Southern California Security Firm Provides Its Officers with Non-Lethal Weapons from PepperBall Technologies
OC Metro Reduces Risk of Guard Injuries While Protecting Clients in the Anaheim Resort Area from Gang Fights
San Diego - PepperBall Technologies announced that OC Metro, an Anaheim, Calif.-based private security firm, has provided its 23 patrol officers with PeppperBall's non-lethal weapon system.
Art Lucero, owner of OC Metro, said he chose PepperBall products due to their ability to gain suspect compliance while lowering the potential risk to his officers and suspects. "Due to an increase in gang fights and other incidents which require the use-of-force, we wanted something that would reduce our officers' risk of injuries, as well as to that of the people we deal with on the street," he said. "Within just a few weeks, the PepperBalll system has helped us break up several fights, including a rumble between organized rival gangs, without any serious injuries."
Founded in 1988, OC Metro provides both armed and unarmed patrols 24 hours a day; seven days a week to the Anaheim Convention Center, as well as hotels, nightclubs, shopping centers and homeowners' associations near Disneyland. "My clients also see the value OC Metro offers by carrying non-lethal alternatives to firearms as it lowers the risk of fatalities and mitigates liability concerns," Lucero said.
"More and more private security firms are turning to PepperBall as a first-choice alternative to lethal force," said George Burkle, general manager of PepperBall Technologies. "They see the same opportunity to mitigate risk, lower liability and enhance the safety of those authorized to use force as do our more than 3,000 law enforcement customers."
The PepperBall line of products being employed by private security end-users to better patrol and secure perimeters, probe the intent of non-compliant individuals, protect against crowd uprisings, manage inmate populations, protect students and personnel and more.
PepperBall products use the unique Chem-netics™ technology to effectively achieve subject compliance. Affected individuals experience the psychological shock of being "shot," the powerful yet less-than-lethal kinetic impact of a hard frangible round, and the release of potent PAVA (capsaicin II) pepper super-irritant. These combined affects make PepperBall products extremely effective while lowering the level of kinetic impact relied upon my other less-than-lethal products. PepperBall products can also be used without impact to create contained clouds of PAVA for breaking barricades or extracting unauthorized individuals from secured premises.
About PepperBall Technologies, Inc.
PepperBall Technologies, Inc. develops, manufactures and distributes the PepperBall brand line of non-lethal weapons for governmental, military, corrections, private security, and law enforcement agencies. Products include PepperBall System launchers and projectiles, ImpactPlus 12 gauge less lethal rounds, and PepperBall PAVA pepper spray. PepperBall users include the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Border Patrol, Police and Sheriff Departments in major United States cities including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle, and more. For more information on PepperBall Technologies, Inc., visit www.pepperball.com.
|
|
SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS
THROUGH
COMMUNITY POLICING:
VOLUME II
Three Case Studies
April 2000
The United States Conference of Mayors
The United States Conference of Mayors
1620 Eye Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20006 • (202) 293-7330 • www.usmayors.org
H. Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise, President
Marc H. Morial, Mayor of New Orleans, Vice President
Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston, Chair, Advisory Board
J. Thomas Cochran, Executive Director
This publication was prepared under grant no._______ from the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. (any necessary DOJ disclaimer)
This publication was prepared for The United States Conference of Mayors by City Policy Associates, Washington, D.C.
INTRODUCTION
Created through the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) within the U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for the advancement of community policing in the nation. Its mission has included the addition of 100,000 community policing officers to the ranks of local law enforcement agencies and the provision of grant funds to enable these agencies to acquire new technologies and equipment, to hire civilians for administrative tasks, and to promote innovative approaches to fighting crime.
Through its Mayors’ Institute for Community Policing and with the support of the COPS
Office, The U.S. Conference of Mayors has actively encouraged adoption and refinement of community policing strategies, integration of community policing with other local government activities, and broadening of the underlying principles of governance within community policing so that they may become part of the fabric of all local government.
In January of last year, in an effort to gauge movement toward these goals, the Conference of Mayors surveyed the mayors of more than 1,000 cities throughout the U.S. – most of them cities of 30,000 and larger which are eligible for membership in the Conference.
The survey sought information on how community policing was being implemented in their city, how COPS philosophy and funding were influencing individual agencies and city government overall, and which of their community policing initiatives had realized the greatest success. The results of this survey appear in a separate Conference publication, The Influence of Community Policing in City Governments:
A 282-City Survey.
