed in private residences
Undercover Narcotics and Vice Assignments (Vice: Prostitution. Liauor and gambling,)
Number of undercover drug buys
Number of prostitution and related sex offense arrests (other than rapelsexual battery)
Number of gambling arrests
Number of undercover liquor buys
Vita
John R. Cencich was born on December 29, 1957, in St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, and he is a dual national of the United States and Canada. He graduated from Mt. Clemens High School in Mt. Clemens, Michigan in 1975. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in Organizational Management. He has over seventeen years of law enforcement experience, and he is currently employed with the Bureau of Law Enforcement of the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in the capacity of Special Agent in Charge. He is also a member of the adjunct faculty at Virginia Commonwealth University with the Department of Criminal Justice.