Police in Arizona have raised questions about the vehicle's safety following rear-end crashes over the past three years that have killed two officers and severely burned a third. Several lawsuits have been filed in Arizona as well as Florida and Louisiana alleging that the gas tank placement is unsafe. Ford has denied liability for the accidents but has recommended modifications to the cars. 

The placement of a police vehicle during a traffic stop makes it particularly vulnerable. The Crown Victoria's gas tank sits vertically behind the 

Both the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the Phoenix Police Department have begun modifications to their fleets. 

A Ford spokesman said the company had sold more than 500,000 of the full-size Crown Victorias and that accident data suggests the model's experience with rear collision fires is comparable to other automobiles. 

But Greg Fower, an assistant police chief in Mesa, told the Arizona Republic newspaper that he has heard of 14 officers who burned to death in rear-end collisions nationally since 1990. He believes that better protected gas tanks would help. 

The basic design and chassis of the Crown Victoria is expected to remain largely unchanged through the 2005 model year. 

During his six years leading over 250,000 police officer members, Gallegos pushed Congress to expand labor rights of officers. He made passage of a national collective bargaining bill a high priority 

Gallegos, who retired as an APD deputy chief in 1988, had served as an FOP national officer until his election as president in 1995. Mayor-elect Martin Chavez chose Gallegos as chief over 13 other applicants. His selection was met with approval by the Albuquerque Police Officers Association, an FOP affiliate, which had endorsed Chavez in the October 2 mayor's race. 

The new chief recognizes he has his work cut out. The department is facing a $6 million budget deficit and low morale. "It's my intent to really dissect the department," the new chief said. 

Officers Gina McFadden and Dawn Norman, both 25, surrendered November 20 after arrest warrants were issued charging criminal mischief and making terroristic threats. McFadden subsequently was admitted to a hospital following the onset of a "panic attack." Neither officer has a prior disciplinary record. 

The incident arose in response to a report of a stolen truck containing hazardous materials. Norman's attorney, Jeff Kolansky, said that McFadden typed the message that read in part, "We don't care . . . We can't stand America. We have anthrax in our car…" Norman tried to delete the message from the computer but McFadden batted 

Department officials traced the message to the two officers' car. They initially denied sending the message. The police car was subsequently processed as a crime scene. No anthrax was found in the vehicle. 

Kolansky said the message was intended as a joke. But the district attorney's office and the police department are not viewing the matter as funny. "I believe it was something that got out of hand," said Deputy Police Commissioner John Norris, head of the department's internal affairs division. "I think after they sent it they realized it was a mistake." 

Both officers have been suspended for 30 days with intent to dismiss. They face nine criminal charges that carry a maximum punishment of 46 years in prison. 

The doll, dressed in the dark uniform of a LAPD corporal and wearing sunglasses, carries a miniature badge, pistol, duty belt, baton, radio, flashlight, pepper spray, and handcuffs. "We try to make it look as authentic as possible," said LAPPL director Peter Repovich. 

So far over 500 of the dolls have been sold over the union's website, www.lapd.com. Another 200 have been bought at the LAPPL office. 

While checking out the doll at the union's office, one patrol officer reportedly remarked, "Does he come with a complaint form?" The statement made in apparent reference to the highly publicized rash of citizen complaints lodged against LAPD 

LAPPL President Mitzi Grasso credits her husband Mike, an LAPD training officer, with conceiving the idea for the action figure about a year ago. "Why a doll?" asked Grasso. "Most of our officers are heroes, and we wanted an action figure." 

Next in line for release is "Officer Sommers," a female patrol officer. Others planned in the series are a canine officer complete with dog, a motorcycle officer with his own two-wheeler, and an air support officer with a helicopter. A mounted officer, a bike officer, a SWAT officer, and a narc are in the planning stages. 

Timing of the introduction of the doll could not be better. Toy retailers across the country report that G.I. Joe figures and the Fisher Price line of "Rescue Heroes" are the leading items on many childrens' Christmas wish-lists. 

"Patrol Officer West" costs $32, substantially less than the hiring of a full size LAPD officer for an hour! 

Cases of interest 

Supreme Court update 

HELD: The U. S. Supreme Court has held that a license to practice one's calling or profession is a protected right. Consequently, the state may not constitutionally deprive an individual of that right without procedural due process. Stidham's certification as a peace officer is also required and enables him to work as a peace officer. He thus retains a protected property right in that certificate. Utah law that establishes the POST grants the commission the authority to revoke a peace officer's 

In a recent filing, the survivor of a deceased police officer is questioning the Department of Justice's (DOJ) denial of claim under the Public Safety Officers Benefits Act (PSOB). The dead officer's widow claims that his suicide was the product of duty-related stress. The stress and subsequent suicide allegedly occurred after the officer was falsely accused of sexually inappropriate behavior with a young boy. The DOJ ruled that such a death does not qualify for payments under the PSOB because it was self-inflicted and did not occur in the line of duty. The widow is asserting that DOJ misapplied the statute. This case is Yanco v. United States, No. 01-674. 

