Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.ncfop.org 2
Fraternal Order of Police
BlueNote Official Publication of the North Carolina State
Lodge
Inside This Issue
Chaplain’s Corner with NCFOP Chap-lain, Phil Wiggins. The “Taser Case” by Jeffrey P Gray Message from Presi-dent Hagler Can you guess who that is in the pic-ture?! TRIVIA! Grand Lodge Up-date by State Na-tional Trustee, Den-nis McCreary Study of Body Worn Cameras has Begun Legal Aid Plan Sus-tainability by Jeff Gray Lodge 2 Activities Messages from Vice President, John R. Byrd, Sr., and State Treasurer, Doris Kirby Notes and Sugges-tions from Editor in Chief, Terry Mangum Legal Aid Commit-tee Information
Index Directory 2 Lodge News 2 Local Lodge 7 Legal Aid 11
Volume 3, Issue 20 www.ncfop.org March/ April 2016
The Voice of Law Enforcement
The North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled in three separate cases in-
volving the employment rights of North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs. The cases are
McLaughlin, et al. v. Bailey, Young v. Bailey and Lloyd v. Bailey. The facts in each
were substantially similar and arose out of the actions of the same Sheriff. The facts
indicated that Sheriff Bailey had sent letters to Deputies seeking political campaign
contributions for his reelection. In the Young case, the Plaintiff Deputy Sheriff was
terminated after she did not contribute money or volunteer for Sheriff Bailey’s re-elec-
tion campaign. The other cases were similar. Bailey filed summary judgment dismis-
sal motions before trial, where the Court has to accept Plaintiff’s facts as true; none of
the Plaintiffs prevailed.
These cases grew out of a longstanding problem where some Sheriffs seeking
re-election orchestrate election campaigns and actively solicit financial contributions
from their Deputies. In some instances their conduct amounts to coercion. These three
cases presented issues of monumental importance to the FOP. Most regretfully, our
State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs do not
enjoy any state constitutional employment rights as it relates to their political affiliation
or participation. These cases constitute a huge setback for all North Carolina law en-
forcement officers and public safety in North Carolina.
FOP has long advocated the position that although Sheriffs should be free to
select their senior team of advisors using any considerations they choose, including po-
litical, it is wrong to fire rank and file Deputies either based on their refusal to be co-
erced into making political contributions to their employer or based on their political
party registration.
FOP believes that the political affiliation and participation of Deputy Sheriffs
should be a matter of the Deputies’ own personal choices. Law enforcement officers
should be judged on their performance, not based on their political activities. Many
officers, and particularly Deputy Sheriffs, have had to serve in politicized law enforce-
ment environments, which is unhealthy and risky for all concerned, including the Sher-
iff.
In these cases, Sheriff Bailey, supported by the North Carolina Sheriffs Associ-
ation, took an extreme position before the Court: that Sheriffs should have complete
freedom to require any and all political loyalty from their Deputies. This position is
Continues on P. 2
truly dangerous and in fact is un-American. Regretfully, our Supreme Court accepted
it. Sheriffs do not need such enormous, raw power. History has taught us about the
damage to all from any one person who has total power. As the old saying goes, “Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The sad result of these cases is that North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs have been
lowered to a status that is beneath second class citizenry. They can be required to
change their political registration, vote as dictated by the Sheriff, to pay any sum of
DEPUTY SHERIFFS MAY BE FIRED FOR
POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR THE FAILURE TO
MAKE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO
SHERIFFS FOR ELECTIONS By Terry Mangum (BlueNote Editor In Chief) and FOP Legal Counsel
North Carolina
Fraternal Order of Police
1500 Walnut Street Cary, NC 27511
(O) 800-628-8062 (F) 919-461-4958
Email [email protected]
Web Site www.ncfop.org
President
Randy Hagler [email protected]
Immediate Past President
Terry Mangum [email protected]
Vice President
John Byrd [email protected]
Secretary
Mike Hawkins [email protected]
Treasurer
Doris Kirby [email protected]
2nd Vice President
Robert Gaddy [email protected]
Sergeant-At-Arms
Greg Brown [email protected]
Chaplain
Phil Wiggins [email protected]
National Trustee Dennis McCrary
Chariperson of Trustees Phillip Ferguson
Chaplain’s Corner By Phil Wiggins
The Bible says, [John 15:13] "Greater love hath
no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends."
Over the past year we have seen many of our
law enforcement brothers and sisters murdered
while responding to false calls, some just sitting in
their patrol car. Just in the month of February
2016, within seven days we had seven officers
shot and seven murdered, and more followed.
Those brave men and women signed up to serve
and protect and to even lay down their lives for
strangers if necessary. They were inspired by their
sense of duty and their love for humanity, not con-
sidering race, rich or poor, nor religion while per-
forming their sworn duty to uphold law and order.
"They will never be forgotten."
May God give courage and strength to the fam-
ilies and friends of these officers, as they cope with
these great loses. May these events drive each of
us to our knees and cause us to pray to God in the
name of our Savior, Jesus The Christ. And we
should pray for our brothers and sisters presently
serving, that they remain strong and carry on in
this great profession to care for the poor, weak and
down trodden and to uphold justice with pride and
integrity.
2 Corinthians 4:8-9 "We are hard-pressed on
every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but
not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck
down, but not destroyed.
Isaiah 26:3 "You will keep him in perfect
peace, whose mind is stayed on you, because he
trusts in you."
