Air Beat Magazine - Journal of the
Airborne Law Enforcement Association
Back to Air Beat Back Issues Index
After The Show
Airborne Law Enforcement Is A
Profession Within A Profession
With Charlotte, North Carolina as the backdrop to the 34th
Annual ALEA Conference & Exposition, hundreds of members, vendors and
instructors were able to congregate for what’s considered the best event of
the year for airborne law enforcement professionals.
Before the conference officially started on Thursday, there
were many pre-conference educational courses covering a wide variety of
topics from unit management and aircrew operations to thermal imaging and
night vision training. These courses were designed to give participants an
in-depth and real-world knowledge of specific topics from experts in the
field.
One of the new courses this year was “Airborne Law
Enforcement in Support of Homeland Security,” which was co-taught by Israeli
pilot Jacob Biran. He was the head of Israel’s National Police Aviation
Department and is considered to have “written the book” on using helicopters
in counter-terrorism actions. From his unique perspective, he explained the
current situation in the Middle East and how American pilots can learn from
the successes and failures in combating the threat of terror.
Consider these startling statistics. In 2003 alone, there
were 625 people killed and 1,643 injured in terror attacks worldwide. During
the last 10 years in Israel, there have been 130 incidents of suicide
attacks carried out in malls, buses, railway stations, marketplaces,
restaurants, clubs and schools. Biran warned that suicide bombers have no
“red lines,” meaning that no one is excluded from risk. The use of aviation
and technology is playing an ever-increasing role in defense.
Combining pre-conference courses and main conference classes, there were 50
educational sessions conducted. During the week, approximately 1,500
attendees and vendors enjoyed the hospitality of the city of Charlotte.
“Having the ALEA conference here has been good for our unit,” said David
Kale, Reserve Chief/Pilot of the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Police Department.
“The department has benefited from and has gotten a better idea of what ALEA
is all about. It’s been real good for our community, as they have learned a
lot about what we do with the local press coverage. It gives good public
awareness.”
Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, Chief of Police Darrel Stephens
and the CMPD Honor Guard welcomed everyone to the Annual Breakfast and
Opening Ceremony sponsored by Agusta Aerospace. Detective Mary Crowell sang
a riveting version of the National Anthem. After the meal,
President Dan Schwarzbach greeted guests, attendees and board members at the
ribbon cutting ceremony, signifying the official start of the main
conference.
On display inside were aircraft from the Charlotte
Convention Center were the U.S. Park Police, Dekalb County (GA) Sheriff’s
Office, Memphis Police Department, Lee County (FL) Sheriff’s Office, and
Maryland State Police. In the exhibit area, 140 companies showcased their
goods and services exclusively for law enforcement aviation personnel. You
could find information on airframes, parts, clothing, downlinks, thermal
imaging, survival gear, simulators, training, software, surveillance,
maintenance, insurance --- just about anything you could put on your work
wish list.
“I’ve been here (ALEA conferences) for 10 years and will always come back.
This is always a good audience. It’s nice to see people you know already and
to meet new friends. ALEA has grown a lot,” remarked Greg Yerkes of Life
Support International. “The expo used to be like a tabletop show. Now, with
the magazine, the website, the databases, and the conferences – it continues
to grow. The speakers and classes are fantastic. You will very rarely go to
a class and be disappointed. It’s always a good venue.”
Larry Roberts, American Eurocopter Senior Director of Sales,
commented that “it’s very important to recognize what airborne law
enforcement does, not only for the helicopter industry, but for the country.
Being able to be part of and work with an organization who represents the
men and women of law enforcement that are so involved in homeland security
is very important to us.” Brenda Reuland went on to say that “attendance has
been good. Having the aircraft and the two crews from Dekalb County and
Memphis Police has been amazing. It’s been very upbeat.”
To keep everyone informed of daily activities, special events and
educational sessions, ALEA produced three editions of Air Beat Today.
(Copies can still be downloaded from www.alea.org.) “This is the second year
we’ve produced the onsite daily newsletter, and it’s been a very big
success. Vendors and attendees like to have the latest information on what
they can do and see during the expo,” said Martin L. Jackson, Air Beat
Committee Chair.
When the exhibit hours and classes ended, there were plenty
of ways to spend your time with colleagues. There was the Bell Helicopter
sponsored Opening Reception with food, beverages and live music at Lowe’s
Motor Speedway the first evening. On the track were helicopters owned by
police agencies as well as NASCAR teams. Dave Oglesbee of Bell Helicopter
remarked, “This gives us the opportunity to visit with customers, and we’ve
met many new faces. It’s been great.”
Co-sponsored by FLIR Systems, Heritage Aviation and Wulfsberg Electronics,
the 27th Annual Pig Pickin’ was held the next night. FLIR Systems presented
its 2004 Vision Awards, recognizing state and local law enforcement agencies
for their contributions to public safety through the airborne use of thermal
imagery and/or video in tactical airborne assistance. First place was
awarded to the Tulsa Police Department’s Tim Smith (pilot) and Tim Ward
(Tactical Flight Officer). The winning video featured the apprehension of
four suspects who first fled in a vehicle and later on foot. The tape was
used by their department to later locate the weapon used in several
homicides.
Second place was awarded to Texas DPS Officer John Brannon
(pilot) and Officer Matt Murphy (Tactical Flight Officer). Third place was
awarded to the U.S. Border Patrol Pilots Justin Edmistion and Michael Allen.
Winners receive FLIR jackets, a commemorative plaque, and a donation to the
charitable organization of their choice. David Cruz said, “FLIR salutes all
those who choose to serve and protect within the airborne law enforcement
community and will continue the endeavor to support them with the highest
quality product and services.”
Everyone enjoyed the laughter and antics of Friday Nite
Live, sponsored by American Eurocopter and Turbomeca USA. Three professional
comics kept the crowd captivated with their unique sense of police humor.
The grand finale event was the Annual Awards Banquet on
Saturday evening. The ALEA Board of Directors welcomed special guests and
the membership, brought together to recognize the year’s significant
achievements of airborne law enforcement units and crews.
