Violence, real and perceived, may be the impetus for law enforcement’s militarization, but its most obvious manifestation has been in the form of military weapons and equipment.281 Critics argue that this accumulation of military gear has resulted in a troubling shift in how policing is performed in the United States.282 Many law enforcement leaders disagree and justify the accumulation of military surplus equipment as an economically sound way to protect the community and their officers.283
The DOD has two programs that provide equipment to LEAs. The first is known as the 1033 Program. Authorized by Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997, it permits the SECDEF “to transfer, without charge, excess DOD property (supplies and equipment) to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.”284 Pursuant to this program, the Defense Logistics Agency has transferred approximately $5.1 billion dollars in property to 8,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies since 1990.285 This transfer includes controlled property, such as weapons, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, and commercial grade night vision devices.
279 “Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition.” 280 Bachman, “A Federal Effort to Reuse Military Gear Turned Cops into Commandos.” 281 Ibid.
282 Hill and Berger, “A Paramilitary Policing Juggernaut,” 29.
283 “Statement of IACP President Yost Zakhary on the Review of the 1033 Program,”
accessed December 1, 2014, http://www.theiacp.org/ViewResult?SearchID=2434.
284 “Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition,” 7–9. 285 Ibid., 7.
The 1112 Program permits government agencies (state and local) to purchase new law enforcement equipment specifically for counter-narcotic activities.286 The advantage of this program is that it allows police agencies to save a tremendous amount of money by leveraging the federal government’s large volume pricing discounts. This program does not allow LEAs to purchase controlled property.
A number of federal programs also provide money directly to LEAs through various grants, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, and the Department of Justice Equitable Sharing Program. According to a White House report, “Between FY2009 and FY2014, the federal government provided nearly $18 billion dollars in funds and resources to support programs that provide equipment and tactical resources to state and local LEAs.”287
The main source of controversy has been with the DOD 1033 Program. Over 18,000 different types of equipment have been received by law enforcement agencies, the majority of which are not weapons or related to combat in any way.288 According to a White House report, only about four percent of the equipment received under the DOD 1033 Program in 2013 was considered controlled property.289 Nevertheless, about 460,000 controlled items are currently in the hands of law enforcement.290
In response to public concern about law enforcement access to military equipment, President Obama enacted several modifications to the 1033
286 “Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition,” 9. 287 Ibid., 3.
288 Lindsey Cook, “Most Popular Items in the Defense Department’s 1033 Program,” US News & World Report, August 21, 2014, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/ 21/most-popular-items-in-the-defense-departments-1033-program.
289 “Review: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition,” 3. 290 Ibid.
Program. First, Executive Order (EO) 13688 created a revised “Prohibited Equipment List.”291 Items now included on this list are the following:
Tracked armored vehicles
Weaponized aircraft/vessels/vehicles Firearms of .50-caliber or higher
Bayonets
Grenade launchers Camouflage uniforms
Prohibited equipment will no longer be available to LEAs through federal programs because, according to the EO, such equipment in the hands of law enforcement has “the substantial risk of misusing or overusing these items, which are seen as militaristic in nature, could significantly undermine community trust and may encourage tactics and behaviors that are inconsistent with the premise of civilian law enforcement.”292 However, law enforcement may continue to obtain such items through other avenues provided they can secure the necessary funding.
Second, the EO created a revised “controlled equipment list.” 293 The following items are now included:
manned aircraft
un-manned aerial vehicles wheeled armored vehicles wheeled tactical vehicles command and control vehicles
specialized firearms and ammunition under .50-caliber
explosive and pyrotechnics breaching apparatus
riot batons (fixed length) riot helmets
riot shields
291 The White House, Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688—Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group, 2015), 12–13, https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=765878.
292 Ibid., 13. 293 Ibid., 14–15.
Items on the controlled equipment list are available through federal programs with certain restrictions, such as mandatory training and enhanced accountability mandates.294 The EO states that despite the fact that these items could be viewed as militaristic, they “also have significant utility to law enforcement operations.”295 Referring specifically to armored vehicles, which have been the subject of much criticism, the report states, “These vehicles can provide critical officer and civilian safety protection and transport into and out of high-risk situations and therefore should not be prohibited.”296
It is worth noting that many of the most contentious items obtained by law enforcement via the old DOD 1033 Program guidelines are still available. For example, armored vehicles, such as the much publicized MRAP, are still authorized for use by law enforcement because of their utility as a protective measure.297 The EO acknowledges that some of the controlled property looks intimidating, but is not an instrument of force, an important distinction. If the definition of police militarization as found in Chapter II is valid (i.e., the adoption of military style equipment, tactics, and/or policies that leverage force or the threat of force as the primary means to achieve a law enforcement agency’s goals), then the vast majority of the items on both the prohibited and controlled equipment lists have no nexus to police militarization.
The equipment made available to law enforcement through the 1033 Program has improved their ability to respond to violent incidents and
294 The White House, Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688—Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition, 14.
295 Ibid., 15. 296 Ibid.
297 Justin Hyde, “Why Do America’s Police Need an Armored Tank?,” Msnbc.com, accessed
August 19, 2014, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41912754/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_ gadgets/t/why-do-americas-police-need-armored-tank/.
undoubtedly saved lives.298 Law enforcement SWAT teams have commandeered much of that equipment.