God Bless,
Phil Wiggins
N.C. State FOP Chaplain
Lodge News
www.ncfop.org 2
Deputy Sherriffs…
Continued from P. 1
truly dangerous and in
fact is un-American.
Regretfully, our Su-
preme Court accepted
it. Sheriffs do not
need such enormous,
raw power. History
has taught us about
the damage to all from
any one person who
has total power. As
the old saying goes,
“Power corrupts and
absolute power cor-
rupts absolutely.”
The sad result
of these cases is that
North Carolina Dep-
uty Sheriffs have been
lowered to a status
that is beneath second
class citizenry. They
can be required to
change their political
registration, vote as
dictated by the Sher-
iff, to pay any sum of
campaign contribu-
tions and to change
their beliefs - all in the
name of remaining
employed. This is
wrong.
What is the FOP’s Legislative
Agent doing writing about an appel-
late court case? Simple. It’s an im-
portant case for working officers and
with the recent retirement of long-
time FOP State Lodge General
Counsel, Rich Hattendorf, I decided
to step up to the plate to make the
membership aware of this much
talked about case.
On January 11, 2016, the Fourth
Circuit issued a published opinion re-
garding the civil case Estate of
Ronald Armstrong v. Village of Pine-
hurst. (For the full opinion, go to
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opin-
ions/published/151191.p.pdf.) The
estate of Ronald H. Armstrong ap-
pealed the federal district court’s or-
der granting summary judgment to
various Appellees, the Village of
Pinehurst, North Carolina, Lieuten-
ant Jerry McDonald, Sergeant Tina
Sheppard, and Officer Arthur Gat-
ling, Jr. The Fourth Circuit affirmed
the grant of summary judgment in
Appellees’ favor, holding that the of-
ficers and municipality were entitled
to qualified immunity in this case.
But before doing so, the Court took
the somewhat unusual step of dis-
cussing at length, and establishing
criteria for, the deployment of a taser
in certain circumstances.
The facts showed that in April
2011, Ronald H. Armstrong, who
suffered from bipolar and paranoid
schizophrenia, had been off of his
prescribed medication for five days
and exhibiting strange behavior. His
sister convinced Armstrong to ac-
company her to Moore Regional
Hospital in Pinehurst, North Caro-
lina. Armstrong willingly went to
the hospital and checked in, but dur-
ing the course of evaluation he be-
came frightened and fled the emer-
gency department. The examining
doctor determined Armstrong to be a
danger to himself and issued invol-
untary commitment papers to compel
his return.
Lieutenant McDonald, Sergeant
Sheppard, and Officer Gatling re-
sponded to the dispatch and when
they arrived at Armstrong’s location,
engaged in conversation with Arm-
strong because the commitment or-
der had not yet been finalized. As
soon as the officers learned that the
commitment papers were complete,
they surrounded and advanced to-
ward him. Armstrong reacted by sit-
ting down and wrapping himself
around a stop sign post. The officers
attempted to remove Armstrong
from the post.
After about thirty seconds of at-
tempting to get him to release the
post, one of the officers set his taser
on the lowest mode and tased Arm-
strong five separate times over a pe-
riod of approximately two minutes.
The officers then removed Arm-
strong from the post and laid him
face down on the ground. During the
struggle, Armstrong complained that
he was being choked, however, no
witness saw the police apply any
chokeholds. Because of Armstrong’s
continued resistance, the officers
handcuffed him and shackled his legs
and left him face down in the grass
for a brief period. When the officers
flipped Armstrong over, they saw
that his skin had turned a bluish color
and he did not appear to be breathing.
Two of the officers administered
CPR and the other radioed dispatch
to send EMS. Armstrong was pro-
nounced dead shortly after arriving
back inside the hospital.
Armstrong’s estate sued each of-
ficer and their employer, the Village
of Pinehurst, alleging that the offic-
ers used excessive force. The district
court granted summary judgment in
favor of the officers and municipal-
ity, reasoning that “[i]t is highly
doubtful that the evidence estab-
lishes a constitutional violation at all,
but assuming it does, the defendants
are entitled to qualified immunity.”
The estate (Appellant) appealed.
The Fourth Circuit began its
“qualified immunity analysis” by
pointing out that this analysis in-
volves two inquires: (1) whether the
plaintiff has established the violation
of a constitutional right, and (2)
whether that right was clearly estab-
lished at the time of the alleged vio-
lation. Appellant’s case would sur-
vive summary judgment only if the
Fourth Circuit answered both ques-
tions in the affirmative.
Turning to the first inquiry, the
Fourth Circuit held that the officers’
conduct violated Armstrong’s Fourth
Amendment right. Using the “objec-
tive reasonableness” standard as well
as the factors enunciated in Graham
v. Connor the Fourth Circuit held
that the level of force the officers
chose to use was not objectively rea-
sonable because the officers were
merely confronted with a situation
involving a few exigencies and that
these justified only a limited degree
of force. Tasing Armstrong exceeded
this permissible, limited degree of
force. The Fourth Circuit stated,
“[i]mmediately tasing a non-crimi-
nal, mentally ill individual, who sec-
onds before had been conversational,
was not a proportional response.”
For this reason, the Court opined that
the officers were not entitled to sum-
mary judgment on the question of
whether they violated the Constitu-
tion because, viewing the record in
the light more favorable to Appel-
lant, the officers used excessive force
in violation of the Fourth Amend-
ment. In so doing, the Fourth Circuit
answered the first question of its
“qualified immunity analysis” in the
affirmative.