Sherry Hadley, ALEA Executive Director, said, “I especially
want to thank David Kale and the CMPD volunteers who did so much work in
preparation for this conference. You know, everyone has fallen in love with
the city of Charlotte, so they may get a few new residents.”
“Attendance is up from last year. I would like to invite
everyone to attend next year’s conference in Reno, Nevada and plan early.
We’re going to have a wonderful slate of educational classes, and the hotel
that we’re using is a wonderful property. The convention center is very new,
and Reno has a small town feeling with lots of things to do.”
2004 Award Winners
ALEA Technical Specialist of the Year
Sponsored by American Eurocopter
San Bernardino County
Sheriff’s Mechanics
Capt. “Gus” Crawford Memorial
Air Crew of the Year
Sponsored by American Eurocopter
USCG “Hitron” Crew:
Craig Neubecker, Shawn Koch, William Greer
Robert L. Cormier Memorial Award
Sponsored by Bell Helicopter Textron
Chief Don Shinnamon,
Police/Fire/Rescue-Holly Hill, FL
Scholarship Recipients
ALEA Scholarships
($1,000 each to children of ALEA Members on a regional basis.)
Eastern Region
Adam Rivett (Dale Rivett)
Northeast Region
Jessica Sarnataro (James Sarnataro)
Southeast Region
Leah N. Kearns (Thomas Kearns)
South Central Region
Jessica L. Rainey (Tim Rainey)
Western Region
Ryan Stancil (Dave Stancil)
Joseph Hermes (Pete Hermes)
ACRO Aerospace Scholarship
($1,500 to the child of a Technical Specialist)
Laci Jean Jackson (Cynthia Barrett)
American Eurocopter
A-Star Scholarships
($1,500 each to children of ALEA members)
Lauren B. Phillips (William Phillips)
Robert B. Rhynsburger (R. Rhynsburger)
Norm Jacobson
Memorial Scholarships
Sponsored by MD Helicopters, Inc.
($1,500 each to children of ALEA members)
Jarret T. Hedrick, (Bob Hedrick)
Caprice M. Walker (Matthew Walker)
Turbomeca
“Powered Up” Scholarship
Leslie G. Miskulin (Donald Miskulin)
(Back to top)
Crowded Airwaves?
By Raymond Foster
Los Angeles Police Department
Air to air communication is critical for safe aircraft
operations. And, because of standards in training, equipment and frequency
allocation, air to air communication is generally reliable. Air-to-ground
communication, on the other hand, is not quite as reliable and can lead to
serious problems during normal aircraft operations.
There are over 17,000 state and local law enforcement
agencies in the United States. For very practical reasons, each agency has
its own radio frequency or frequencies. Moreover, each state and local
agency is influenced by a political parent organization, such as a municipal
police force, and is ultimately managed by a city. When making budgetary
choices, organizations spend money for public safety-related technologies at
vastly different rates. The combination of local choices and the need to
have independent radio frequencies has created technological fragmentation
in public safety.
Efforts to solve fragmentation are often focused on
increasing interagency interoperability. Aviation is particularly
susceptible to interoperability issues. For instance, a vehicle pursuit may
cross jurisdictional lines, and aircrews may be forced to communicate with
different agencies. One jurisdiction (like a state or country) may have
aviation assets that a smaller agency within the larger jurisdiction may
not.
A first step in understanding how and why communication
systems may not be compatible is a brief explanation of the concept of
frequency allocation. Recall that there are thousands of state and local law
enforcement agencies who need radio frequencies (RF). In addition to the
myriad of law enforcement agencies using RF communications, there are
commercial, military and amateur users as well to name a few. Furthermore,
practical radio frequencies are a finite resource. There are only so many
frequencies that can be used for communications.
Further complicating the competition between users of the
finite resource is the fact that radio frequencies have characteristics that
define their usefulness. This means that when decisions about allocation are
made, there are trades-offs. For instance, lower frequencies tend to go
farther than higher frequencies. This means that higher frequency "channels"
can be re-used by geographically distant agencies more often than lower
frequencies. Think of driving across country – you leave home listening to
your favorite radio station. Soon, your station fades, is replaced by
static, ultimately disappears and then is slowly replaced by another radio
station. Effectively, the frequency of your original station can be reused
because it is distant enough from another broadcaster.
Many public safety organizations find themselves allocated
to 800MHz (a relatively high frequency). This means they probably have more
repeater antennas to obtain coverage over a large area. In addition to using
800MHz, newer RF configurations use digital technology. Driving across
country, your commercial radio station was likely broadcasting an analog
signal. A primary difference between analog and digital signals is how the
signal’s reception reacts on distance. As you drove away from your
commercial station, you heard increasing static and interference, but you
could continue to understand the broadcast.
On the other hand, the usefulness of digital RF
communications tends to suddenly drop off, not fade away. Think of it this
way; with the fading commercial station, you are able to listen intently,
filter the static and interference and probably infer some of what you miss
– you know the lyrics to the song, so if a few words are garbled you
continue singing along. With digital communications, voices and sounds are
converted into the same binary code that computers use. At the point where
interference causes enough of the ones and zeros to drop, the signal cannot
be converted back into words. So, whereas analog signals tend to gradually
decrease in usability, digital signals tend to cease all at once.
The characteristics of 800MHZ digital radio are not all
negative. Indeed, many of them are quite beneficial. For instance, the
distance factor has meant that more frequencies are open to use by public
safety. Also, high frequency transmissions can have better building
penetration than lower frequencies. However, the addition of more
frequencies to law enforcement, and particularly aviation, is not
necessarily a benefit. Having to keep track of scores of frequencies can be
unsafe and counterproductive. In the past, if aviation assets arrived over
the scene of an incident after the ground units, at least one of the ground
units would have to switch to a frequency that the aircraft maintained.
However, switching frequencies in the middle of a tactical operation or
emergency is something that should be avoided.
