Models for Law Enforcement at Airports (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 Airport Police Department Model This chapter presents information on the airport police department law enforcement model. Airport police departments use specially trained officers who have permanent airport assign- ments, most often located in the airport terminals themselves (CLE Going Places, 2019). Airport police perform a range of law enforcement tasks, which include control and response to emer- gencies and criminal acts, investigations, patrolling, traffic enforcement, and making arrests (CLE Going Places, 2019). According to the most recently available Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agen- cies, which was completed in 2008, special jurisdiction law enforcement agencies and full- time sworn personnel for airports total 103 agencies, employing 3,555 full-time sworn officers (Reaves, 2011). This statistic is not quite straightforward; several agencies with airport-specific jurisdictions also operate in additional transportation jurisdictions. For example, the largest law enforcement agency focused on transportation-specific jurisdictions (including airports) in 2008 was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, which in total employed 1,667 officers. Their jurisdictions, however, include not only La Guardia, Kennedy, and Newark airports but also the George Washington Bridge, Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, PATH train system, Port Authority Bus Terminal, Port Elizabeth Marine Terminal, Port Newark Marine Terminal, and Staten Island bridges (Reaves, 2011). The theme of complexity permeates the discussion of law enforcement in airports. The most straightforward category of airport law enforcement is the proprietary airport police. The following respondents indicate an airport police department as their law enforcement model, satisfying 49 CFR 1542.215 and 1542.217: • Asheville Regional Airport • Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport • Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport • DFW International Airport • Greenville-Spartanburg International Airport District • John Glenn International • Lehigh Valley International Airport • Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport • Memphis International Airport • Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport • Reagan National Airport and Dulles International Airport • Reno-Tahoe International Airport • Rhode Island Airport • Santa Barbara Airport • Southwest Florida International Airport C H A P T E R 5

20 Models for Law Enforcement at Airports • Spokane International Airport • St. Louis Lambert International Airport • Tampa International Airport • Tulsa International Airport. Many airports use the proprietary airport police model, including nonrespondents to the survey such as the Dayton International Airport, Kansas City International Airport, Mobile Airport Authority, Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, and many more. For example, the Mobile Airport Authority Police Department provides law enforcement at the Mobile Aeroplex at Brookley, Mobile Downtown Airport, and Mobile Regional Airport, with state-certified and trained LEOs (Mobile Airport Authority, 2019), and the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport Police Department supplies law enforcement for the full airport property, airport traffic control, and terminal safety (Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, 2019). This airport police department is certified under the airport authority (Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, 2019). Category Airport police as a law enforcement model is selected primarily by security Category I airports (12), followed by Category II (5) and Category X (1) airports. Ownership Model The ownership models of most airports identifying the airport police department as their law enforcement model are airport authority (14), city owned (4), county owned (2), state owned (1), and port authority (1). Interface between Ownership Agency and/or Airport Operator and the Law Enforcement Model Several survey questions asked about the relationship or interface between the ownership agency and/or airport operator and the law enforcement model and LEOs. These questions included the reporting structure, level of managerial control, level of integration of the LEOs into airport operations, level of control over law enforcement policies, and discretion of the airport owner or operator in determining access to law enforcement equipment. Reporting Structure Reporting structure was provided as a qualitative entry and as such was coded to identify themes within the data. Three broad themes emerged: reporting direction, who reports, and who receives reports. Most frequently, law enforcement personnel report directly to airport management (14); less often, LEOs are employees of the owner or operator (5), or law enforcement is also a part or member of airport management (3). In terms of who reports on behalf of the airport police, the most frequent response is the police chief (13), followed by a public safety director (5), sworn head of the law enforcement division (1), and director of operations who is also an LEO (1). There are various models of reporting structure among airport police. For example, the Dayton International Airport Police report to a deputy city manager, who reports to a city manager, who reports to a city commission (Dayton Ohio Airport Police, 2019).