Turning to the second inquiry, the
Fourth Circuit held that Armstrong’s
specific Fourth Amendment right
was not “clearly established” at the
time of the officers’ alleged violation
Continued on P. 4
www.ncfop.org 3
The “Taser Case:”
Fourth Circuit Recognizes Qualified Immunity But Establishes Standard for Taser Use By Jeffrey P. Gray - Legislative Agent
The “Taser Case”… Continued from P. 3
so they were entitled to qualified im-
munity. The Fourth Circuit thereby
affirmed the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the officers
and municipality although it found
their conduct amounted to excessive
force.
In my experience, a Court making
a determination of a constitutional
violation where it does not also strike
down the conduct is a bit unusual.
Typically, courts are silent on consti-
tutional issues when they can rule on
other grounds.
By way of explanation, and using
Fourth Circuit precedent, the Court
stated that qualified immunity
shields government officials from li-
ability for civil damages, provided
that their conduct does not violate
“clearly established” statutory or
constitutional rights within the
knowledge of a reasonable person.
The inquiry into whether a constitu-
tional right is “clearly established”
required that the Fourth Circuit first
define the precise right into which it
was inquiring. After defining that
right, the Court had to determine
whether that right was clearly estab-
lished at the time the officers acted.
A right satisfies this standard when it
is “sufficiently clear that every rea-
sonable official would have under-
stood that what he is doing violates
that right.” Therefore, if the constitu-
tional right was “clearly established”
at the time the officers acted, the of-
ficers were not entitled to qualified
immunity.
In this case the constitutional
right according to the Court was
Armstrong’s right not to be sub-
jected to tasing while offering
stationary and non-violent re-
sistance to a lawful seizure. (The
application of this point from
this case is going to be troubling
for law enforcement officers and
agencies in the future. Policies
and procedures will have to be
re-thought.)
Once the Fourth Circuit
turned to the second question as
to whether this constitutional
right not to be tased was “clearly
established,” after much discus-
sion of cases from throughout
the nation, it held that the de-
fined constitutional right was not
so settled at the time that the of-
ficers acted such that every rea-
sonable official would have un-
derstood that tasing Armstrong
was unconstitutional. The Fourth
Circuit’s analysis of cases from
other circuits in relation to tasing
and excessive force showed the
issue was unsettled at the time
the officers tased Armstrong;
thus, not every reasonable of-
ficer would have understood tas-
ing was unconstitutional in this
situation. The Court therefore
concluded that Armstrong’s
right not to be tased while offer-
ing stationary and non-violent
resistant to a lawful seizure was
not “clearly established” on the
date he was seized, so the Fourth
Circuit held that the officers
were entitled to qualified im-
munity.
But the further caveat to this
case is the fact that the Court has
essentially said, “Henceforth and
forever more, law enforcement is
on notice: It is excessive force to
tase a stationary, non-resistive
suspect when few or no exigen-
cies exist.”
www.ncfop.org 4
Message From
The President
By Randy Hagler
Greetings Brothers and Sisters
and welcome to the March/April
2016 issue of the official publication
of the North Carolina Fraternal Or-
der of Police. The BlueNote is pub-
lished to keep our membership in-
formed regarding important issues
going on around the state. Our hope
is you will share the information
with other members as well as law
enforcement officers that for some
reason are not members of the FOP
so that we may all be better in-
formed.
In one of the most important rul-
ings in recent history, the North Car-
olina Supreme Court upheld a lower
court ruling regarding the termina-
tion of a 20-year law enforcement
veteran by a sheriff. In essence the
ruling enhanced the authority of
Sheriffs to terminate an employee for
any reason, including political rea-
sons. In this case the employee
opted not to contribute to the Sher-
iff’s re-election financial request.
The decision the North Carolina Su-
preme Court determined that em-
ployees of a county sheriff, including
deputies, are directly employed by
the sheriff and not by the county nor
a county department. Sheriff’s em-
ployees are not “county employees”
as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-
99 and are not entitled to the protec-
tions of that statute. This conclusion
cleared the way for the court to de-
termine deputies could be terminated
for almost any reason, particularly
those that have risen to leadership
positions and are considered “policy
makers” for the Sheriff’s Office.
Continued on P. 5
North Carolina Fraternal Order of
Police viewed this case as extremely
important to our membership and
filed an Amicus Brief in support of
the deputy in this case.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an opinion on a North Caro-
www.ncfop.org 5
President Hagler… Continued from P. 4
North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police viewed this case as extremely important to our membership and filed
an Amicus Brief in support of the deputy in this case.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on a North Carolina Taser deployment case that occurred
in the Village of Pinehurst in April 2011. The court’s opinion has had a ripple effect across the country and has
many law enforcement agencies reconsidering Taser use. The National Fraternal Order of Police has taken a
strong stand in this case and is prepared to assist where possible. There is another more detailed article in this
newsletter written by our Legislative Agent, Jeff Gray, concerning this issue and I encourage everyone to read
it. This ruling has the potential to severely change the way Tasers are deployed across the country and certainly
make our members’ jobs more difficult and dangerous.
Across the country we have seen increased numbers of our Brothers and Sisters being killed in the line of duty.
In fact, in one seven day period this year we saw eight officers killed while attempting to do their job. In my
local area we had four incidents in just over two weeks that required officers to use deadly force to prevent
death or serious injury. One of these incidents was a shooting where one suspect charged out of his house firing
at eight officers attempting to serve a murder warrant. The suspect was shot multiple times by officers returning
fire but not before one officer was shot in the ankle. Thankfully all eight officers were FOP members and our
State Lodge Legal Aid Plan provided legal aid for all of them.