When an 800 MHZ digital RF scheme is combined with a trunked
radio system, both air and ground units are provided potential answers to
communication problems. Even with the increased use of high frequencies,
there are still only so many to be used. Let’s presume that a mid-sized
municipal government is provided with 10 frequencies. In the past, they
would have to divide these 10 between police, fire and other government
services. If they provided police and fire with one uplink and one downlink
each and one tactical each, they would have used 60 percent of their
frequency allocation. However, anyone who has worked graveyard shifts knows
that the air can be dead for long periods of time. Indeed, even during peak
times there is a lot of dead space between transmissions.
A trunked radio system takes advantage of this space between
transmissions by using Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA). As an
analogy, let’s compare railroad and highway transportation. When frequencies
are assigned for a specific group of users, it is like a railroad. A
municipal agency with 10 frequencies has 10 tracks and only one train, or
group of users, can be on a track. FDMA is much more like a highway, wherein
each group of users is a like a bus and each frequency is a lane. The users
who want to communicate with each other are on the same bus. As the bus
drives down the highway, it can change to an open lane. The users are
grouped together on the same bus and referred to as a talk group.
As the name implies, the frequencies are divided so that
multiple users can access them. Although a medium size city might only have
ten frequencies, if it is using FDMA technology, it can have many more "talk
groups" that share the frequencies simultaneously. The reference to a "trunked
system" goes back to the beginning days of telephone when an operator
physically plugged cables into a panel in order to connect users. Now, a
computer constantly tracks the communications of the various talk groups and
the open frequencies. When one member of a talk group broadcasts (base,
ground or air), the computer selects an open frequency and shifts all users
to that frequency. This means that the computer is constantly in contact
with all system users, coordinating frequency use.
The State of Delaware has approximately 1,982 square miles
with about 850,000 residents. In addition to the state police, who provide
primary, full-service policing, there are 29 local law enforcement agencies
within the three counties that comprise Delaware. The state police provide
aviation law enforcement, fire support and medical services to the entire
state, and in some instances, surrounding states such as Pennsylvania and
Maryland. During the mid 1990s, Delaware undertook a state-wide deployment
of an 800MHZ trunked radio system. Eventually, the system would encompass
all government services including the different police agencies, volunteer
fire departments, hospitals and other emergency services.
For Delaware, the first task of the project was to develop
the talk groups. Because it is a statewide, coordinated system, Delaware was
able to designate different police, volunteer fire, hospital and other
public entities as specific talk groups. Now, aircrews are provided a
template which lists each of the different talk groups. Responding to public
safety emergencies throughout the state, Delaware aircrews are able to punch
in the number of the appropriate talk group and establish immediate
communications. In addition, aircrews often respond to emergencies within
one of the surrounding states. Some of those states have provided their FDMA
talk groups to Delaware, and the aircraft radios are pre-programmed. Other
states have decided (for technical reasons) to rely on radio communications
patches via their central dispatch centers. However, pre-programmed talk
groups can be a more reliable, quick way of establishing communications.
Because the trunked system relies on repeating antennas, an aircraft that
might normally be out of transmission range can now easily communicate with
ground units because the signal for the talk group is passed along the
system. In those instances when the aircraft is responding from a distant
location, instant and reliable communications can be easily established.
With a trunked radio system, communication can be improved
between all public safety entities and aircrews. Moreover, in large
communications projects like the one in Delaware (and in other states such
as Colorado), although agencies share the same infrastructure, each is able
to communicate privately with its own personnel and with each other during
emergencies.
Through the use of technology, limited RF resources can not only be
multiplied by intra and interagency communications, they can be greatly
enhanced.
About the Author
Lieutenant Raymond E. Foster (LAPD, Retired) is the author
of "Police Technology (Prentice Hall, July 2004)." He teaches at California
State University, Fullerton and the Union Institute and University.
(Back to top)
Legal Eagle: Seeing Through
The Walls of Supreme Court Logic
By Cyndi Jo Means
San Diego County District Attorney’s Office
When our forefathers framed the United States Constitution
and the Amendments to the Constitution (in particular, the Fourth
Amendment), the Wright Brothers hadn’t even opened up their bike shop, let
alone taken off at Kitty Hawk. So, it isn’t surprising that aerial
surveillance technology used by airborne law enforcement was not
contemplated, nor addressed, in those first constitutional documents.
Since then, not only have police missions taken to the
skies, but science and technology have provided cops with incredible
equipment to do their jobs better and more safely. Some of the tools of the
trade include searchlights and gyro-stabilized binoculars for tracking and
detailing suspects; thermal imagers (Forward Looking Infrared "FLIR"), used
not only for finding hiding suspects, lost hikers and kids, but also for
detecting heat anomalies associated with indoor marijuana grows; and night
vision goggles (NVGs), providing a safer work environment during nighttime
operations in rural, backcountry and mountainous areas.
With these developments and advancements through the years,
the courts (and ultimately the United States Supreme Court) have had to
interpret the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to airborne law enforcement
and aerial surveillance technology, the ultimate question being: Do you need
to get a search warrant before you use one of these new-fangled gizmos or
not?
In 1967, the United States Supreme Court set a "two prong" test for
determining whether law enforcement must obtain a warrant prior to
searching. First, the suspect must have a subjective expectation of privacy
-- does the suspect, himself, expect his activity or place to be private?
Second, the expectation of privacy must be objectively reasonable.
Regardless of what the suspect thinks, does the intrusion by law enforcement
infringe upon any recognized personal or societal values protected by the
Fourth Amendment? 1
Such protection is accorded not only to residences, but also
to the "curtilage," which is the protected area around one’s residence,
which can also be the setting of intimate activities associated with the
sanctity of home and privacies of life. Curtilage is determined
circumstantially, on a case-by-case basis, using factors that include
proximity to house, steps taken to protect the area, and whether the area is
commonly used for intimate activities associated with the home.
On the other hand, no warrant is required for law enforcement to view or
search "open fields," or areas which are not within the residence or
curtilage. These areas are subject to "plain view" observation by law
enforcement. Plain view is any observation made by law enforcement from an
area or vantage point where they have a lawful right to be.