Airport Police Department Model 21 The final theme from the qualitative responses involved the position of the individual receiving reporting from the airport police. Most frequently, the operations department was reported to (7), and this may be a director, vice president, or executive vice president of operations. Other reporting recipients include the corporate operations officer (3), corporate executive officer (3), director of aviation (1), and executive director of the owner- ship agency (1). Managerial Control The next question was also qualitative and asked respondents how much managerial control was exercised over their law enforcement by the owner or operating organization. The most frequent response was high or complete control (8), followed by minimal or very little control (5), requirement for decision approval or chain of command (4), some control over administration (3), moderate amount of control (1), control over daily operations (1), and expectation of daily reports or updates (1). Level of Integration into Airport Operations The level of integration of the law enforcement model into daily airport operations for the airport police law enforcement model is moderate (8) to high (7), and some exhibit symbiotic or coordinated action between law enforcement and operations (8). Only one respondent indicates no to very little integration of the airport police into airport operations. Level of Owner or Operator Control over Law Enforcement Policies Most respondents indicate no to very little control by the owner or operator over the law enforcement policies (11), but other respondents report a high level of control (6) or a collaborative relationship (6), meaning that the owner or operator and the law enforcement entity develop policies together. Only one respondent notes a moderate level of owner or operator control over law enforcement policies. Discretion of Owner or Operator in Determining Access to Law Enforcement Equipment Most respondents indicate that the airport owner or operator does not have discretion in determining law enforcement access to equipment (12) while other respondents confirm some level of control (6). The respondents who answered that the owner or operator determines access to LEO equipment were asked an open-ended follow-up question requesting detail. The respondents indicate that the owner or operator controls access to equipment through the budget approval process (4), through evaluating operational need for equipment on a case-by-case basis (2), and through the owner or operator authorizing and approving specific weapons available for carry at the airport (1). Interface between TSA and Law Enforcement Most respondents indicate that TSA and the airport police department have a cooperative and close relationship (15), with some meeting frequently (5) and others with a daily working relationship (2). Some respondents indicate that the level of interaction is very low or not close (2).

22 Models for Law Enforcement at Airports Financial Aspects A significant aspect of this synthesis is to identify insofar as possible the cost structure of each of the law enforcement models. While survey responses rarely include actual or budgeted dollar amounts, reviews of literature and publicly available departmental budgets help fill in the information gaps on costs for each law enforcement model. For example, the Minneapolis–St. Paul Metropolitan Airport Police Department iden tifies seven cost categories, including administrative costs, maintenance costs, operating services costs, operating expenses, other costs, professional services costs, and utilities costs (Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2015). While each airport police department may define its costs somewhat differently, the Minneapolis–St. Paul Metro politan Airport Police Department defines administrative costs as supplies for badging, continuing education confer- ence registration fees, printing costs, and K-9 needs, including recruitment efforts (Minneapolis- St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2015). Training costs are attributed to personnel (technology and operational issues training) and other cost categories (training facility costs) (Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2015). Administrative Costs The most frequently mentioned administrative cost for the airport police is training or police academy (4), followed by uniforms (3); salary, overtime, raises, and benefits (2); and travel to conferences for continuing education (2). Other single mentions include equipment, employee engagement, office supplies, dues and subscriptions, cell phones, and vehicles. One airport police department noted administrative expenses in its 2015 budget as $254,776, a 9.5% increase over the 2014 budget (Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, 2015). Training Costs The most common training costs are continuing education and conferences (10), followed by K-9 expenses (3); police academy (2); supplies for training, such as ammunition (2); state- mandated training (1); and training-related travel costs (1). Liability The respondents indicate that they purchase liability insurance, damage to equipment insurance, and police liability insurance. One respondent notes that the cost of its police liability insurance is approximately $29,000 per calendar year. Jurisdiction Most respondents using the airport police model say that they experience no issues related to jurisdiction (12), but others mention geographic jurisdictional limitations (7), and others experience jurisdictional challenges with other agencies (2). Management of LEOs Respondents were asked to describe how LEOs are managed within their airports. This includes the reporting structure within the law enforcement model, model of managerial control, method of assigning law enforcement personnel within the airport, process for obtaining additional law enforcement resources, and discretion in selecting and placing officers at the airport.

Airport Police Department Model 23 LEO Reporting Structure The respondents describe various hierarchical reporting structures for airport police departments. The most common hierarchy is officer to sergeant to captain to chief (4), followed by officer to sergeant to lieutenant to captain to chief (3). All of the responses are listed in Table 2. LEO Managerial Control Managerial control over the LEOs is most often reported as a chief of police who is strongly in managerial control (9), followed by a civilian or civil service manager with manage- rial control (3) and a director of public safety exercising authority over the airport police department (1). Two respondents describe their officer-to-manager ratio. For example, one notes that “the span of control for each rank typically does not exceed 7–8 officers, normally less.” The other indicates, “Sergeant to officer: we try our best to stay at a 1:10 ratio.” LEO Assignments within Airport Most respondents indicate that the LEOs are assigned to the airport to maintain a specific required service level (12). Other input includes LEO assignment to airports as needed (3) and by department requirement (2). Access to Ancillary Resources for LEOs The respondents indicate that gaining access to ancillary resources such as emergency response needs is done through mutual aid agreements (11) and memoranda of understanding (MOUs) (4). Although one respondent describes gaining access as quick and easy, another reports it as cumbersome and difficult. One respondent describes access to ancillary resources as a collabora- tive process with other agencies, though not defined as mutual aid. Discretion in Selection or Placement of Officers The respondents were asked about their level of discretion in the selection or placement of LEOs at the airport. Most respondents indicate that they have very high or total discretion in the selection or placement of officers at the airport (13), with only a few respondents noting some discretion or a moderate level of discretion (2). Response Frequency Officer, sergeant, captain, chief 4 Officer or corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, chief 3 “Chain of command” 2 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, deputy chief, chief 2 Officer, chief 1 Officer, lieutenant, captain, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, captain, major, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, deputy chief, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, chief 1 Table 2. Airport police department model reporting structure.