National FOP President Canterbury recently wrote a letter to President Obama explaining the attack on our
nation’s police officers is at an epidemic proportion and our elected officials must take immediate action. Pres-
ident Canterbury and the National FOP has for more than a year urged Congress to expand the Federal hate
crime legislation to include law enforcement officers. Under current law, persons who deliberately victimize
another person because of the race, color, creed, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability are
subject to greater penalties. Our officers are being targeted simply because of the uniforms they wear and
should have the U.S. Department of Justice behind them seeking greater penalties for those committing these
senseless acts of violence which will hopefully make it safer for officers everywhere.
We have our State Lodge Spring Board Meeting coming up on April 8-10. The meeting will be held in Bur-
lington at the Ramada Burlington Hotel and Conference Center. Any FOP member is welcome and encouraged
to attend the meeting. The Board of Directors Meeting will he held on Saturday beginning at 8:30am. Some
of the topics to be covered are:
Adopting 2016-2017 Budget
Discussion regarding a replacement for State Lodge Counsel Rich Hattendorf
FOP Officer of the Year Award presentation
Legislative Update
Reports from Committee Chairs
o Constitution and By-Laws
o Legal Aid
o Legislative
o Membership and Recruitment
o Web site
NC FOP Foundation Report
Newsletter Update
National FOP Update
Update of our upcoming State Conference in Asheville in August
Stay safe.
Randy Hagler President
Greetings Brothers and Sisters,
As your State Treasurer some
of my responsibilities are, but not
limited to, making sure the
NCFOP funds are secure and that
we are profiting
from our invest-
ments. Five years
ago the NCFOP Ex-
ecutive Board de-
cided to withdraw a
portion of money
from the Death
Benefit, Legal Aid,
and Labor savings
accounts and pur-
chase CDs for each
account. At the
time of the purchase of these CDs
the interest rate was 2.6% which
was an unbelievable rate. How-
ever, now at the end of the five
years these rates are no longer
available and we will not be re-
ceiving nearly as much. BB&T
where we have our CDs is only
offering a .50% interest rate. As
it stands now, I will be withdraw-
ing and placing the money from
these CDs in their individual
checking accounts that will be
drawing an interest rate until we
decide what will be the best op-
tion. Please understand that I will
search for the best alternative that
will be safe, secure and profitable
for the North Carolina Fraternal
Order of Police.
As State Treasurer it is very
important that our financial re-
sponsibilities are paid in a timely
fashion. This is not only a credit
rating issue but it shows our cred-
itors that the North Carolina Fra-
ternal Order of Police is honest
and trustworthy. Two of the bills
which are sent directly to the State
Office for payment are the Legal
Aid bills and Death Benefit pay-
ment requests. When Office Man-
ager Jean Novellino receives
these she sends the
bills to me for pay-
ment. These bills are
paid without de-
lay. Most of these in
voices for payment are
sent directly to me by
email after being ap-
proved by President
Hagler. The turna-
round time is usually
less than three days.
While the Death Bene-
fit check may not pay for the en-
tire funeral expenses, it will defi-
nitely help the
family who may be struggling to
pay other necessity bills. I am
asking all Lodge Secretaries and
Lodge Treasurers to attempt to
keep your membership rosters
current. Recently we had a re-
quest for a Death Benefit payment
after a year or more of the mem-
ber's death. When a faithful
member fails to pay his or her
dues someone, preferably an ex-
ecutive board officer, should be
assigned to contact the member
and attempt to find out if there is
a problem. I know we are all
busy. But I would like for you to
stop and think. If this was your
family in need of assistance I am
certain that your hope would
be that the North Carolina Frater-
nal Order of Police would do eve-
rything possible to assist.
If I can ever be of assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Important Information from the State Treasurer
By Doris Kirby
www.ncfop.org 6
Doris Kirby
State Treasurer [email protected]
Grand Lodge Update By Dennis McCrary - NC National Trustee
Most members are certainly aware
that there was a data breach on the
Grand Lodge website. The infor-
mation that was compromised was
names, some addresses and phone
numbers. The Grand Lodge has
shared some information with the
Board of Directors about the per-
sons responsible but has asked
that it be kept confidential as crim-
inal investigations are ongoing. I
will share more facts with mem-
bers as the investigations are com-
pleted and decisions made. Hope-
fully, by the time you read this the
new computer system for the
Grand Lodge will be operational
and we will have much greater ca-
pabilities and security than with
our old system.
The Grand Lodge Board of Di-
rectors is meeting on March 11-12
in San Diego. Certainly the data
breach will be one of the more sig-
nificant issues that we discuss.
There will also be a report on what
exactly happened with the election
that was held at the National Con-
ference this past August. I looked
forward to these discussions and
will report back to our members at
the Spring Board meeting in Bur-
lington.
Members should have seen
several letters from President Can-
terbury during the last several
weeks that dealt with a variety of
issues. One was to the NFL ex-
pressing our outrage at the anti-
police symbolism and language of
a certain entertainer during the Su-
per Bowl halftime show. Another
was demanding again that assaults
on law enforcement officers be
added to hate crime legislation
that has been passed to cover other
groups. We have been pressing for
this for some time but the recent
increase of officers being as-
saulted and killed has required Continued on P. 7
that we press even harder to get
this done.