Respondents to the survey also were offered an opportunity to provide information on what they considered to be their best community policing initiatives – initiatives which successfully addressed a specific problem in their city. A review of the many examples that were submitted with the cities’ surveys found that the largest group of respondents described initiatives which addressed problems in individual neighborhoods. These “best practices” were selected for a second separate Conference publication, Safer Neighborhoods Through Community Policing: Successful Initiatives
______
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Tom Daly
Police Chief Roger Baker
______________________________________________________________________________
LEATRICE/WAKEFIELD INITIATIVE
______________________________________________________________________________
Background
In1993, an Anaheim neighborhood of 5,000 residents in 700 apartment units was responsible for a disproportionately high 2,100 calls for police service. The calls involved incidents ranging from assaults and drive-by shootings to nuisance crimes such as drinking in public and vandalism.
Over the years, the neighborhood, known as Leatrice/Wakefield, had become notorious for its rampant narcotics sales and use and its gang activity, and had come to be recognized as the worst neighborhood in the City. The Anaheim Police Department estimated that policing Leatrice/Wakefield consumed one percent of its total budget. The situation deteriorated to the point that the local school district would not send buses into the neighborhood to pick up students, requiring them to meet the buses on the outskirts of the community.
The apartments in the Leatrice/Wakefield neighborhood were grouped in an assortment of 99 generally overcrowded and blighted buildings. No grass grew in the parkways. Vehicles lining the streets served as bases for drug dealing and late-night beer drinking and as gathering spots for gang members. They also shielded drug dealers and gang members from view when police officers drove by. Many of the apartments’ garages were sub-let for use as housing, mostly by illegal aliens.
During the early 1990s, the Anaheim Police Department launched several aggressive
enforcement initiatives in Leatrice/Wakefield. In the view of one police official, “We thought we were doing community policing, but all we were doing was a great job of arresting people – lots of people.” While these enforcement efforts generally would produce immediate improvements in the neighborhood crime situation, none would make a lasting difference.
Introduction of Community Policing
By 1995, the failure of traditional police responses had prompted the Police Department to try something less traditional: the assignment of two police officers to work full time with the community on long term solutions to its problems, and partnerships with other City agencies whose involvement would be necessary to solve the problems. “Our job is to fix neighborhoods,” commented one police official, “and we were doing it wrong for years. We need the people’s help.”
In essence, the community officers were empowered to make changes and to work directly with other agencies – primarily the Code Enforcement agency and the Office of Neighborhood Services – to get needed resources into the community.
Taking this new approach required that all involved develop a different “mind set” in regard to service delivery. In fact, it took time for the police officers to make the shift from “going through channels” in contacting other agencies, to making direct contacts with the agency staff needed to address problems. This shift eventually occurred, however, and police officials believe that this direct contact among agencies accounts for much of the eventual success of the Leatrice/Wakefield initiative.
The community officers spent a lot of time on foot patrol, and while some Leatrice/Wakefield residents were intimidated by this at the start, they came to know the officers personally, developed confidence in them, and began providing them with good information on the sources of neighborhood problems.
Implementing the Initiative
One of the first challenges confronted by the community officers was that Leatrice/Wakefield’s apartment buildings were privately owned by several individuals, most of whom lived outside the community, and had little responsible on-site management.
The officers began by identifying and contacting all of these landlords, informing them of the community-wide effort to reverse Leatrice/Wakefield’s downward spiral, and enlisting their help in removing problem tenants and reducing overcrowding in their units. A Neighborhood Advisory Committee consisting of owners and tenants was formed by the City’s Office of Neighborhood Services, and leaders among both owner and tenant groups emerged.
The community officers quickly learned that peer pressure was a key to solving the
Neighborhood’s problems: Cooperative owners, recognizing that improvements in the neighborhood and the removal of problem residents would pay dividends to them, pressured reluctant owners to join the effort. Owners also felt pressure from the City’s code inspection agency: An aggressive inspection program threatened prosecution if buildings were not brought up to standards.
Resident Leader
Leatrice/Wakefield is a predominantly Hispanic area. Most of the residents are employed
many in restaurants and as laborers – are considered hard-working and family-oriented, and tend to remain in the neighborhood for a long time once they move in. One of these residents, Lila Jaggeares, played a key role in turning around the neighborhood.
At the time, Jaggeares had lived in the area for 27 years and had managed the building in which she lived for 20 of those years. Tired of having to “walk around the bad guys” when she took her grandchild to the school bus stop, Jaggeares began calling the Police Department every time she saw a problem.
She was aware that other residents were not willing to do this for fear of retaliation from gang members, and while concerned about this, she took comfort in the fact that she had joined forces with “the biggest, baddest gang in Anaheim – the Police Department.”
