Documents Show No One In The Defense Department Is Doing Much Vetting Of Law Enforcement Requests For Military Gear

from the capitalizing-on-perpetual,-manufactured-fear dept

We've covered the Defense Department's 1033 program several times here at Techdirt. The program allows law enforcement agencies to acquire surplus military gear at low, low prices in exchange for little more than their claim to need anything from filing cabinets to grenade launches to mine-resistant armored personnel carriers (MRAPs).

Thanks to the never-ending "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs," the DoD has allowed law enforcement agencies to blur the line between serving the public and invading a war zone. Officers regularly don camouflage when rolling out of armored personnel carriers, turning warrant service into a paramilitary invasion. MRAPs tend to make appearances at protests targeting police violence, giving responding officers the appearance of an occupying force, rather than the domestic peacekeepers they're supposed to be.

Multiple efforts have been made to curtail the acquisition of gear clearly designed for war zones, rather than domestic policing. None of those efforts have been permanent. The distribution of war gear to cops is subject to the whims of the sitting president and very few have felt too concerned about the program's ability to widen the chasm between the public and the people who are obligated to serve them.

The Huffington Post has acquired nearly 1,200 pages of 1033 program acquisition forms via public records requests. (Unfortunately, it has decided the public will get to see them whenever it gets around to publishing them, which means it has provided no access to the underlying documents at this point.) What these show is the Defense Department rubberstamping requests for military gear (such as MRAPs) by law enforcement agencies, even when the requesting agency can barely demonstrate a need for the equipment. They also show law enforcement agencies consider the public to be their enemy -- one that must be confronted with as much force as possible.

The 1,200-plus pages of documents HuffPost obtained expose the flimsy pretext that police will only use military gear in a genuine crisis — and how explicitly many police acknowledge that their goal is to intimidate vulnerable members of their communities. The requests also reveal how thoroughly many police have learned to fear the public as potential combatants, how automatically they are able to perceive everyday situations as potentially lethal, and how fervently they believe that their fear justifies extreme countermeasures for everyday conflicts. A few times, police departments even referred to their officers as “troops” or to police shifts as “tours of duty.”

The letters also reflect a disturbing comfort with — even an expectation of — using military gear and tactics to respond to civil demonstrators. Multiple agencies explicitly asked for armored vehicles to use at protests against police violence toward Black people and pipeline resistance led by Native Americans.

We've seen the ridiculous excuses used by law enforcement to obtain military gear. The town of Keane, New Hampshire (pop. 40,000 with a police force of 23 officers) claimed terrorists might target its annual Pumpkin Festival. A California school district was only persuaded to give up its tear gas launchers after weeks of public backlash. A two-person law enforcement agency in Michigan managed to acquire more than $1.1 million in military gear before the town caught wind of its abuse of the 1033 program.

These are just a few examples of what happens when no one in the Defense Department seems willing to vet agencies before handing out military surplus. The Huffington Post has more:

The sheriff of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, went so far as to assert that a police officer could die serving a notice of a civil lawsuit — and so his agency ought to have two armored vehicles.

[...]

One department after another described broad criteria for using an armored vehicle that bordered on cavalier: whenever police are going somewhere they believe someone could have a gun, even legally; whenever a suspect “could” become violent.

[...]

Countless departments pointed out that they were home to attractions and infrastructure that are essentially ubiquitous: turnpikes, highway overpasses, train trestles, a bus garage, hotels, a casino, hospitals and surgical centers, business parks, “abundant day care facilities” government buildings, movie theaters, amusement parks, county fairs, college sports tournaments, and minor league sports stadiums. Not one but two agencies pointed out that they should get consideration because their jurisdiction was located near the fifth-busiest airport in the Pacific Northwest.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. This is the expected result of the government waging concurrent, never-ending wars. Whatever isn't consumed by one war (Terror) can be repurposed for another (Drugs). Since we're in no danger of winning either of these "wars" (and, indeed, seem to be losing both), the federal government's 1033 program has become a perpetual motion machine that converts failure to funding, ensuring neither of these resources will ever be fully expended. Very few people in power dare to ask the military what it's spending trillions of dollars on, even when there appears to be little return on investment. And since no one's asking them tough questions, those in charge of dispensing military gear to local law enforcement agencies feel no compunction to call bullshit on ridiculous justifications for war machines that will be used to carry out standard warrant service when not being used to intimidate people exercising their First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: 1033 program, defense department, law enforcement, military gear, police militarization, surplus military equipment