I now serve as the chairman of
the Grand Lodge Disaster Assis-
tance Committee that is in place to
Local Lodge News
Grand Lodge Update… Continued from P. 6
that we press even harder to get
this done.
I now serve as the chairman
of the Grand Lodge Disaster
Assistance Committee that is in
place to help our members who
may suffer destruction of their
homes. This committee re-
views applications for assis-
tance from FOP members that
are displaced from their homes
by some type of natural or man-
made disaster. Most of you
know that recent storms and
floods in parts of the country
have had a devastating effect
on many persons’ lives. Please
consider donating to the Grand
Lodge Foundation and ear-
marking the funds for Disaster
Assistance. The donation will
be tax deductible and, even
though the amount is only
$500, it goes out quickly to
help the member that was dis-
placed with immediate ex-
penses. Since Hurricane
Katrina the fund has paid out
over 1.2 million dollars!
I look forward to seeing
many of you at the board meet-
ing in Burlington and will share
information from the San Di-
ego meeting. I do appreciate
serving as your National Trus-
tee and please let me know if
there is anything I can do for
you or your lodge.
Dennis McCrary National Trustee
www.ncfop.org 7
Durham County Lodge 2 Activities
By Terry Mangum – Lodge 2 State Trustee
Durham County Lodge 2 continued to be active during the months of
January and February. On January 29 Durham County Lodge 2 took the
recruit class of the Durham Police Department Academy to lunch prior
to their graduation which we do for every recruit class. Providing infor-
mation about the Fraternal Order of Police and answering questions from
the recruits during these lunches has proven to be an excellent recruit-
ment tool for our Lodge. You should experiment with doing this to see
if it would be beneficial for your Lodge in recruiting new members.
On February 2 Durham County Lodge 2 again sponsored the refresh-
ments for the Durham Police Department Academy Graduation cere-
mony reception. Lodge 2 has been sponsoring the graduation receptions
for a number of years.
Durham County Lodge 2 had a new local fundraiser on February 10 -
12 with Jersey Mike’s. They provided Lodge 2 with cards to pass out to
our members. The card entitled the holder to a free sub for a $3.00 do-
nation and 100% of these donations were then given to Durham County
Lodge 2. This was a very successful three-day fundraiser for our Lodge.
Durham County Lodge 2 would like to recognize and thank Jersey
Mike’s for their generous support in offering to do this for our Lodge.
Also during February, a select number of Lodge 2 Executive Board
members met with City Manager Bonfield to discuss issues of concern
for our Durham Police Department members. This meeting was well
received and will hopefully be the beginning of an improved line of com-
munication between Lodge 2’s membership and the City Manager.
Lastly, Durham County Lodge 2 hosted our 11th Annual Public Safety
Appreciation Day on February 21 in a private area of the Carolina Ale
House. This event is annually scheduled to take place in conjunction
with the Daytona 500. This appreciation event provides the attendees
with the opportunity to share good food, hospitality, fellowship, family,
and grand Daytona racing. This year’s Appreciation Day was again well
attended and enjoyed by all.
John R. Byrd Sr. Vice President
www.ncfop.org 8
Brothers and Sisters,
I hope everyone is experiencing a Safe and prosperous New Year so
far. Speaking of prosperous the CD’S that the state lodge has in place ma-
ture in March. If we leave them where they are the interest we are receiving
on them will drop drastically. The Chicago Police Officers Credit Union
(endorsed by the Grand Lodge) has the best interest rates of anybody in the
country. If anyone has any other suggestions of how better to handle these
monies please bring them to the Spring Board Meeting in Burlington.
I hope everyone is seriously considering the legal aid option we dis-
cussed at the Fall Board Meeting in Jacksonville. I have Mike Yon from
the National Legal Aid Plan coming to our Spring Board Meeting in Bur-
lington to once again answer any and all questions about the National Plan.
Please consult with your lodge members as I have encouraged you to do
for a little over the last year and be ready to make a recommendation. I
have a proposal to put forth as far as the Legal Aid Option. I think we
should opt into the national plan at $64 a member with our next per diem
assessments in 2016. We keep the money we currently have in our legal
aid account and the money in our reserve account (investment) to continue
to fund Administrative Cases as need be. We keep our Legal Aid Commit-
tee in tact to review Administrative Cases only. That being said our yearly
assessment for Legal Aid will only have to go from $24 to $64. Please give
this proposal some serious and well thought out discussion and considera-
tion among your fellow lodge members.
At our E-Board meeting in Newton on February the 6th we got to meet
Rich’s recommendation for his replacement Norris Adams II. Norris was a
very professional and pleasing individual to talk too. Norris has a good di-
versity of experience in areas other than criminal law that would benefit
our membership very much. Norris is a partner in a practice that has a
wealth of experience and different areas of expertise that he can draw from
to benefit the membership. I asked him a couple of specific questions that
had been addressed to me from the membership when I was Legal Aid
Chairman. They were: Are you open to traveling the state to defend mem-
bers anywhere when necessary? His answer was yes. Are you open to de-
veloping a statewide lawyer inventory of FOP friendly lawyers and devel-
oping a relationship with those lawyers on behalf of the FOP? His answer
was again yes. There are more issues that were discussed but Norris will
be at the Spring Meeting to answer your questions himself, after which he
will be brought up for a vote. I strongly encourage that you endorse Norris
A. Adams II as our new FOP State Lodge Attorney.
I hope everyone is continually thinking about ways to increase member-
ship and develop new fundraisers. I hope to see you all at the Spring Board
Meeting in Burlington April 8th - 10th. Take care and be safe
As always I am here to serve you. You can call me anytime at 336-504-
8173 or email me at [email protected] if I can be of assistance to you
or your lodge in anyway.