In Lee v. McKenzie, No. 01-675, a sheriff is contesting a lower court ruling that dismissal of a white deputy was racially motivated and thereby a violation of federal racial anti-discrimination law. The deputy claimed that he was terminated to appease the black community. 

No review decision has been made in either of the cases. 

HELD: The FLSA does not specifically define when overtime payments must be made. An interpretive bulletin issued by the Department of Labor requires prompt payment of overtime. The bulletin states that the general rule is that overtime compensation earned in a particular work week must be paid on the regular payday for the period in which such work week ends. The FLSA will be satisfied if the employer pays the excess overtime compensation as soon after the regular pay period as is practical. This bulletin is not a regulation and does not have the force of law. However, it is persuasive on the issue of interpreting the FLSA. Prior case law holds that although the general rule is that overtime compensation earned in a particular work week must be paid on the regular payday for the period, nothing in the FLSA prevents a collective bargaining agreement from providing a different 

HELD: The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. Likewise, the statute requires that an employer provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual with a disability. To establish an initial case under the ADA the plaintiff must prove that he is "disabled" under the meaning of the act. Saunders fails to meet this threshold test. Even assuming he has an impairment that remains partially uncorrected and thus disables him, he has failed to allege that his impairment has substantially limited his pursuit of a major life activity. Prior case law holds that two major life activities are implicated in asthma cases: breathing and working. In this case Saunders has not alleged a limitation on his ability to work or his ability to breathe. He has made no claim that he 

HELD: Hensley contends that his termination was punishment for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court has long held that a public employee maintains a First Amendment right to speak out on matters of public concern even though he works for the government. A public employee can be punished for exercising that right only if the facts of the case indicate that the employer's interest in promoting efficiency of public services outweighs the employee's interest in free speech. The statement is characterized as a matter of public concern and not merely a personal employment grievance if it can be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community. When an employee speaks only as an employee upon purely personal matters, the speech is not protected. To determine whether or not a particular speech relates to internal workplace issues or to public matters, a court looks to the content, form, and context of the speech. Content is the most important of these factors. When a court reviews speech cases, deference to the employer's judgment is given. Such deference is particularly important in the context of law enforcement and it has been recognized that a police department has a more significant interest than the typical government employer in regulating speech activities of its employees in order to promote efficiency, foster loyalty and obedience to superior officers, maintain morale, and instill public confidence. Police departments, because they are paramilitary organizations charged with maintaining public safety and order are given more latitude in their 

HELD: Maus argues that an implied contract arose during his employment with the city. He bases his claim on procedures set forth in the personnel manual stating that employees shall have notice of a hearing when misconduct is alleged. Under Kansas law, employment is at the will of the employer and employee. The general rule is that employment is terminable at the will of either party in the absence of an express or implied contract. An implied contract creates an exception to the at-will employment rule. Under an implied contract theory, the contract for employment is read broadly so that the employer cannot terminate an employee arbitrarily where a policy or program of the employer restricts at-will termination. To establish an implied contract Maus must show a mutual understanding that the employer would terminate the employee only for cause. Maus asserts that the city had a common practice of terminating only for a cause but provided no proof of this practice. Secondly, he contends that the existence of the disciplinary procedure outlined in the personnel manual creates a for cause employment relationship. However, the manual expressly states that employees are considered to be at-will. Due to this explicit language the court finds that the manual does not, in itself, give rise to any contractual rights on the part of the former officer. His evidence of implied contract only serves to establish unilateral expectations, not an enforceable contractual relationship. Summary judgment for city. [Maus v. City of Towanda, Kansas, 165 F. Supp.2d 1223 (D. Kan. 2001)] 

HELD: Prior case law holds that a public employee's appearance in court as a witness qualifies as "speech". It is a well-established law that public employers cannot condition public employment on a basis that infringes on an employee's constitutionally protected interest in free expression. However, a public employer does have more authority to regulate an employee's speech than it does the speech of the general public. For a public employee's speech to be protected speech, it must be about a matter of public concern and the employee's interest in expression not be outweighed by any injury the speech could cause to the interest of the state as an employer. A public employee's speech will be considered a matter of public concern if it can be fairly considered to be relating to a matter of political, social, or other concern of the community. Once again, prior case law has found that testifying in court is a matter of public concern. Thus, Lynch satisfies this requirement. When considering the balancing requirement the court must balance Lynch's significant interest in 

