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.
26 City Police Department Model According to ALEAN, about 50% of larger airports have dedicated airport police while the other half often use city police (McCartney, 2010). City police may belong to an airport bureau; for example, the San Francisco Police Departmentâs airport bureau police officers have many responsibilities (San Francisco Police Department, 2019), including: ⢠Cargo theft investigation ⢠Explosives investigation and detection ⢠Management of airfield access and perimeter control and security ⢠Management of lost and found ⢠Patrols with K-9s ⢠Customer service ⢠Regular patrols in multiple modes ⢠Special security ⢠Traffic and pedestrian enforcement. Respondents identifying a city police department as the law enforcement model include: ⢠Boise Airport ⢠George Bush Intercontinental Airport (Houston) ⢠Charlotte Douglas International Airport ⢠Clovis Municipal Airport ⢠Denver International Airport ⢠Fayetteville Executive AirportâDrake Field ⢠Huron Regional ⢠North Las Vegas Airport ⢠Orlando International Airport ⢠Philadelphia International Airport ⢠Salt Lake City International Airport ⢠San Francisco International Airport ⢠Show Low Regional Airport ⢠Sierra Blanca Regional Airport ⢠Will Rogers World Airport. Some city police departments contract to provide law enforcement services for other cities, such as police officers from Guadalupe, CA, who were contracted in 2017 to supply law enforcement for Santa Maria Public Airport (Scully, 2017). Other examples of city police providing airport law enforcement include the Long Beach Police Department and the Austin Police Department; in the latter, airport law enforcement is considered special operations within the North Patrol Bureau (Austin Police Department, C H A P T E R 6
City Police Department Model 27 2019). Similarly, the Monterey Regional Airport receives law enforcement services from the City of Del Rey Oaks Police Department (Monterey Airport, 2019), and the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport in Mesa, AZ, obtains law enforcement services from the Airport Unit of the Mesa Police Department (Mesa AZ, 2019). Category Respondents indicating that they use a city police department belong to Category X (4), Category I (4), Category IV (3), Category III (2), and Category II (1). Ownership Model The ownership models for these airports are largely city owned (14), followed by county owned (2), airport authority (1), and other (1). Interface between Ownership Agency and/or Airport Operator and the Law Enforcement Model The next set of questions asked the respondents about the relationship or interface between the ownership agency and/or airport operator and the law enforcement modelâin this case, the city police department. Reporting Structure While a wide variety of reporting structures are reported by respondents that use a city police department to provide law enforcement at their airports, they most frequently indi- cate that city police supply all airport law enforcement (3) and that the airport police report ultimately to the mayor (3). A summary of responses is in Table 5. Though not a survey respondent, the Denver Police Department has an interesting reporting structure; the airport police report to the administrative division chief, not the patrol or investigations division chiefs to whom the patrol officer division reports (Denver Police Department, 2017). Managerial Control Some respondents indicate that the ownership agency or operator exhibits a considerable amount of managerial control over the city police department personnel stationed at the airport (8) or that the relationship is cooperative and collaborative (8). Some respondents note that the Response Frequency City police provide all airport law enforcement 3 Airport police report ultimately to the mayor 3 Mutual aid relationship between airport and city police department 2 Airport requests aid from the city police force on a case-by-case basis 2 Airport police are part of the city police department 2 Airport law enforcement reports to airport management 1 Airport contracts with city police for law enforcement 1 Table 5. City police department reporting structure.
28 Models for Law Enforcement at Airports owner or operator exerts minimal or very little control over the city police department personnel stationed at the airport (6), and others report that the level of control changes case by case, such as in emergencies (2). One respondent notes that the owner or operator has complete managerial control while one other respondent indicates that the owner or operator only has administrative control over the city police department personnel at the airport. Level of Integration into Airport Operations Many respondents using the city police department law enforcement model at their airports report no to very little integration of the city police department into airport operations (8). Interestingly, the second most frequent comment is that the integration into airport operations is high (4), followed by moderate (2), exceptions during emergencies (2), and coordinated or collaborative (1). Level of Owner or Operator Control over Law Enforcement Policies Many respondents indicate that there is no to very little airport owner or operator control over law enforcement policies (6). Other respondents report moderate control (4), a high level of control (1), and a collaborative approach to policy development (1). Discretion of Owner or Operator in Determining Access to Law Enforcement Equipment More respondents indicate that the airport owner or operator does not have discretion in determining access to law enforcement equipment (7) than those saying they do (5). The respondents who answered that the airport owner or operator determines access to specific equipment were asked to provide qualitative detail. The responses include law enforce- ment access to equipment is limited by gate access that is managed by the operator (2); all vehicles and equipment except firearms are owned by the airport owner (1); and the owner evaluates the operational need for specific equipment before purchasing (1). Interface between TSA and Law Enforcement The respondents were asked to describe the interface or level of coordination between the city police department and TSA. More respondents indicate a cooperative or close relationship (7), followed by no relationship (4). Some respondents report that the city police department and TSA have regular joint meetings (3). One respondent notes a daily operational relationship, and one observes that the two groups are regrettably not close. Financial Aspects The next group of questions asked respondents about the financial aspects of the city police departmentâs operations at the airport. For example, the San Francisco Police Department provides services to the airport at a cost of $60,573,093 in fiscal year (FY) 2018â2019, with 178 full-time sworn employees devoted to airport service (Scott, 2017). Although Chief Scottâs 2017 presentation does not break down costs for the airport police unit only, the total San Francisco Police Department expenditures were 65% salary, 21% fringe benefits, 2% professional services, 1% materials and supplies, 3% capital outlays, and 8% services paid to departments. Also, the 2017 cost of airport-funded academy recruits was budgeted at $14,807,533 (Scott, 2017).
