Beginning in 1994, the Clinton administration set a goal of 100,000 additional community police officers by 2000. The federal government agreed to fund salary and equipment costs of up to $75,000 per officer for three years. The program afforded many small agencies the opportunity to add two or three additional officers. Some large cities, such as Baltimore which used grants to hire nearly 300 officers, greatly increased department strength. 

While the program is widely recognized as dramatically changing the philosophy of policing 

Bush administration officials point out that the program was never intended to be open-ended. In his budget plan, the President is asking Congress to divert the funds to hire 1,500 school resource officers, improve crime labs, and pay for prosecutions of drug dealers and gun-law violators. Whether Congress adopts the President's proposal is open to question. The community policing program has been politically popular and is credited by many as being one factor in the significant decrease in crime in recent years. 

Loss of federally-subsidized salaries could mean furloughs in many police agencies. However, in a touch of irony, a nationwide shortage of qualified police applicants may virtually guarantee currently employed police officers will have little trouble finding work. Officers will move to hard-funded slots or find work in neighboring agencies. 

"The vast majority of officers and teachers who buy houses through these programs play by the rules," HUD Secretary Mel Martinez said. "Both programs are proven winners for the communities. Officers and teachers get homeownership 

Gilbert G. Gallegos, National President of the FOP, which represents more than 293,000 law enforcement officers, was also quick to praise the program that the FOP helped to develop. "The Officer Next Door program underscores what we in law enforcement have always known - having a stable, consistent police presence in a community is a powerful deterrent to crime," Gallegos said. "Criminals simply cannot flourish in a neighborhood where the police and the community are bound together in the interest of the common good. It's a program designed to help police officers buy homes and to help communities become safer. But until we prevent further fraudulent abuses of the program, neither of these goals can be met." 

Martinez directed senior HUD officials to review the programs' guidelines and make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that these well-intended programs do what they were designed to do. "The oversight measures simply need strengthening," he added. 

The suspension will begin 12:01 a.m., on April 1 and last through July 31. HUD will honor 

HUD's announcement comes on the heels of nine felony convictions and 15 indictments involving the purchase of homes under the programs. In addition, in February, HUD's Office of Inspector General reported that both programs were vulnerable to fraud and that management controls were inadequate. 

Through the programs, officers and teachers can buy HUD-owned, single family homes at a 50 percent discount in certain designated revitalization areas. The homes are FHA-insured houses on which the owners have defaulted. Since HUD created the officer and teacher programs in 1997 and 2000, respectively, approximately 6,000 police officers and teachers in 41 states and the District of Columbia have purchased the homes. 

To be eligible, law enforcement officers and teachers must be employed full-time and agree to make the homes their sole residence for three years after purchase. To make the properties even more affordable, HUD reduced the down payment to $100 if the home was purchased with an FHA-insured mortgage. Homes may be purchased directly through HUD or through a real estate broker. 

Officers, who have gone for three years without a pay raise, have been embroiled in a series of disputes with the mayor. Most recently, the police union sued unsuccessfully to prevent the town from implementing a $88,000 severance package for a former deputy chief. At issue is the manner in which 

Although most officers who called in sick returned to work the next day, sick leave usage exceeded normal rates throughout the first week of April. Officers were called in or held over on overtime to provide normal staffing levels. 

As in most states, police strikes are unlawful under Rhode Island law. 

While Scotto and officials of several other unions were described as co-conspirators, the indictments did not accuse them of taking bribes or even being approached with bribe offers, according to the New York Times. The court papers noted that Scotto and the others "may or may not have known they were targeted as bribe recipients." 

Scotto denied any wrongdoing, saying he had never been approached with any bribe or spoken to any of the defendants in the case. He emphasized that no DEA pension money had been invested with the defendants. Scotto called the government's action as "outrageous" and vowed to rectify the "unfair, unjust, and unsubstantiated attack on my reputation." 

Philip Karasyk, Scotto's attorney, told the 

The papers naming Scotto are a small fragment of an investigation that federal authorities described as one of organized crimes most aggressive forays into the stock market. Mobsters allegedly used a Manhattan investment firm to defraud investors of $50 million over several years. 

A former DEA officer was indicted last June, accused of using his police contacts to provide confidential information to mobsters about investigations. At the time of the indictment, prosecutors acknowledged that the scheme to use DEA funds was never carried out and the union never lost any money. 

Chief Roger Beaupre, relying on an earlier email from a member of Rowe's staff, had informed city employees that "prolonged horn tooting" could result in criminal charges of disorderly conduct. 

Following a meeting of the City Council on 

"On the contrary," the Attorney General wrote. "We believe that their conduct, under the circumstances, involved the expression of free speech protected by First Amendment." 