Two Studies Show Giving Military Gear To Cops Doesn't Result In Lower Crime Rates

from the law-enforcement:-we-would-like-to-continue-to-define-insanity-tyvm dept

One of President Trump's main goals while in office was to roll back anything his predecessor had put in place. One of his earliest executive orders removed the (minimal) restrictions Barack Obama had placed on the Defense Department's 1033 program. This program allowed local law enforcement agencies to acquire military gear at almost zero cost -- something that had been used and abused for years until the sight of an armored vehicle rolling up on protesters in Ferguson, Missouri proved to be a bit too much for Americans and their Congressional representatives.

Trump's reopening of the 1033 program was based on a couple of factors: his all-encompassing love of all things law enforcement and some dubious research that claimed giving cops access to war gear actually reduced crime.

That was the point made by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ahead of the rollback.

President Trump is serious about this mission. He is doing all he can to restore law and order and support our police across America. And that is why, today, I am here to announce that President Trump is issuing an executive order that will make it easier to protect yourselves and your communities. He is rescinding restrictions from the prior administration that limited your agencies' ability to get equipment through federal programs, including life saving gear like Kevlar vests and helmets and first responder and rescue equipment like what they’re using in Texas right now.

[...]

Those restrictions went too far. We will not put superficial concerns above public safety.

Those "superficial concerns" included genuine concerns that deploying war gear against US citizens tends to make officers think they're soldiers in a war zone, rather than public servants who need a solid relationship with those they serve to make meaningful changes that reduce crime and increase public safety.

The push for more distribution of military gear was backed by a study by the American Economic Association, which claimed law enforcement agencies that utilized the 1033 program were more effective at lowering crime rates. That data has now been examined by two other sets of researchers, and the conclusions they've reached contradict the AEA's findings.

When Emory scholars read the studies, they noticed statistical flaws in the analysis. They set out to rigorously test those two previous studies’ claims by replicating them. They utilized the same 2014 NPR data and applied the studies’ same methods of analysis.

What immediately got the attention of the Emory scholars was that the studies were doing analysis at the county level, not the municipal level (i.e., the individual jurisdictions of cities). So, there wasn’t a way to directly compare which local agencies received SME and their specific crime rates. That’s because the federal government only reported the 1033 Program data at the county level.

Fortunately, there was more data available now to double-check the claims made by these earlier studies. Obama's 1033 program reforms mandated more reporting on acquisition, which gave these researchers more to work with. The granular detail missing from the first studies was included in the second examination.

It was only after Emory used the new, agency-level data in analysis that they determined the SME didn’t reduce crime.

“It crystalizes so many of the concerns and claims both pro and con about policing in the U.S. It raises the matter of funding the police and how do we provide resources to the police — through money or giving them equipment. It raises the matter of police militarization — that the police look and act like they are soldiers at war against citizens,” [Associate Professor Michael] Owens says. “And it raises questions about efficiency — costs and benefits."

It's not just Emory researchers arriving at this conclusion. A simultaneously-released study by the University of Michigan professor Kenneth Lowande says the same thing:

I use 3.8 million archived inventory records to estimate the magnitude of sources of bias in existing studies of the 1033 Program. I show that most variation in militarization comes from previously unobserved sources, which implies that studies that show crime-reduction benefits are unreliable. I then leverage recent policy changes to evaluate the effect of military equipment: the Obama Administration recalled property under Executive Order 13688, which resulted in a forced demilitarization of several hundred departments. Difference-in-difference estimates of agencies that retained similar equipment show negligible or undetectable impacts on violent crime or officer safety.

Of course, these studies have drawn some criticism. Law enforcement officials -- who've performed no research of their own -- dispute these findings.

"This is just a symptom of the larger defund the police movement and this has turned political," retired police Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith, a spokesperson for the nonprofit National Police Association, which educates the public on policing in America, told ABC News. "Obama took it away, Trump gave it back, and now we’ll probably see Biden take it away again so that they can say, ‘I took this away from the big bad police.'"

Wow. What a thoughtful counterpoint. On one hand, we have data showing handing cops military hand-me-downs doesn't reduce crime. On the other hand, we have a police union rep claiming math is politicized. At least the other police union rep quoted in piece makes a better point while still disputing the findings.

Patrick Yoes, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, also slammed the two studies as "convoluted logic."