By 1986, air support units were entering the mainstream of
law enforcement across the country. It was at this time that a need arose
for the courts to develop rules to deal with law enforcement "searching"
from the sky. In California V. Ciraolo, the United States Supreme Court
determined that observations made by the police crew of a fixed-wing
aircraft flying at 1,000 feet AGL were in plain view, as the aircraft was in
navigable airspace in public airways, as determined by evidence and
testimony relating to FAA regulations and civilian air traffic. The Court
determined that the public would "expect" fixed-wing aircraft to be 1,000
feet or above, thus observations made at that altitude were not private. 2
Thus, the Court determined that the curtilage of a residence
not only extends around it, it also extends "above" it.
In 1989, in Florida v. Riley, the Supreme Court upheld
observations made from a police helicopter that was circling a suspect’s
property at 400 feet AGL. The court determined that helicopter flights at
400 feet or above are made from navigable airspace in plain view, as the
public expected considerable civilian use of the airspace at that altitude.
3
While it is probably safe to assume that police observations
made during over flights at these altitudes will likely be upheld, these
altitudes are not necessarily absolute, as expectation of privacy is always
determined by the circumstances and facts of each case.
Therefore, it would be arguable that observations from a flight lower than
the above-reference altitudes could be upheld, assuming evidence was
introduced explaining that the public had a different expectation of
privacy.
Each new gadget that has come into the realm of airborne law
enforcement has been analyzed, categorized, and ruled upon by the courts.
Use of flashlight, spotlight and binoculars from the air has been upheld, so
long as used at an accepted altitude. 4 Even use of an aerial mapping camera
to surveil a business complex from a very high altitude has been permitted.
5
When the thermal imager came along, however, it threw the
legal and judicial systems for a loop. Not that it was a problem for anyone
when the device was used to fetter out crooks in canyons at night, or find
little Johnny hugging a tree, lost in the woods. Rather, concerns were
raised when the FLIR was pointed at buildings, particularly homes, and used
in its capacity to detect heat anomalies associated with indoor marijuana
grows, as emission and venting of heat caused by the bright and hot lights
used to simulate the sun’s light and energy are detected by thermal imagers.
Of course, we know that FLIR does not see through walls. But, it came to be
thought of as such and totally misunderstood due to exaggeration and
misinformation, which wasn’t helped any by the mystique created by the media
and Hollywood. (Remember the movie Blue Thunder? When police pilots hovered
outside a building in their helicopter and were able, with an infrared
camera, to see what the crooks were doing inside?).
The thermal imager merely detects heat energy in the
infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, beyond red, in the visible
light portion of the spectrum. Indeed, when directed at an un-curtained
glass window, a FLIR reveals less than can be seen with the naked eye.
In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a thermal imaging
case, Kyllo v. U.S. 6, that still affects the way law enforcement agencies
are forced to use technology. Unfortunately, the ruling was highly
unfavorable for all of us in law enforcement. Moreover, we also knew that it
would be a long, long time before anything would come along to change it as
the status quo.
Essentially, Kyllo held that warrantless use of FLIR on a
residence violates the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, it held that any
sense-enhancing technology not in general public use violates the Fourth
Amendment. The decision can be confusing, however, as it is decided upon,
and applicable to, thermal imagers which are in the general public use (i.e.
the Cadillac dashboard thermal imager; thermal imagers used by hunters,
insulation companies, and power companies).
Nonetheless, this is the law: You must get a search warrant prior to doing a
FLIR scan of a residence.
Since 2001, Kyllo has become the standard for expectation of
privacy according to Fourth Amendment law, not only with regard to use of
technology, but in connection with every privacy issue under the sun.
Considering this, how will Kyllo affect the law concerning
technology already given the stamp of approval by the courts? And how will
it affect law enforcement’s use of more recent technologies not yet
considered?
As would be expected, in the years since its publication,
Kyllo has been cited by defense attorneys to visit, revisit and attempt to
overrule the court-sanctioned use of just about every technology available
to law enforcement.
As of now, here’s where airborne law enforcement stands in
cases recently decided by the courts around the country:
FLIR Scans of Residences:
Those which took place before the decision in Kyllo, but did not come before
the court until after the decision, have generally been upheld by the courts
on the basis of the "good faith" exception. 7 In other words, the
exclusionary rule is used to punish deliberate and/or negligent Fourth
Amendment violations by law enforcement by suppressing evidence. However,
officers should not be punished for doing something that wasn’t yet against
the rules at the time they did it. 8
FLIR Scans of Barns & Outbuildings:
Courts have held that no search warrant is necessary for a scan of a barn or
"barn-like" structure if there is no evidence anyone lives there.
Observations actually made from a suspect’s own pasture into a barn interior
located 50 yards from the
residence have been considered plain view observations from open fields. 9
FLIR Scan of Businesses & Industrial Complexes:
Courts have held that a business doesn’t share the sanctity and privacy of
the home. No case has reached the issue of whether a warrant is necessary.
Cases have been decided based upon good faith or review and upholding of the
warrant with FLIR information excised. 10
Cameras:
Use of an ordinary camera is still allowed, as the court has held that it is
not "sense enhancing." Also allowed without warrant are video cameras, as
the ruling court determined they have no "sense enhancing magnification,"
and no technology was applied to the video images in the particular case.
That court left open the question of a hidden camera with greater ability
than the human eye. A camera left in a room after law enforcement has left
was held in violation of the Fourth Amendment, based upon Kyllo. 11
Cell Phones:
Believe it or not, some defense attorney actually challenged use of a cell
phone on Fourth Amendment grounds. However, the ruling court upheld their
use by police inside a residence. The court found that an officer uses his
own sense of hearing, the phone is not sense enhancing, and it’s in the
general public use. 12
Night Vision Goggles:
Courts considering the issue have held that the use of NVGs without a
warrant is not an unreasonable search. The cases distinguish FLIR, which
they say detects heat inside, from NVGs, which they say amplifies ambient
light outside, thus, in their opinion, making NVGs less intrusive. Also, NVG-like
technology is in general public use and sold in retail stores. 13
Dog Sniffs:
Though defendants have also tried to do away with narcotics and
bomb-sniffing dogs, the courts have continued to uphold these "searches"
since Kyllo, stating that dogs noses aren’t sense enhancing technology; they
don’t explore details otherwise hidden like the FLIR does; and they only
reveal the presence of contraband, in which a criminal has no expectation of
privacy. 14
The bottom line is, that the Kyllo Case, and quite a few since, consider the
use of FLIR to scan a residence to be a de facto no-knock entry and search
of a residence without a warrant, and without exigency.
