We approved the purchase of 15k worth of body armor (21 vests) for our police last night.
To be clear: this is NOT riot gear. These are the soft vests & plates that protect the chest from stabbing or gunfire. They are inconspicous and not used to intimidate. The picture attached shows our police chief without the vest (left) and with the vest (right), as typically worn.
The 21 vests are to replace the vests that are 5 years old (or older), and are routine replacement. Personal body armor expires after 5-years of service, due to routine wear and tear, washing, and exposure to the elements. The vests selected are Armor Express Razor Level II with Revolution ODG Carrier and the 7'x10" Ara-Shock FE ICW Trauma Plate for $735.00 per unit from On Duty Gear (Clinton Township).
We have been providing these vests to our officers as part of their uniform for years. Furthermore, the Michigan Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission mandates that all MLEAC accredited agencies must supply personal body armor to their officers as an accreditation standard. Failure to meet this standard could result in the department receiving a status of "non-compliant" by the accrediting body.
This was paid for with federal drug forfeiture funds, and the equipment we approved represents the basics in everyday protective gear for our police. It was asked why these aren't budgeted for in the capital improvement plan, and the answer is pretty straightforward: they aren't capital improvements, they're equivalent to employee uniforms.
The law is clear that federal drug forfeiture funds must be used 100% for Law Enforcement, and also stipulates that they can't be used to supplant staffing cost. You can see a pretty comprehensive list of permissible uses for this type of funding starting on page 14: https://drive.google.com/.../1qAMvBY7Ia3mQTanxf7p.../view...
As for if we should be exploring other things to do with that drug forfeiture money? Yes, we can and should. In my mind, this isn't an either/or situation though, and providing the basics in protection to an employee that can be in a volatile situation is appropriate; just as we provide hardhats for DPW workers to protect them from on-the-job hazards. That doesn't mean that we can't use federal drug forfeiture funds for prevention and awareness programs as allowed in the future.
Comments