"It has never been the contention of the FOP that surplus military equipment prevents crime, but rather that such equipment plays a critical role in protecting police officers and citizens in life-threatening situations such as active shooters at large, civil disturbances, and natural disasters."

But do cops really need war gear to make them safer? Crime rates in most of the country are still at historic lows. Officer safety remains at an all-time high. This last decade has been the safest time in history to be a cop and yet complaints like these are always offered up anytime someone points out the flaws in their logic.

So, military gear given to cops doesn't reduce crime. And it likely doesn't make officers much safer than they are already. What it does do is cultivate a warrior mindset that harms law enforcement's relationship with the public. And maybe that's all law enforcement really wants: more distance between them and those they've declared war on.

Filed Under: 1033, crime, defense department, dod, militarized police, military gear, police, warrior cops

Two-Man Police Department Acquires $1 Million In Military Gear

from the and-you-get-a-truck-and-you-get-a-truck-and-everyone-gets-a-truck! dept

An ultra-safe Michigan town of 6,800 has claimed more than $1 million in military equipment through the Defense Department's 1033 program. The program allows law enforcement agencies to obtain anything from file cabinets to mine-resistant assault vehicles for next to nothing provided the agencies can show a need for the equipment. Most can "show" a "need," since it's pretty easy to type something up about existential terrorist/drug threats. Boilerplate can be adjusted as needed, but for the most part, requests are granted and oversight -- either at the federal and local level -- is almost nonexistent.

This has come to a head in Thetford Township, the fourth-safest municipality in Michigan, and home to more than $1 million in military gear and two (2) police officers.

The free material, received through a federal program, includes mine detectors and Humvees, tractors and backhoes, hydroseeders and forklifts, motorized carts and a riding lawnmower. The landlocked township also has gotten boat motors and dive boots.

While much of the gear worth $1 million has never been used by the township, some has been given to residents, township officials said.

The township supervisor and a trustee said the police have stymied their attempts to find out what equipment they have, where it’s located and why some of it has been given away. The police didn’t keep track of what they had or what they had given away, according to a township audit last year.

A belated, half-hearted audit by Police Chief Bob Kenny (supervisor of one [1] police officer) showed his department had acquired 950 pieces of equipment, including a couple of Humvees, three ATVs, a tractor, a forklift, and a number of other vehicles. More than 300 items are stored "off-site," which apparently means parked on private property and used by private citizens.

Town supervisor Gary Stevens has been trying to get to the bottom of this outsized stockpile. But he's running into resistance. Supporters of the town's two-person police force (and apparent beneficiaries of the federal program) have been pushing back. A recall campaign has been started by farmer Eugene Lehr, who has 21 pieces of military surplus equipment on his property.

A nearby sheriff's department has stepped in to perform an independent audit but has yet to release its findings. Equipment has apparently been given to citizens but no paper trail exists to track who ended up with what and how much may have been sold by the department. But what's left is still impressive. A two-man department somehow justified the acquisition of seven trucks and nine trailers over the last decade, in addition to everything else the department has stockpiled since Bob Kenny became chief.

While it may seem like most of the acquisitions are innocuous -- not the sort of thing one associates with a militarized police force -- the fact remains the program has almost zero oversight. Not until after more than $1 million in equipment was routed to a place that did not have a pressing need for the items did the DoD finally step in and suspend the department's participation in the program. Equipment that may have been put to better use elsewhere is parked on private property or has simply vanished into thin air. This is a waste of tax dollars that does nothing to make policing better or a safe township even safer.

Filed Under: 1033, defense department, michigan, military gear, military surplus, police, thetford township

Watchdog Stings Defense Dept., Obtains $1.2 Million In Military Gear With A Fake Cop Shop

from the 1033-open-air-bazaar dept

The Defense Department's 1033 program allows local law enforcement agencies to buy military equipment. Often, the purchases are made easier with sizable grants, meaning agencies can load up on assault rifles, grenade launchers, armored vehicles, and extra ammo at nearly no cost. (They can also get computers, office furniture, etc. through these grants, but if that were the extent of the program, there would be zero controversy.)

The 1033 program is supposed to be tightly controlled and every acquisition vetted to prevent high-powered military gear from falling into the wrong hands. We've already noted local agencies aren't performing much in the way of oversight, resulting in several agencies receiving suspensions for failing to account for the whereabouts of purchased gear.