24 Models for Law Enforcement at Airports LEO Operations The next set of questions asked about LEO operations at the airport. These questions included the selection process for officers at the airport, level of expertise and training, and LEO driving permissions. Assignment of Officers to Airport Facility Nearly all respondents in the airport police category recruit and hire the LEOs themselves (12), with only one respondent indicating that the LEOs are assigned to the airport on rotation. Level of Expertise of LEOs Assigned to the Airport The respondents were asked to describe the level of expertise expected or required from the LEOs assigned to the airport. Note that the responses are not mutually exclusive, so one respon- dent can provide multiple answers. The most frequent response is that LEOs assigned to the airport must complete police training, certification, or the police academy curriculum (5). Other responses include airport training provided upon hire (4), no prior airport experience required (3), a college degree in law enforcement (2), airport experience preferred (2), and law enforce- ment or military experience required (1). Level of Airport-Specific Training The respondents indicate that airport-specific training includes continuing education (7); airport-specific training upon hire (6); other on-the-job training (2); 14 CFR Part 139 training (2); and special topics training, such as security procedures, weapons, and tactics (2). Other responses (each cited once) include investigative training, special operations experience, TSA regulations, and wildlife management. The Los Angeles World Airports Police Department (LAWAPD) also trains its officers in Multi-Assault Counter-Terrorism Action Capabilities (MACTAC), which involves close-quarter combat tactics used by the military (Los Angeles World Airports, 2014). Initial training durations were specified by the respondents as follows: • “New hires with no prior law enforcement, 6 months FTO [field training officer]; new hires with law enforcement certification, 6 weeks FTO” • “15-week PTO [police training officer] program” • “FTO program—26 weeks in service training” • Upon hiring, “a 4-week ‘hold-over course’” • “12-week FTO program” • “3 months of OJT [on-the-job training] for new officers.” Continuing education durations were noted by the respondents as follows: • “40 hours per year of Human Resources training” • “10 to 40 hours a year operations training” • “A minimum of 24 hours of continuing education each year” • “Class room training conducted every two years of specific security requirements.” LEOs Stationed at Security Checkpoints More respondents indicate that their LEOs are not stationed at security checkpoints (8) than those who do have LEOs at security checkpoints (5). This variation represents the difference between fixed-post versus flexible-response stationing of LEOs at security checkpoints and will be explored fully in Chapter 11.

Airport Police Department Model 25 LEO Airfield Driving Most respondents indicate that their LEOs are trained to drive on the airfield (12). While nearly all respondents report that their LEOs are allowed to drive on the non–FAA-controlled AOA (12), fewer respondents note that their LEOs are allowed to drive on the FAA-controlled AOA (10). Police versus Airport Security The next block of questions asked respondents about the differences between police and security at their airports. All respondents using the airport police law enforcement model report a difference between airport police and airport security and a clear separation of power between the two groups (13). The differentiators between the two groups are summarized in Table 3. Access to Ancillary Operations and Resources The respondents were asked to identify the ancillary operations and resources that they can access. They were able to choose all options that apply. These responses are summarized in Table 4. Response Frequency Police and security have a discrete set of tasks each 6 Police are sworn public servants 5 Police have arrest rights; security personnel do not 5 Security is contracted out 3 Police are sworn; security personnel are nonsworn civilians 2 Police are armed; security personnel are unarmed 2 Security personnel are employed by TSA 1 Table 3. Differentiators between airport police and airport security in the airport police department model. Response Frequency K-9 units 13 SWAT 11 Explosive detection 10 Hostage negotiations 9 Bomb squads 9 Table 4. Access to ancillary operations and resources in the airport police department model.