So, in light of this, what about the "inadvertent" discovery
by a tactical flight officer of a residence which appears, due to heat
anomalies, to contain an indoor marijuana grow while out using surveillance
technology for unrelated law enforcement purposes? Is he supposed to just
ignore it?
Luckily, one post-Kyllo case, although not a FLIR case,
shines a ray of hope in this direction. In ruling on the legality of
contraband found while an officer was moving a suspect’s car for
safe-keeping, the court stated that it’s not a "search" if law enforcement
is not "looking for something." The court further said that "the greater the
effort made, the more likely the purpose" was to intrude and invade privacy.
They compared such inadvertent discoveries to a vehicle inventory search
where contraband is found while securing the vehicle, not "searching," per
se.
How this all eventually plays out, we will have to wait and
see. One thing is for sure, the expectations of the public will be forever
changing with regard to what technology can do, and what can be expected to
be private. In light of this, what was in violation of the Fourth Amendment
in the past may not be in the future. 15
Meanwhile, the one thing we know for sure is that it is
completely safe to stand naked in the privacy of your own home while a
police helicopter is overhead. They absolutely cannot see us through the
walls. Trust them. They are the police.
Technology Cases Cited
(1) Katz v. U.S. (1967) 389 U.S. 347
(2) California v. Ciraolo (1986) 476 U.S. 207
(3) Florida v. Riley (1989) 488 U.S. 445
(4) Texas v. Brown (1983) 460 U.S. 730; 739-740; People v. Cooper (Ca.1981)
118 Cal.App.3d 499, 509
(5) Dow Chemical Co. v. U.S. (1986) 476 U.S. 227
(6) Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) 533 U.S. 27
(7) U.S. v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 922; Arizona v. Evans (1995) 514 U.S.
1
(8) U. S. v. Allen N.D.N.Y. 2003) 289 F.Supp. 230; Cumming v. U.S. (D.Me.
2003) West Law (WL) 21524720; U.S. v. Holmes (D.Me. 2002) 183 F.Supp.2d 108;
State v. Loranger (Wis. 2001) 640 N.W.2d 555; People v. Katz (Mich. 2001)
Mich.App, Sept r, 2001; WL1012114; State v. Detroy (Hi. 2003) 72 P.3d 485
(9) U.S. v. Johnson (9th Cir. Ca. 2002) 42 Fed.Appx. 959; U.S. v. Hatfield
(10th Cir. Okla. 2003) 33 F.3d 1189; People v. Keppler (Ca. 2003)
__Cal.App.4th__; WL22475879
(10) U.S. v. Elkins (6th Cir. Tenn. 2002) 300 F.ed 638; State v. Mordowanea
(Conn. 2002) 788 A.2d. 48
(11) Dean v. Duckworty (8th Cir. Mo. 2004) 99 Fed.Appx. 760; U.S. v. Lee
(3rd Cir. N.j. 2004) 359 F.ed 194; U.S. v. Davis (2nd Cir. N.Y. 2003) 326
F.ed 361
(12) Com. V. Terry (Va. 2002) WL1163449
(13) Baldi v. Amadon (D.N.H. 2004) 2004 DNH 55; WL725618
(14) Texas cases: Smith v. State (2004) Tex.App. 1st. Dist. WL21339;
Rodriguez v. State (2003) 106 S.W.3d 224; Wilson v. State (2002) 98 S.W.3d
265; Porter v. State (2002) 93 S.W.3d 342. State v. Miller (Wi. 2002) 647
N.W.2d 348; People v. Cox (Ill. 2002) 782 n.E.2d 275; State v. Rabb (Fla.
2004) 29 Fla. Weekly D1503; State v. Wiegand (Minn. 2002) 645 N.W.2d 125
(15) U.S. v. Maple (D.C. Cir. 2003) 334 F.3d 15
(16) .All references are to U.S. law. Meanwhile, the Canadians are also
using FLIR and technology. Canadian cases have cited Kyllo, with some
provinces allowing FLIR scans of residences without a warrant; some
provinces requiring it. Canadians anticipate a resolution of the issue, by
their Supreme Court, this fall.
(Back to top)
The Next Generation of Flight Gear
By R.C. Shepherd
Forsyth County Police Dept.
Much of the equipment used in airborne law enforcement today
originated from technology first introduced for military use. Examples
include thermal imaging, night vision goggles, and even protective gear such
as flight suits. A current United States Army program, known as Air Warrior,
is now introducing the next generation of high technology aviation life
support equipment, which means good things for the safety of airborne law
enforcement agents.
Most aviation life support equipment in the past was
developed and deployed in a layered and non-integrated manner. This resulted
in gear that often encumbered aircrew and interfered with cockpit
procedures. The purpose of the Air Warrior program is to improve the
performance, survivability, and sustainment of personnel in high stress
flight environments such as combat. To accomplish this task, the Air Warrior
program has produced an all new flight crew ensemble that provides advanced
life support features.
The new flight gear includes components integrated to
maximize human performance and safe aircraft operation. The new ensemble
introduces new gear as well as improvements to existing items. These
ensemble components include an improved flight helmet, flight uniform,
survival vest, computerized kneeboard, and other high tech items.