“No Street Parking” Ordinance
One of the most difficult elements of the Leatrice/Wakefield initiative to implement, and
perhaps the most important to the community’s eventual recovery, was a parking ban on all surface streets in the neighborhood. Sought because of the problems created by vehicles crowding the streets, the “No Street Parking” ordinance, when initially proposed, met with resistance in the community: Apartment owners feared that the inconvenience it posed would discourage and displace renters.
Tenants were reluctant to clean out their single-car garages in order to park their vehicles
(many of which were inoperable) and were concerned about parking for additional cars they owned as well as parking for their visitors.
Opposition to the proposed ordinance was conveyed to the City Council and a hearing on it in the Council chamber was packed by owners and residents. While the Police Department took the brunt of the criticism for the proposal, it was able to present a well-documented argument for the parking ban and, in a later meeting, the Council approved it in a unanimous vote.
According to Mayor Tom Daly, the leadership of the Police Chief at that time – an avid proponent of community policing– coupled with the detailed documentation of the problem and proposed solution, produced the Council’s strong vote of support. In the view of Mayor Daly, “It was a moment in time when something could be accomplished, and we seized the moment.”
Here again, Lila Jaggeares played a role in the ultimate passage of the ordinance, distributing materials on it door-to-door and organizing several educational meetings for residents which were held in an adjacent park. While there had been significant opposition to the ordinance in the beginning, by the time the City Council acted on it, only about 10 people turned out to oppose it.
In the end, Jaggeares says, those who had lived in the neighborhood for a long time supported the ban because they were willing to try anything to improve their living conditions.
Following its passage, the ordinance faced a legal challenge mounted by street vendors
working in the area and a few residents. This suit was expected, and the City prevailed in court. The parking ban was implemented in two phases:
In phase one, parking was eliminated on one side of the seven neighborhood streets affected. During the first two weeks of phase one, police officers issued parking violation warnings only; following this, regular parking citations were issued.
About two months later, based on a positive assessment of the first phase of the implementation, parking was eliminated on the remaining side of the neighborhood’s streets.
Implementation of the ordinance was preceded by a neighborhood clean-up day on which 15 junked cars were towed from garages and parking spaces by the City, and several other inoperable vehicles were either repaired or removed by their owners. As part of the initiative, residents were provided parking spaces in the apartments’ garages, visitor parking was shifted to the perimeter of the area, and many of the apartment owners added parking spaces on their property to help offset the loss of the street spaces.
Police officials believe one of the most important results of the initiative
was that many garages that had been sub-let by tenants – primarily to illegal aliens – had to be used for parking.
Short Term Impact
Although they were concerned that the parking ban might produce an increase in the vacancy rate in the neighborhood, by the time it was approved by the City Council, an estimated 85 percent of the apartment owners favored it. Within just one month of the ban’s implementation, their concerns had been put to rest: There were a dozen fewer apartment vacancies than before, and additional new tenants were expected.
One year after the parking ban went into effect, an evaluation by an interdepartmental
committee overseeing the initiative found a dramatic decrease in criminal activity in the
neighborhood, a reduction in calls for police service, a positive impact on vacancy rates (which had dropped 14 percent), and a significant improvement in the visual appearance of the neighborhood, due in part to the fact that many of the buildings had been painted.
Long Term Impact
The overall community policing initiative has had several positive effects:
• Property values have increased steadily in Leatrice/Wakefield since the community policing initiative was introduced. The units are almost 100 percent rented, at higher rents, which means that tenants can be more carefully chosen.
• “Curb appeal” has become an important consideration for owners and residents who now take pride in the area’s appearance, and making property improvements has become
“infectious” as owners strive to keep pace with one another.
• As part of the effort to stay on top of the situation and keep the problems of the past from creeping back into the neighborhood, the community officers developed an anonymous reporting form for use by both owners and residents. Completed forms are left in a box and picked up by the officers. Today, residents are willing to come forward with information when they see their neighborhood being disturbed.
• Owners and residents are also participating with police officers and private security officers in Saturday night “flashlight walks.” The area’s code enforcement officer participates in these events, writing tickets on the spot when violations are discovered.
• A large park adjacent to the apartments which had been gang-infested has been designated “probation/parolee-free,”meaning that it is a violation for individuals on probation or parole to gather there. The park is now the site of classes for area residents in parenting, literacy, English as a Second Language, physical exercise and other pursuits.