The problem, however, isn't just on the receiving end. The Defense Department isn't doing much in the way of due diligence when adding new agencies to the list of military gear purchases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) performed a sting operation, setting up a fake law enforcement agency to see if it could acquire used military gear. By the end of it, the fake agency had obtained $1.2 million in gear, all without ever having to speak directly with anyone at the Defense Department. From the GAO's report [PDF]:

[O]ur investigators, posed as authorized federal law enforcement agency officials of a fictitious agency, applied and were granted access to the LESO [Law Enforcement Support Office] program in early 2017. In late 2016, we emailed our completed application to the LESO program office. Our application contained fictitious information including agency name, number of employees, point of contact, and physical location. We also created mail and e-mail addresses, and a website for our fictitious law enforcement agency using publicly available resources. All correspondence, including follow-up questions regarding our application, was conducted by email with LESO officials.

The first application was sent back for fixes. The revised application -- still loaded with fake info -- sailed through. It even included fake legal authorization.

LESO officials also emailed us to request confirmation of our agency’s authorizing statute; in response, our investigators provided fictitious authorizing provisions presented as a provision in the U.S. Code. At no point during the application process did LESO officials verbally contact officials at the agency we created—either the main point of contact listed on the application or the designated point of contact at a headquarters’ level—to verify the legitimacy of our application or to discuss establishing a MOU [Memorandum of Understanding] with our agency.

Not only were there no phone calls, there was no attempt by LESO officials to physically verify the existence of this fictitious law enforcement agency.

LESO’s reliance on electronic communications without actual verification does not allow it to properly vet for potentially fraudulent activity. For example, DLA [Defense Logistics Agency] did not require supervisory approval for all federal agency applications, or require confirmation of the application with designated points of contact at the headquarters of participating federal agencies. Additionally, at the time we submitted our application, DLA officials did not visit the location of the applying federal law enforcement agency to help verify the legitimacy of the application.

Since the DoD didn't perform any sort of prerequisite checks, it comes as no surprise it paid little attention to who was receiving the 1033 handouts.

Our independent testing of DLA’s internal controls also identified deficiencies in the transfer of controlled property, such as DLA personnel not routinely requesting and verifying identification of individuals picking up controlled property or verifying the quantity of approved items prior to transfer.

[...]

Using fictitious identification and law enforcement credentials, along with the LESO-approved documentation, our investigator was able to pass security checks and enter the Disposition Service warehouse sites. Personnel at two of the three sites did not request or check for valid identification of our investigator picking up the property.

From the GAO's description, acquiring controlled items appears to be no more difficult than shopping on Amazon.

Our investigators, after being approved to participate in the LESO program, obtained access to the department’s online systems to view and request controlled property. We subsequently submitted requests to obtain controlled property, including non-lethal items and potentially-lethal items if modified with commercially available items. In less than a week after submitting the requests, our fictitious agency was approved for the transfer of over 100 controlled property items with a total estimated value of about $1.2 million. The estimated value of each item ranged from $277 to over $600,000, including items such as night-vision goggles, reflex (also known as reflector) sights, infrared illuminators, simulated pipe bombs, and simulated rifles.

And, to top everything off, the DLA managed to ship this fake agency more items than it actually requested.

Furthermore, although we were approved to receive over 100 items and the transfer documentation reflects this amount, we were provided more items than we were approved for. The discrepancy involved one type of item—infrared illuminators. We requested 48 infrared illuminators but onsite officials at one Disposition Services site provided us with 51 infrared illuminators in 52 pouches, of which one pouch was empty.

The report goes on to note the DLA has never performed its own fraud audits, suggesting it has almost no interest in ensuring military gear only ends up in the hands of approved and thoroughly-vetted law enforcement agencies. Yes, all of this appears to be changing going forward, but considering the 1033 program has transferred billions of dollars of equipment already, there's really no telling how many others have obtained equipment with fictitious entities or simply ended up with a bunch of items they never ordered. That the weapons obtained were only simulators is of little comfort. They're simply modified versions of the real thing which could be made operable again with items obtained from non-government entities.

It's not that the DoD is only a few steps away from being logistically-bulletproof either. The GAO report notes the systems and controls used aren't even adequate -- which would be the minimum needed to ensure control of potentially-dangerous items. When presiding over the distribution of military gear, the DoD needs to implement controls far surpassing "adequate." So far, it can't even meet this very low bar.

Filed Under: 1033, controls, defense department, dod, gao, law enforcement, military gear, surplus