The advanced flight helmet is the model HGU-56/P. The helmet
is constructed of a composite of graphite and Spectra™ and is twenty percent
lighter than the previous SPH-4 series. It also features greatly improved
impact resistance, retention, and sound attenuation. A valuable addition to
the flight helmet system is the maxillofacial shield. This face shield
provides crewmembers with protection from ballistic threats as well as flash
fires. The face shield is engineered to be compatible with the helmet’s
visor, boom microphone, and night vision goggles.
An improved two-piece aircrew uniform has also been
introduced. The uniform is lightweight and offers an increased comfort level
over the one piece and earlier two-piece suits. A blend of Nomex™ and
Kevlar™ fabric provides the wearer with thermal protection from fire. The
flight uniform is also compatible with the Microclimate Cooling System. The
Microclimate Cooling System is a vest worn as an undergarment that pumps
chilled water around the wearer’s torso. The cooling system enables
crewmembers to function in hot environments without suffering heat stress.
The new Electronic Data Manager makes it extremely easy for
pilots to access mission and navigation information. The Electronic Data
Manager is a kneeboard computer with internal Global Positioning System
features, moving map display and other programs. Using Windows™ based
software, the unit provides the user with the ability to perform aircraft
performance and weight and balance calculations. Other mission data such as
communications information, schedules and weather observations can also be
stored electronically.
For increased safety, an updated survival vest has also been
fielded. This vest is known as the Aircrew Integrated Recovery Survival
Armor Vest and Equipment or AIRSAVE for short. The vest integrates storage
for survival gear, an extraction harness and body armor. Flotation and
emergency breathing gear can also be added to the vest for over water
flights. A full line of improved and added safety items has also been
developed for carry in the vest.
The good news for airborne law enforcement is that most of
these new equipment items, or close equivalents, are already available to
them. Visitors to the recent ALEA Conference and Exposition in Charlotte
were able to see some of these items firsthand at vendor displays. Check
with your ALEA affiliate members for information on these high tech flight
gear items.
(Back to top)
Plane Policing
How Texas DPS Integrates Aviation
By Lt. Martin L. Jackson
Texas Department of Public Safety
Aircraft Section - Midland
The Texas Department of Public Safety currently operates a fleet of four
Cessna 206 Stationairs, three Cessna 210 Centurions and one twin engine
Turbo Commander 1000 fixed-wing aircraft. The airplanes supplement a fleet
of eight helicopters. All airplanes are equipped with police radios, IFR
GPS, gyro stabilized binoculars, and traffic avoidance equipment. Some are
even equipped with thermal imagers.
These airplanes are based at seven air stations around Texas. The primary
mission of the Department aircraft is to provide “safe aircraft and
professional police pilots to support all divisions of the department and
local law enforcement agencies.” The Department has divisions in traffic law
enforcement, commercial vehicle enforcement, narcotics, vehicle theft, Texas
Rangers, and special crimes.
Although the airplanes and helicopters each have specific roles, many of
these roles are interchangeable. Department airplanes are used in a variety
of law enforcement missions. Aircraft are available to assist all divisions
and personnel of the department, and they often assist allied agencies. Most
of the missions involve criminal law enforcement. These missions include
assisting narcotics on buy-bust sting operations, drug enforcement cases,
and surveillance of suspects, vehicles, and buildings. The motor vehicle
theft service utilizes the aircraft to search for stolen vehicles and
equipment, and for surveillance. Other missions include photography flights,
manhunts, undercover investigations, providing security, disaster
reconnaissance, transportation of medical supplies, and aerial command post.
Though airplanes are primarily used in criminal law enforcement, they are
now playing an ever increasing role in traffic enforcement as well. Ten
years ago, the implementation of NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement)
allowed commercial truck traffic from Mexico into the United States. This,
along with the natural rise in automobile traffic in the US, has led to more
and more impatience and instances of “road rage” among Texas drivers.
In order to combat this increase in traffic volume, Texas DPS began
utilizing fixed-wing aircraft to patrol areas of the interstate. Working
with the Highway Patrol Division, task forces are now utilized in various
locations throughout the state to target hazardous traffic violations.
Pilots work with state troopers in a designated area to observe violations
from the air and then notify ground units of vehicle description, type of
violation, and related details. Aircraft then continue to follow the vehicle
until a stop is made and the correct vehicle is identified.
The airplane is a very effective tool for enforcing the more hazardous
violations, since most drivers will “drive friendly” (a Texas saying) when a
marked unit is nearby. In addition, public reception of the airplane has
been very positive. Public support has been especially good when drivers are
informed of the mission, such as identifying hazardous drivers.
The single engine Cessnas are used mainly within local areas. The twin
engine turbo commander is the vehicle of choice for long distance transport,
which is especially important for criminal investigations, which are not
restricted to Texas. Often, department investigators are required to travel
to other states to conduct a criminal investigation. When called upon, the
turbo Commander is used to transport officers anywhere the investigation may
lead. In emergencies, a Commander can transport S.W.A.T. teams, K-9 units,
crime laboratory personnel, and supplies.
A recent use of the Commander was to transport the famous “Railroad
Killer,” Rafael Resendez Ramirez. Ramirez had been on the run after
committing numerous murders in various towns close to railroads. DPS Texas
Rangers were eventually able to break the case and establish Ramirez as a
suspect. Texas Rangers convinced him to surrender in El Paso. The aircraft
section’s turbo commander was then used to transport Ramirez back to Houston
from El Paso. In many cases like this, it is impractical to transport
criminals on a commercial aircraft, so the DPS aircraft is called upon for
the duty.
Competition in the aircraft section of the department is quite fierce.
Pilots are selected solely from DPS officers who have been a trooper for at
least four years. Applicants must have at least a private pilot’s license
(airplane or helicopter) to apply. Obviously, the more ratings and
experience one has the better. Applicants must pass a written test and oral
interview. They are then placed on an eligibility list for a period of one
year.
Once selected, a new pilot must obtain a commercial and instrument rating
before being released to fly department aircraft. Pilots then go through a
break-in period when they are restricted to daytime and specific weather
minimums until they reach a certain experience level. Finally, all of the
restrictions on the pilots are gradually removed. Many of the pilots are
also ATP rated and are certified flight instructors.