Information from your Vice
President By John R. Byrd Sr.
Person County FOP 74 2016 Awards Banquet
Pictured left to right – Officer Of The Year - Deputy Jimmy Wilborn of the Person County
Sheriff’s Office, Distinguished Service Award - Cpl. Ryne Ford of the Roxboro Police Depart-ment, Distinguished Service Award - Master Trooper Lacy Morris of the NC Highway Pa-
trol and Lodge President John R. Byrd Sr.
Person County FOP Lodge 74
2016-2017 Officers Pictured left to right – Dustin Harris Lodge
Trustee, Heath Gill Sgt. at Arms, Installing
Officer State 2nd Vice President Bobby Gaddy,
John R. Byrd Sr. President/Secretary, Adam
Norris Lodge Trustee, and Chuck Gentry Vice
President/ State Trustee. Not present are
Robert Young Treasurer, Mark Massey 2nd
Vice President, and David Ramsey Chaplain.
In 2015, three separate bills
were filed in the General Assembly
mandating, in one way or another,
body-worn cameras for law en-
forcement officers. These bills - -
HB713, “Body and Dash Cam Re-
cordings,” HB 537, “Protect Law
Enforcement and Community Re-
lationships,” and HB 395, “Body
and Dashboard Cameras/Law En-
forcement” - - were introduced in
the midst of a number of highly
publicized police shootings nation-
ally where officers’ conduct was
questioned by members of the pub-
lic. I began gathering information
on the topic, which was a some-
what new concept at the time, and
talked with the Bill Sponsors about
their concerns, the issues they were
hoping to resolve, and the specifics
of their particular bill. As police
chiefs, Sheriffs and the heads of
other law enforcement agencies be-
gan weighing in, the enormity of
the issue became apparent. And in
fact, the initial cost of the equip-
ment became the least concern of
the discussions. Questions regard-
ing privacy (both the public and of-
ficers’), storage and retention of the
video, the Public Records Act, and
use in criminal violations and civil
actions became overwhelming.
These issues were not going to be
resolved in a single legislative ses-
sion.
In stepped Representative John
Faircloth, a former Chief of Police
in Highpoint, NC, who wisely in-
troduced a bill, HB 811, to study
the issue, then report back to the
General Assembly in the “short
session.” While so-called “study
bills” are often used to put contro-
versial bills on a back-burner in the
hope that the issue will die down,
Representative Faircloth’s bill was
intended to truly be a needed study.
And it has begun.
On Wednesday, February 10th
the Joint Justice and Public Safety
Subcommittee on Body-Worn
Cameras met for the first time. The
room was packed with interested
parties; far more than the Subcom-
mittee chairs anticipated.
Co-chaired by Representative
Faircloth and Representative Allen
McNeil, a retired deputy Sheriff,
the first meeting was intended to
give the Subcommittee members an
overview of the issue, the myriad of
problems raised by this proposal,
and a brief overview from munici-
palities and counties that have vol-
untarily implemented the use of
body-worn cameras. The Subcom-
mittee heard presentations from the
Hickory and Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg police departments, the Gov-
ernor’s Crime Commission regard-
ing the status of its grants program,
and Sheriff Charles McDonald of
Henderson County and Sheriff Van
Duncan of Buncombe County.
Aside from the complications
raised by the right-to-privacy and
public record aspects of such video
recordings, it quickly became evi-
dent that the cost of the storage and
retention might well be the greatest
obstacle. Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s
speaker, Maj. Stephen Walker, told
the Subcommittee that cloud stor-
age can cost $1.65 per gigabyte per
month per officer, which he de-
scribed as being “extremely expen-
sive.”
Currently, there are no laws
governing when an officer should
turn the camera on or off, how long
agencies should retain the film
footage, how the footage should be
stored, and who - - and when - -
should be allowed to view it. (Note:
the law governing dashboard cam-
era footage is very specific, and ap-
plies only to these in-car cameras.)
Departments that have imple-
mented body-worn cameras have
been able to find some guidance
from some national groups that are
attempting to develop standards,
but have generally had to develop
their programs from scratch. The
policies and procedures, from
deployment to retention, vary
widely from agency to agency.
Sheriff Duncan did note one
positive, measurable difference for
officers and the public. He said in
Buncombe County complaints
have declined by about 70 percent
since his debut of a body-worn
camera program approximately a
year ago.
Representative Faircloth ob-
served that initially, last year, the
idea was leaning heavily on the
State setting standards. He contin-
ued by saying, however, that most
likely the State may set some over-
all requirements but leave the func-
tioning rules and procedures up to
the local government. He specu-
lated that one of the above bills al-
ready in play in the legislature may
be used as a vehicle to implement
such requirements.
This was the first of three
planned meetings, and I will con-
tinue to actively monitor and par-
ticipate in these meetings.
www.ncfop.org 9
STUDY OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS HAS BEGUN By Jeff Gray, Legislative Agent
www.ncfop.org 10
Information and Suggestions from
Editor In Chief By Terry Mangum
I hope you enjoyed the January/March issue of the Blue-
Note. Our Editor, Jessica Miller, continues to produce an ex-
cellent newsletter for our members. We have an interactive
section in each issue of the BlueNote so don’t forget to par-
ticipate in our BlueNote TRIVIA. Wanda Baity of Lodge 8
participated in the January/February TRIVIA contest and
won.