City Police Department Model 29 Administrative Costs The respondents indicate that administrative costs generally include salaries, benefits, uniforms, and a percent subsidy for an increase in salary and fringe benefits for LEOs trans- ferring to the airport. Training Costs Training costs are described by the respondents as continuing education and conferences (3); state-mandated training (2); supplies for training, such as ammunition (2); and training-related travel costs (1). Liability Of the four respondents to this question, two indicate they carry liability insurance, and a third reports the airport is ultimately indemnified by the owner, the City of Philadelphia. Other Costs One response indicates other costs, specifically âstructural and capital improvement/material and supply.â Jurisdiction Most respondents note that they have no jurisdictional constraints or concerns (8) while others cite geographic jurisdictional limitations (4). A single respondent indicates that it has experienced jurisdictional challenges with other agencies (1), and other respondents report no problem or challenges despite jurisdictional limitations (4). Management of LEOs This section asked about management of the LEOs themselves when they are operating in the airport. LEO Reporting Structure Various reporting structures are reported. Three respondents indicate that the LEOs report to their supervisors, and two respondents describe a reporting hierarchy of officer to sergeant to lieutenant to captain to deputy chief to chief. The data are summarized in Table 6. Response Frequency Law enforcement reports to supervisors 3 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, captain, deputy chief, chief 2 Officer, lieutenant, captain, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, captain, chief 1 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, deputy chief, chief 1 âChain of commandâ 1 Officer, sergeant, lieutenant, chief 1 Officer, airport director 1 None 1 Table 6. City police department LEO reporting structure.
30 Models for Law Enforcement at Airports LEO Managerial Control The majority of respondents indicate that the police department or police chief is strongly in managerial control of the LEOs (7), with only one respondent noting no managerial control over the LEOs. Essentially, it is logical that city police stationed at the airport are still under the managerial control of their city police hierarchy and not under the control of airport manage- ment per se. The response to this question possibly explains one of the tradeoffs of using airport police versus city police: a lower level of control over city police compared to airport police. LEO Assignments within Airport LEOs are reportedly assigned as needed to areas within the airport (5) and by seniority (2). A summary of the data is presented in Table 7. Access to Ancillary Resources for LEOs Most respondents indicate that gaining access to ancillary resources is quick and easy (9). Some respondents describe access to ancillary resources as a collaboration with other agencies, though not necessarily defined as mutual aid (6), with fewer respondents explicitly defining the access as mutual aid (2). Discretion in Selection and Placement of Officers More respondents indicate that they have very high or total discretion in the selection and placement of officers at the airport (5), with fewer respondents describing the level of discretion as moderate (2) and saying that they have no discretion or the question is not applicable (2). LEO Operations The next group of questions asked specifically about LEO operations by the city police at the airport. Assignment of Officers to an Airport Facility The respondents indicate that for airports using the city police law enforcement model, officers are selected for the airport based on seniority (2); officers are not assigned but are sent based on need or availability (2); and the police department hires officers specifically for assignment to the airport (2). Other responses include LEO assignment to the airport based on rotation (1) and the airport as a specialty assignment (1). Level of Expertise of LEOs Assigned to the Airport The most often described level of expertise of the LEOs assigned to the airport is required law enforcement or military experience (4); police academy, training, or certification completion (2); Response Frequency On as-needed basis 5 By seniority 2 By department 1 By proximity 1 On specialty assignment 1 Table 7. City police department LEO assignments.
City Police Department Model 31 and airport experience preferred but not required (1). Other respondents indicate that airport training is provided upon hire but is not a requirement to be hired (2). Level of Airport-Specific Training The respondents frequently report that airport-specific training includes continuing education (5); airport-specific training upon hire (2); special topics training, such as security procedures, weapon use, and tactics (2); and on-the-job airport training (1). The duration of airport-specific training ranges from 40 hours of initial training (2) to a minimum 6 weeks of field training with a certified instructor (1). LEOs Stationed at Security Checkpoints More respondents indicate that the LEOs are not stationed at security checkpoints (7) than the number saying they are (5). LEO Airfield Driving More respondents state that the LEOs are trained to drive on the airfield (7) than the number reporting they are not (5). While some respondents indicate that the LEOs are not allowed to drive on the FAA AOA (8), some say they are (4). Conversely, more LEOs are allowed to drive on the non-FAA AOA (8), but some are not (3). Police versus Airport Security More respondents report a difference between police and airport security at their airports (8) while several indicate no difference (4). All respondents confirm a clear separation of power between police and airport security (8). The differences between police and security personnel are summarized in Table 8. Access to Ancillary Operations and Resources The respondents indicate that they have access to bomb squads (12), K-9 units (12), explosive detection (11), hostage negotiations (11), and SWAT (11). Details from the responses include: ⢠âInvestigations, crime scene forensics, CIT [Crisis Intervention Team]/HOST [Homeless Outreach Support Team]âMental Health and Homeless Outreach Services Teamâ ⢠âSRG [Special Response Group], Homicide Division, CIT, and any other asset controlled by the City of Houston.â Response Frequency Police and security have a discrete set of tasks each 3 Police are sworn public servants 2 Police are sworn; security personnel are nonsworn civilians 2 Police have arrest rights; security personnel do not 2 Security is contracted out 2 Police are armed; security personnel are unarmed 1 Table 8. Differences between police and security personnel in city police department model.