A police officer who has been involved in the Leatrice/Wakefield initiative describes it as
“the single most important police work I have done.” The Mayor feels it has had a ripple effect in the City with property owners in other neighborhoods recognizing the importance of maintaining their properties and emptying their garages. Because the parking ban has been so successful in Leatrice/Wakefield,he says, the City has had no difficulty in getting approval for bans in other areas.
Key Partners
Code Enforcement
In Leatrice/Wakefield, the Planning Department has been very aggressive in its code
enforcement efforts involving both buildings and parking. The code enforcement officer working in Leatrice/Wakefield is responsible for a much larger area surrounding the neighborhood, but devotes most of his time to Leatrice/Wakefield in support of the community policing initiative.
Through this focused effort, the most serious problems have been eliminated, and the goal now is to maintain the neighborhood and keep the previous problems from returning.
The officer uses a City radio to call for assistance with whatever problems are observed:
Abandoned shopping carts are reported to a cart retrieval service; street maintenance workers are called when furniture is discarded outside buildings (and a truck equipped with a compactor is dispatched); cars parked in the alleys or on the streets are reported to the police; and a daily report on graffiti is sent to the Code Enforcement Department (and a truck designed for graffiti eradication is dispatched).
The officer periodically and randomly inspects properties, giving owners 30 days to
correct any violations. If problems are not corrected, the officer is authorized to develop a criminal complaint for filing by the City Attorney.
Prior to the initiative, it was all the code enforcement officer could do to address the exterior conditions of the buildings in the neighborhood; in general, he would act on problems inside apartments only when receiving calls specifically requesting that he do so. With the property improvements that have been made in recent years, he feels he can now begin to concentrate on conditions inside the apartments.
Office of Neighborhood Services
Anaheim’s Office of Neighborhood Services, established at about the time that the Police
Department launched its community policing initiative, is responsible for improving the livability of Anaheim neighborhoods by enabling residents to assist themselves through partnerships with the City and other community resources. It facilitates cooperation among residents, apartment owners, schools, businesses, religious organizations, nonprofit agencies and City departments, and provides neighborhood residents with a single point of contact to assist in addressing multi-disciplinary neighborhood issues.
The Office assists each neighborhood in the development of an “action plan” that identifies problems and the actions to be taken to solve them, and in the creation of a
Neighborhood Advisory Council to oversee the implementation of the plan. To help the members of the Council meet their responsibilities, the Office provides them with training: A Neighborhood Academy, conducted every 18 months, covers a wide range of skills and knowledge needed by effective neighborhood leaders.
Leatrice/Wakefield was one of the first neighborhoods in which the Office worked. Office staff focused on bringing together all the neighborhood’s stakeholders, including property owners and residents, with local school administrators, police and code enforcement officers.
While not an easy process, they say, the ultimate success of the effort was the result of communicating in an honest way with both the stakeholders and the City agencies on the seriousness of the problems in the neighborhood and on the extent of the efforts needed to address them. And one of the most positive outcomes of the process, they say, is that the boundaries that once separated the City departments involved have blurred as a result of their working together on specific neighborhood problems.
The Office administers a $500,000 Neighborhood Improvement Fund which is used to
finance needed projects. In Leatrice/Wakefield, about half of this fund was used to purchase playground equipment and signs and to make other improvements. Additional monies, obtained from a $5 million bond fund used to stabilize the neighborhoods around Disneyland, was used for a bus stop, street lighting and plantings – all actions called for in the Leatrice/Wakefield neighborhood action plan.
On the basis of the progress that has been made there, the Office is phasing out its activities in Leatrice/Wakefield and shifting its attention to other Anaheim neighborhoods. Office administrators believe that if the property owners remain strong, the problems are unlikely to return. A staff member will stay in touch with the Neighborhood Advisory Council and meet with members at least twice each year.
Private Security Firm
Police officials credit a private security firm, O.C. Metro Patrol, with major contributions to the turnaround of Leatrice/Wakefield. The owner of the firm is a strong proponent of community policing and is viewed as a true partner in the policing of the area.
The Police Department encouraged owners in Leatrice/Wakefield to use a private security service that would have access to their properties and so be able to handle problems that police officers could not. Prior to the community policing initiative, O.C. Metro Patrol was used by less than 10 percent of the property owners in the neighborhood; today it is used by 60 percent of the owners. At this level of engagement, the firm’s officers devote a significant amount of their time to the neighborhood.
The firm’s primary mission is to enforce the “house rules” which are established by the
property owners – and to work with the owners in the development of these rules. The owner of O.C. Metro Patrol recalls that, prior to the initiative, many building owners did not cooperate with the Police Department. Where the police saw problems with overcrowding of apartments, for example, these owners did not. It took the Code Enforcement agency to get their attention with threats of fines and even imprisonment.