This issue of the BlueNote contains some very important
information and some current court decisions which should
be of interest to all law enforcement officers across our State
of North Carolina. Please read and share this BlueNote issue
with your fellow law enforcement officers who are either not
members of the FOP or who are members and have not pro-
vided their email address in order to receive their own copy
of the BlueNote.
We continue to need your contributions to the BlueNote.
As I have suggested before, a simple way for each Lodge to
contribute to the BlueNote is to assign one individual to pre-
pare articles for the BlueNote telling us about your Lodge ac-
tivities. All of our Lodges have activities, elections, commu-
nity events, etc., throughout the year. This will also provide
a member with the opportunity to do something for the Local
Lodge and become more involved. I am always available to
assist anyone with writing an article so now is the time to get
started. The submission deadline for the May/June issue
is April 15, 2016. Please e-mail your articles and photos to my e-mail ad-
dress [email protected] by the due date. If you
submit photographs, please select one or two of your best so
that I do not have to make a selection. With photos, if possi-
ble, send the names of the individuals in the picture.
I would ask all readers to send me your comments and
any suggestions for improvement relating to your BlueNote
publication. This is your publication so help us make it better
by contributing articles, photographs, and suggestions for im-
provement.
As always, I am here to serve you and our membership. If
I may be of assistance to you, or if you have any questions or
concerns, please contact me.
Article Submission Deadlines for 2016: May/June issue: Due by April 15, 2016
July/August issue: Due by June 17, 2016
September/October issue: Due by August 19, 2016
November/December issue: Due by October 21, 2016
TRIVIA We have a winner!!!
Wanda Baity of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Lodge 8
is the winner of the January/February BlueNote TRIVIA
contest. She correctly identified Brenda Laskowski and
Dennis McCrary as the two individuals in the contest pho-
tograph. Her prize will be awarded at the Spring Board of
Directors meeting in Burlington on April 9.
So to recap, the correct TRIVIA answer for the photo-
graph from the January/February issue of the BlueNote is
Brenda Laskowski and Dennis McCrary. Thank you to
everyone who submitted answers to the Trivia question.
Don’t give up. Keep submitting your answers and maybe
you too can be a TRIVIA winner like Wanda Baity.
*******************
Now here is your chance to compete in an-
other exciting round of TRIVIA.
Put on your thinking caps. Can you identify the in-
dividual in this photograph? Hint: This is not a van-
dal nor an angry man preparing to throw a brick at
someone.
If you can identify the individual, send an email to
[email protected] with your answer. The
answer will be posted in the May/June 2016 issue of
the BlueNote along with the name of the first indi-
vidual submitting the correct answer.
The most basic definition of pro-
gram sustainability is “a paradigm
where program income exceeds pro-
gram expenses and available data indi-
cates that this trend will continue for
the foreseeable future.” In addition, if
your “program” is meeting its goals
and achieving or exceeding expected
results your program is sustainable. So
where does our North Carolina Frater-
nal Order of Police Legal Aid Plan
(program) stand? As for results we do
well; as far as plan sustainability, with
increased scrutiny of law
enforcement comes in-
creased potential for liti-
gation, and what seems to
be an ever increasing level
of violent attacks on law
enforcement increases our
exposure by way of repre-
sentation of our mem-
bers in use of force in-
cidents.
Our plan is very carefully managed
and each case is well vetted to ensure
that the best interests of our Order and
the individual member are carefully
considered. We often win and regu-
larly recover at least some funds. If due
diligence, dedication, and hard work
limited our exposure our Legal Aid
Plan would be sustainable in perpetu-
ity. We get a lot for what we pay into
our self- funded Legal Aid Plan, like
laying the equivalent of an across town
bus fare on the counter of the Cadillac
dealership and driving away in a new
Coupe De Ville.
To ensure continued outstanding
representation of our Brothers and Sis-
ters it is high time that we consider
having our Legal Aid Plan underwrit-
ten by a National or international un-derwriter. It may be as simple as adopt-
ing one of the legal aid options cur-
rently offered by the Grand Lodge. So
there is daylight at the end of this tun-
nel, but it’s going to hurt. Yes, it’s go-
ing to hurt to the tune of one decent
meal out, or three cans of dip, or a fifth
of whiskey or case of beer, or any of
100 things that we mindlessly pur-
chase at least once a month throughout
the year never blinking an eye. For the
cost of few such things we purchase
monthly, and can likely do without, we
can secure underwriting to provide the
legal aid our members count
on with peace of mind that our
plan will remain solvent.
I realize that any increase in
cost is a concern to all our
members and that retirees pay
into our Legal Aid Plan too.
But, please keep in mind that
supporting our Legal Aid Plan
is a lot like paying for public
education; we may not have
children enrolled in school, or
perhaps our neighbor has several chil-
dren while we have one, but we fund
education for the common good, not on
a per use basis.
We owe it to our Brothers and Sis-
ters, our families, and our communities
to fund our Legal Aid Plan at a sustain-
able level so that we have protection
and peace of mind in the darkest hours
when the world appears to be spinning
out of control. I intend to bring this
matter to the floor at the 2016 Spring
Board Meeting to be held April 8-10 in
Burlington.