The aircraft section’s primary goal is to maintain safety first. Second,
the section strives to continue to expand both in aircraft and personnel as
needed. The department is currently evaluating expansion in personnel and
aircraft based on the needs of the State of Texas.
(Back to top)
Police Missions & Medevac
How The NJSP Aviation Bureau Has Grown To Do Both
By Jon Goldin
When the Aviation Bureau of the New Jersey State Police was
formed in 1969, there were three Enstrom helicopters in the fleet. Today,
they fly seven helicopters --- four Sikorsky S-76s and three Bell Jet
Rangers. Major changes are imminent for the agency's unit, including an
increase in aircraft, personnel and equipment.
The NJSP Aviation Bureau consists of two separate
operations: the police mission side of the house and the medevac side. In
the beginning, the unit was strictly focused on police missions. However,
the Aviation Bureau soon developed a medevac program that captured much of
its attention. Today, in the post-September 11 world, the unit is shifting
its focus back on police missions, making it a well balanced airborne law
enforcement operation. Ambitious plans are now being considered to increase
the unit's presence throughout the state with more regular patrol flights.
The NJSP is in a position to follow through with these plans due to the new
Homeland Security Branch of the unit. Most of the department's specialized
units, including aviation, TEAMS (tactical), marine and bomb squad, fall
under the newly created branch.
Colonel Rick Fuentes, Superintendent of NJSP, recognized the
need to streamline the availability of these special units in a time of
crisis. The expansion plan being worked on now would involve the creation of
three medevac bases, with a patrol helicopter and crew also assigned to
those locations.
The evaluation of the NJSP’s medevac operation is an
interesting one. Finding the three original Enstrom helicopters insufficient
for their needs, the unit upgraded to the Bell Jet Rangers in 1974 using a
federal grant for speed enforcement. A Huey was also used for training with
the TEAMS Unit from the late 1970s until 1983. During the mid-1980s, the New
Jersey State Police looked into the feasibility of starting a dedicated
medevac program that would cover the entire state, every hour of every day.
Once the details were worked out concerning the commitment
by the state police, discussions began with several of New Jersey's trauma
centers. They decided to staff the helicopters with civilian flight nurses
and flight medics provided by the hospitals. Single engine light helicopters
would not be adequate for this new mission, though, so the NJSP was forced
to purchase twin-engine, dedicated medical ships.
After careful consideration, the Sikorsky S-76B was selected
to fulfil this role. Chosen for its speed, payload, power and range, the New
Jersey State Police would be the first law enforcement agency to operate
this airframe, and one of the first operations to use an S-76 for medevac
missions.
The first S-76 was ordered in 1987 for training and
authorized transportation, and two more were ordered in 1990 for full time
medevac use. While waiting for delivery of the medevac S-76s, the state
police operated a Bell 222, formerly used to transport the governor, and a
leased BO-105 to start the medevac program.
Currently, the headquarters for the Aviation Bureau is
centrally located at Mercer County Airport, near the state capitol of
Trenton. When the medevac program began, two bases were established, one in
the north and one in the south; they became known as "Northstar" and "Southstar,"
respectively.
Northstar was based at University Hospital in Newark. In
accordance with the agreement with the state police, the hospital built a
rooftop hangar and helipad for the helicopter and supplied the medical crew.
Southstar found a home at West Jersey hospital in Voorhees.
Just as with University Hospital and Northstar, the hospital built a pad and
hangar and provided the medical crew. Oddly enough, however, West Jersey
hospital is not a designated trauma center, and does not receive patients
transported by Southstar. Patients are generally transported to one of eight
level-one and level-two trauma centers within New Jersey. However, depending
on the injury or location, they are sometimes flown into Pennsylvania or
Delaware.
At the inception of the program in 1986, the medevacs were
available 16 hours a day, seven days a week. In 1992, they went to a
24-hour, seven-day operation, as more pilots were brought into the program.
Standard flight crews consisted of a state trooper pilot and copilot, along
with a civilian flight nurse and flight medic. At the time, when an S-76 was
down for maintenance, a Long Ranger would be used for medevacs.
Because of weight and room limitations, the backup Long
Rangers were staffed with one pilot and one care provider. It should be
noted that the original S-76 used for training and transportation was
reconfigured to a full time back up ship for medevacs in 1993.
On average, the NJSP flies about 1,500 medevacs a year, with
Southstar completing about 100 more than Northstar. About 75 percent of the
calls are for trauma scene transports, the other 25 percent are
inter-hospital transports. The medevac crews will launch on police missions
if the Trenton base is not available, but they must break off if they
receive a medical call.
After 12 years of successful operation with the three
Sikorsky's, there was a need to add a fourth medevac to keep up with
maintenance on the fleet. The money for a new helicopter wasn't in the
budget, however, so a used S-76 in excellent condition was purchased. It was
painted and outfitted with the same medical interior as the other three and
went in service in July of 2002.
The Aviation Bureau of the NJSP currently employs 32 pilots
that fly either police missions or medevac. Before a trooper pilot can begin
transition training in the Sikorsky model, they must have a minimum of 1,000
hours and hold a commercial and instrument rating in the unit's 206s. Flight
time is gained by flying law enforcement and training missions out of
Trenton. The pilots are sent to Bell Factory Training School and
FlightSafety International's S-76 simulator training annually. Police
mission pilots assigned to Trenton work a 10- hour shift; medevac pilots are
on a 12-hour shift.
Maintenance for all of the unit’s aircraft is performed at
the Trenton base by 10 state employee technicians. Technicians are also sent
annually for training at factory schools. Major inspections are done through
Keystone Helicopter Corp. in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Sikorsky's are extremely sophisticated helicopters
packed with high-end equipment in the cockpit and the main cabin. The glass
cockpit has EFIS, TCAD and weather radar among its systems. Once it's
airborne, the S-76 practically flies itself. The main cabin features a full
advanced life support medical interior capable of accommodating two patients
if needed. An SX-5 light is used during approaches to illuminate landing
zones at night.