In time, the owners came to understand the need for strong house rules, such as zero tolerance for gang and drug activity, and began to adopt them. Today, many of the house rules address problems that are not covered by the police under law. O.C. Metro Patrol maintains a daily report on its activity in the area, an incident report, and
a “contact card” on problem individuals – records which are used, when necessary, to substantiate eviction actions. Owners are given reports on serious problems and on patterns of problems affecting their properties.
Because these reports are also shared with Anaheim officers, the owners feel some pressure to act on them. The private patrol officers, several of whom have been employed by the firm for a number of years, know their limitations, and know when to call for assistance. When an incident involves a petty crime, the police are generally notified after it is resolved; more serious incidents will trigger a call for police assistance. O.C. Metro Patrol will call Anaheim officers when violations of ordinances, such as the parking ordinance, are observed, and police officers, in turn, will use the patrol officers to communicate with owners and tenants.
The O.C. Metro and Anaheim officers routinely share information on problems of mutual concern, such as gang activity in the area. O.C. Metro officers participate in the flashlight walks that are held, the neighborhood clean-ups and tree plantings, and attend Neighborhood Advisory Committee meetings. Police officials readily acknowledge that the success of this public-private policing partnership has much to do with the professionalism of O.C. Metro Patrol and the closeness of its relationship with the community over the years, and frankly are unsure whether such a partnership would be possible with another firm.
Relationship with Building Owners and Managers
Most of the properties in Leatrice/Wakefield are managed by one of the three large
Management firms operating in the area. Because the owner is ultimately responsible for the property, the police and code enforcement officers, while working with the managers day to day, ensure that the owners are notified of problems relating to their properties. City officials report that communication among the owners has improved through the community policing initiative, but that there is still room for improvement.
The code enforcement officer maintains pressure on owners to get rid of their problem
tenants, and the Police Department, in conjunction with the Orange County Apartment Owners Association, has provided training and legal advice for the owners and managers on the eviction process. Training on tenant screening is also provided, and a tenant screening service is available to the owners and managers.
The Housing Authority performs the screening checks on apartments when Section 8 tenants are involved. The property owners established a grievance committee which notifies owners in writing when problems or concerns relating to their properties are observed. Generally, this notification will take care of a problem; where it does not, the Owners Association may threaten litigation.
To date, the threat of litigation has been sufficient to move owners to act on problems. The Owners Association has also made its members aware that knowingly renting to a drug dealer can result in the loss of their building through assets seizure provisions of law.
Keys to Success
Lessons have been learned by the Anaheim officials who have been associated with the
Leatrice/Wakefield community policing initiative over the years. Among their observations:
• For an initiative such as Leatrice/Wakefield to succeed, it must be understood by all involved that it has the support of the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief. Everyone bought into the Leatrice/Wakefield initiative because the support for it came from the top down. City Manager James Ruth made it clear that City departments would work together on this. (In Anaheim, the Mayor, City Manager and Police Chief all have long been strong proponents of community policing.)
• The Mayor and City Manager must be willing to back the police and code enforcement
officers when they put pressure on property owners to eliminate problems. Resistance to
change in neighborhoods must be anticipated, and City officials must be prepared to answer questions.
• The Police Chief should personally initiate the needed partnerships with the other City
agencies involved. In this way, the Chief’s personal support for the initiative is clearly
visible.
• The commander and/or other top officers of the police district in which the target
neighborhood is located should attend community meetings, such as those of the
Neighborhood Advisory Council in Leatrice/Wakefield, to demonstrate support and to get to know residents and their concerns.
• Police officers must be allowed to make direct contact with staff members in other agencies whose help is needed in solving problems. In responding to some residents’ needs, there is no time to “go through channels” to get help.
• All involved in an initiative such as this must be willing and able to set aside egos and work together. When this happens, a neighborhood’s problems will be solved more easily.
• Having on-site management for apartment buildings is essential in neighborhoods like
Leatrice/Wakefield. Lack of on-site management was the most serious obstacle encountered at the start of the initiative.
• Neighborhoods such as Leatrice/Wakefield cannot be turned around without the help of
resident leaders. The value of contributions made by persons like Lila Jaeggears cannot be overstated. Also important is the willingness of a few of the building owners to begin
exerting pressure on the others.
Contact for Additional Information:Sergeant Paul Dohmann, Anaheim Police Department, (714) 765-1522.
|
|