Please consider this matter care-
fully and share your thoughts with
your State Trustee so that a meaningful
discussion can occur at the Spring
Board Meeting.
www.ncfop.org 11
Phillip Ferguson Chairman of Trustees [email protected]
Legal Aid
Legal Aid Plan Sustainability By Phillip Ferguson
LEGAL AID COMMITTEE
INFORMATION By Terry Mangum, Chairman
Your Legal Aid Committee mem-
bers are Kelli Jones (Lodge 76),
Chuck Kimble (Lodge 59), Tom
Lance (Lodge 16), Mark Michalec
(Lodge 9), Kenneth Whitehead
(Lodge 82) and Lynn Wilson
(Lodge 1). As Chairman, I would
like to recognize and personally
thank the Committee members for
their service to their Committee,
the membership, and the State
Lodge. I would also like to extend
our sincere appreciation to State
Office Manager Jean Novellino for
her invaluable assistance to our
Committee and the membership
throughout the entire legal aid pro-
cess.
As I am certain all of you know,
our longtime friend and State
Counsel Rich Hattendorf has re-
tired. Rich was an invaluable part
of the success of our Legal Aid
Committee and will be greatly
missed. I wish Rich all of the best
in his retirement and thank him for
all of the many years he provided
his legal service and advice to the
North Carolina State Lodge. Now
that Rich has retired to Haywood
County Lodge 16 country, hope-
fully Lodge 16 will host us again
for another State Board of Direc-
tors meeting. Again, my best to my
dear friend Rich in his retirement.
To improve and streamline the le-
gal aid application process, I would
once again like to provide you with
some general information which
will make the process better for Continued on P. 12
everyone involved, both the apply-
ing members and the Committee.
I urge all Lodge officers to share
and review the following infor-
mation with their membership.
Legal Aid Committee… Continued from P. 11
everyone involved, both the applying
members and the Committee.
I urge all Lodge officers to share
and review the following infor-
mation with their membership.
It is imperative that the Local Lodge
submits the applicant’s legal aid re-
quest in a timely manner. Once it is
received from the member and re-
viewed by the Local Lodge President
and/or Secretary, the Local Lodge
should email the application and
agreement to the State Office and
then mail a hard copy to the State Of-
fice. When the emailed application
and agreement are received in the
State Office it is date stamped and
immediately sent to the Legal Aid
Committee for review. And a deter-
mination on whether or not to pro-
vide legal aid is made in a timely
manner and a letter is sent to the ap-
plying member with the Commit-
tee’s determination.
A second issue concerns the scope of
the approved legal aid. When a legal
aid request is approved for a specific
action, and the results of the ap-
proved venue is unsuccessful and the
member wishes to proceed further,
then a new legal aid agreement and
legal aid application must be com-
pleted and submitted in the same
manner as the original application. I
try to be very specific on what the ap-
proved legal aid covers in the letter
that is sent to the applicant and the
applicant’s selected attorney. Again,
as has been stated many times, an ap-
proved legal aid request is for a spe-
cific hearing, appeal, etc., and is not
carte blanc legal coverage from here
to the Supreme Court.
Another issue is the membership pro-
cess. Individuals who apply for
membership in a Local Lodge must
be voted on by the membership at a
regular monthly membership meet-
ing and reflected in the meeting
minutes. Once the individual is
voted on and approved for member-
ship by the membership of the Local
Lodge, their per capita and other as-
sessments (legal aid, death benefit,
etc.) should be sent to the State Of-
fice. As has been stated many times
by many people, individuals are not
members nor entitled to any State
Lodge benefits until such time as all
of their payments
(money) are received in
the State Office.
When completing the
application it is ex-
tremely important that
sufficient information
is provided so the Com-
mittee does not have to
request additional facts.
Under the section of the
Legal Aid Application
which asks for the reason legal aid is
being requested, please provide a
synopsis of the facts and the exact
reason(s) for the request. The Com-
mittee needs the facts surrounding
the request and exactly what the re-
quest is for. Each box in the “Reason
for Legal Aid” section has a blank
line where the applicant can list the
specific venue which will be pur-
sued. For example, if it is for a
Grievance Hearing, then type Griev-
ance Hearing and who the hearing
will be heard by on the blank line.
By providing this information at the
time the application is submitted, the
application can be handled quickly
without the delay of phone calls and
e-mails to get the needed infor-
mation.
Please note that if additional infor-
mation is requested, it is the appli-
cant’s responsibility to provide this
information in a timely manner. The
legal aid request application will be
closed and not considered due to fail-
ing to provide the additional re-
quested information.
When involved in a Critical Incident,
the legal aid agreement and legal aid
application should be completed
within the next few days. I would
ask the Local Lodges to assist the
State Lodge with this de-
tail. When the Lodge au-
thorizes the use of an at-
torney in a Critical Inci-
dent for the member, the
Lodge should make sure
the member completes
the agreement and appli-
cation in a timely man-
ner. The legal aid agree-
ment must be signed and
sealed by the Lodge Secre-
tary so this Lodge follow-up
should be a simple task.
Finally, the applicants should be cer-
tain that the contact information they
list on the Legal Aid Application is
correct – both their email address and
their telephone numbers. When fol-
low-up is needed, we must have ac-
curate contact information.
If you have any questions concerning
the legal aid process, please do not
hesitate to contact me at terry-
[email protected] or 919-452-
7679. This simple contact with me
with your questions could save us all
time and effort with the legal aid pro-
cess.
Terry Mangum Immediate Past
President [email protected]
www.ncfop.org 12