A significant advantage of the S-76 is the ability to shut
one engine down while keeping the other at flight idle and disengaging the
rotor system. This allows for safer operation on the ground in the
helicopter’s vicinity, while loading the helicopter at a scene, as there is
no need to shut the aircraft down and then restart it. This is all the more
significant on the S-76 because the main rotor droops very low towards the
front of the helicopter. The state police do not charge for medevac
transport, but a patient is billed separately for services rendered by the
medical crew.
Major changes are on the drawing board for the Aviation
Bureau, thanks in part to the forward thinking of Colonel Fuentes, beginning
with the relocation of its helicopters from hospitals to airports. In the
summer of 2004, Northstar was moved to a new facility at Somerset Airport.
This provides a better response time to scenes in the northwestern part of
the coverage area. It also eliminates the necessity of flying to Newark
Liberty International Airport for fuel.
As for Southstar, the majority of their calls during the
summer months are along the Atlantic coastline of the state. Locations are
currently being scouted at airports more centrally located in the southern
portion of the state that would best suit their needs. Colonel Fuentes is
seeking funding for the purchase of an additional used S-76 so they can open
a third medevac base centrally.
Despite the importance of medevac missions to the NJSP, the
units intends not only to maintain its commitment to police missions, but to
heightened it in the near future. Realizing the important role helicopters
play in homeland security now, the state is looking to add three new
mission-equipped patrol helicopters to the fleet. The unit would like to see
a patrol ship and crew based alongside each medevac helicopter and its crew.
This would allow each of three State Police patrol troops to have a
helicopter directly available to them and dramatically cut down on response
times. It is also anticipated that more local police departments will call
on the State Police for air support in the near future.
In addition to new helicopters, the Aviation Bureau is also
in the process of purchasing new flight accessories. A Wescam MX-15 thermal
imaging system with a video downlink is currently on order for installation
on one of the Sikorsky's, along with a Nightsun 2 search light. A rappelling
rack in another S-76 is being installed to enhance and refine intensive
training with the TEAMS Unit.
Homeland Security patrol flights are currently high on the
list of law enforcement priorities, and New Jersey has no shortage of
bridges, tunnels, transportation hubs, and other sensitive locations. Anyone
who has traveled along the New Jersey Turnpike has seen the oil refineries
along the roadway, and any one of them is a potential target. Obviously,
there will be a strong need for more pilots, in addition to the new
helicopters and accessories, and the Aviation Bureau is actively looking
among its ranks for troopers with flight experience to bolster staffing.
Helicopters play an important role in the post 9/11 world of
law enforcement, which is why the New Jersey State Police is taking steps to
improve its already sound aviation program.
(Back to top)
The Tension In Rescue Hoist Technology
By David Markley
Goodrich Winch & Hoist
A few things to consider when deciding between level-wind
and translating drum rescue hoists.
The events of September 11, 2001 forever changed the role of the helicopter
in law enforcement. Part of that change involves the expanded role of the
rescue hoist. As the demand for helicopter rescue hoists has increased, so
has the need to understand the available technologies and what they
represent. There are currently two rescue hoist technologies
available—level-wind or translating drum. The terms level-wind and
translating drum refer to the traditional cable management systems.
A level-wind system utilizes a guide block on the front of
the hoist that moves both directions on a level-wind screw. This maintains
consistent wraps as the drum turns. Tension between the pay out point and
drum is maintained by the guide block. Rubber components inside the guide
block are incompatible with lubrication, making the use of a dry cable
mandatory.
A translating drum system also utilizes a level-wind screw
which drives the drum back and fourth on a near frictionless ball spline to
maintain consistent wraps. But unlike the level-wind system, the translating
drum technology routes the cable through a single point pay-out. The cable
is supported at the pay out point by four rollers that maintain tension back
to the drum. The translating drum system utilizes a lubricated cable, which
extends cable life and transfers oil to the drum, thus arresting corrosion.
Both technologies are obviously viable alternatives, but the
traditional level-wind system presents some operational limitations that
should be considered when selecting a hoist to meet mission requirements.
The angle between the load and helicopter, often referred to as fleet angle,
is limited on the level-wind hoist. Off angle lifts will significantly
increase the side load on the level-wind mechanism, causing extra stress and
creating the potential for a cable miss wrap. In contrast, the translating
drum technology absorbs the side loads through the primary structure rather
than a level-wind mechanism. The total torque on the translating mechanism
never exceeds eight pounds regardless of fleet angle.
An additional consideration when choosing between the two
technologies is continuous duty cycles. The cooling methodology on a
level-wind hoist mechanism uses the same oil to cool both the mechanism and
the motor. This will cause the motor to overheat when the hoist is being
used continuously; thus it requires a cool down period. In contrast, while
the translating drum mechanism is also cooled by oil, it is independent of
the motor. This allows the hoist to be operated continuously without
overheating the motor and eliminates the need for cool down periods.
System acquisition cost is yet another consideration.
Initial acquisition costs are lower for the level-wind system, but total
cost of ownership once the cost of spares and overhauls are taken into
account can be higher. The translating drum hoist has a 10-year, or
111-hoisting hour, time before overhaul (TBO). Some level-wind hoists have a
10-year TBO, but most will require overhaul after five years. The total cost
of doing two overhauls on a level-wind hoist to one on a translating drum
eventually makes the total cost of ownership higher for the level-wind
hoist. Additionally, corrosion issues avoided on the translating drum
design, because of the oil soaked cable, may cause the price of overhaul on
the level-wind hoist to be higher.
None of these points are meant to say that a translating
drum is good and level-wind is bad. On the contrary, both technologies have
their place and are viable options. The intent of this article was simply to
provide a basis of comparison for those considering the addition of a hoist
to their helicopter. Another, and perhaps one of the best sources of
information on rescue hoists are existing operators, especially
organizations like the United States Coast Guard that use both technologies.
In any case, don't just buy a helicopter with a hoist on it. Ask the
questions, get the answers, and select a hoist that will best fulfill your
mission requirements.
(Back to top)
|