At the heart of the dispute is city attempts to require its workers to pay more for health benefits. 

Supreme Court update 

Cases of interest 

HELD: First Amendment claims by public employees asserting a violation against protected speech are analyzed under a two-step test. The first step is to determine whether the employee speaks as a citizen upon matters of public concern. The second step is to balance the interest of the employee, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public 

HELD: The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall deny any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The U. S. Supreme Court, however, has noted that the due process clause confers no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to a secure life, liberty, or property interest of which the government itself may not deprive the individual. This is so because if the due process clause does not require a state to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the state cannot be held liable for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide the services. The court has recognized two exceptions to this general rule. Each of these exceptions involves a situation where a special relationship is created that imposes a duty to protect the individual. One exception focuses on individuals who are in custodial settings in which the state has limited the individual's ability to care for himself and the other is when the state affirmatively places the individual in a position of danger that the individual would not have otherwise faced. In this case, Cowgill's heirs argue the special relationship was created under the custody theory. While the court has not 

HELD: The age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) must be dismissed because Richey failed to first file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Federal statute requires that allegations of age discrimination first be processed through the EEOC. Failing to do so bars her claim. Likewise, the sex discrimination claim must fail. The evidence reflects that the position Richey sought was in fact ultimately filled by another female, not by a male. Thus, it could not be said that she was discriminated against based on her sex. As to her claim of handicap discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits employers from discriminating based upon physical or mental impairments of a qualified individual with a disability. To establish a case, a plaintiff must show that she has a disability, that she is qualified to serve in the position, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that she was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of the disability. The city contends that Richey is not qualified to perform the essential functions of the dispatcher job because she suffers from a type of reoccurring seizure known as a Trans-Ischemic Attack (TIA). Richey admits that these attacks occur weekly and at random times and she is unable to function for a period of 30 seconds to three minutes. The city asserts that a dispatcher must be able to react quickly and calmly in emergency situations 

HELD: The ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability. Under the law an employer is entitled to inquire into the mental health of its employees when there are legitimate concerns about the employee and public safety. The ADA does not provide a shield from fitness for duty examinations for employees with jobs that affect public safety. Employers do not violate the ADA by ensuring that police officers are physically fit for duty. The village had a valid reason for placing Davis on administrative leave after the simulator event. The village had concerns about her ability to function as a police officer in a stressful shooting situation. Davis argues that the village was not really concerned about her psychological circumstance because it allowed her to retain her service weapon while performing administrative duties and that this is evidence of discrimination. Contrary to Davis' argument, however, the steps an employer takes to address concerns about fitness for duty are not evidence of discrimination. In this case, the village took steps that were narrowly construed to address its concern about her ability to handle shooting situations, placing her on administrative duty where she was unlikely to encounter such a situation. The village should not incur liability for allowing her to retain her pay and benefits in this situation. Davis admits that she has PTSD and that she suffered an anxiety attack during the shooting simulation. She has failed to establish that the village intentionally discriminated against her based on her disability. Davis also claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her disability. While the federal courts are not consistent in ruling whether a hostile environment claim can be brought under the ADA, some circuits allow such a claim. Davis' allegation has to do with the insensitive remarks made by fellow officers. While such comments were uncalled for and insensitive, they were not threatening, humiliating, or of a nature that would disrupt Davis' ability to perform her job. The most that can be said is that Davis was insulted by the 

HELD: Under Florida law, in order to determine whether evidence sustains a charge alleging an unfair labor practice when it is grounded upon an asserted violation of protected activity, two standards must be met. First, the burden of proof is on the union to present proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the conduct was protected and that the conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the decision taken by the employer. Second, if the hearing officer determines the decision was motivated by a non-permissible reason, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show by the preponderance of the evidence that notwithstanding the existence of factors relating to protected activity, the employer would have made the same decision anyway. In this case, the hearing officer initially found that the PBA had met its burden of proof. Additionally, the officer found that the city had not presented any evidence that the same decision would have been made independent of the protected activity. Thus, the labor board erred in remanding the case for a second hearing. The hearing officer's 

HELD: The city first contends that the wage law is not applicable to municipalities. The city cites differences in various sections of the law where the term "employer" in some instances specifically mentions local government and in other instances does not. The court is unpersuaded by the city's argument, however, that the expansive definition of "employer" in one section indicates a legislative intent to limit the definition of "employer" in other sections of the law. Courts may venture beyond the plain meaning of a statute when the literal application would defeat or thwart the statutory purpose. The court believes the legislation intended its statutory wage payment and collection guidelines to be applied to both governmental and non-governmental employers alike. The city next argues that unused sick leave is not a mandatory fringe