HELD: Michigan law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, national origin, and sex. Plaintiffs in this case claim that the state physical fitness standards are unlawfully discriminatory based on sex. Classifications based on sex are reviewed under an intermediate or heightened scrutiny test and will pass constitutional muster only if the classification is substantially related to an important government objective. Merely because the state engages in a practice that treats men and women differently does not necessarily mean that it engages in unlawful gender discrimination. The test is whether the gender based treatment serves a sufficiently important governmental interest. The evidence submitted in this case establishes that the performance skills test is a test designed to assess general physical fitness and not to delineate specific minimum fitness standards required to become a police officer. The gender norming insures that the most physically fit female candidates are placed into the larger pool of qualified applicants. This creates the act of inclusion not exclusion. The test is designed and appropriately 

HELD: The AFSCME asserts that the court lacks jurisdiction over the FOP claim that the union retaliated against employees by failing to properly process their grievances. The AFSCME argues that such an allegation is an unfair labor practice charge and should go before the state labor board. Prior Pennsylvania case law holds, however, that a union's bad faith refusal to submit a grievance to arbitration does not fall within the statutory categories of an unfair labor practice. A public employee's remedy for a union's refusal to submit a grievance to arbitration is an action against the union for a breach of its duty of fair representation. Thus, the court has jurisdiction on that issue. The AFSCME also asserts that none of the investigators filed the grievance when they failed to receive their pay raise. Consequently, the union claims that the investigators failed to exhaust their contractual remedies. The rule of exhaustion of internal remedies applies when a dispute arises between a union and a member. However a person will not be required to pursue internal remedies that can be considered illusory. Since the employer refused to provide the pay raise at the insistence of the union, filing a grievance with the union would have indeed been purely illusory. There was no need for the individual employees to seek exhaustion of their contractual remedies. Whenever a union breaches a duty of fair representation any remedy for the employee must be complete and adequate. Normally, the legal remedy would be an order directing arbitration of the underlying grievance. However, in this matter 

HELD: Powell contends that the board's finding that he committed conduct unbecoming an officer and violated department rules are not supported by substantial evidence. The courts have defined the term "conduct unbecoming an officer" as conduct tending to destroy public respect and confidence in the operation of municipal services or affecting the morale or efficiency of the police department. The public demands that law enforcement officers adhere to demanding standards which are higher than those applied to many professions. It is a standard which demands more than a forbearance from overt and indictable illegal conduct. It demands that in both an officer's private and official lives he do nothing to bring dishonor upon his noble calling and in no way contribute to a weakening of public confidence and trust. Consequently, even off duty conduct of a police officer may be a basis for finding conduct unbecoming. Conduct unbecoming an officer constitutes just cause for terminating an officer's employment under Pennsylvania law. Pointing the firearm at the fellow officer, even as a joke, was clearly inappropriate behavior. It violated departmental policy and could have caused serious consequences. The police chief testified at the hearing that there was absolutely no excuse for an officer to engage in this type of conduct. Likewise, Powell neglected his official duties by spending four hours at the diner and by failing to respond as a backup officer even though he was closest to the scene of the call. Each of these circumstances is sufficient grounds to terminate Powell as a police officer. Termination of officer affirmed. [Powell v. 

HELD: Under Washington law the decisions of the labor board must be reviewed on the basis of substantial evidence. Washington statute provides that it is an unfair labor practice for a public employer to interfere with or coerce public employees in the exercise of their labor rights. The police union advocates a rule that the right to collectively bargain includes the right to be free from any employer questioning regarding any discussions or conduct taking place at union meetings. No such absolute privilege exists, however. An employer unlawfully interferes with union activities if the employer's action would tend to coerce a reasonable employee. The evidence does not need to show that the employer actually intimidated or coerced the employee by the conduct. An employer's interview of employees with respect to union activities is not per se unlawful. An employer with a legitimate reason to inquire may interrogate employees on matters that are related to their collective bargaining rights without incurring liability. The interrogation becomes illegal when the words themselves, or the context in which they are used, suggest an element of coercion or interference with union protected activities. In determining whether an employer's 

Wage boosts of at least three percent for each of the next three years are the cornerstone of a new agreement between the Town of West Brookfield and Local 170 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. The pact, retroactive to July 1, also revises the longevity and job classification portions of the pay schedule. The new procedure no longer grants annual cost of living hikes on top of longevity step increases in the six-step chart. Only officers in the top pay step will gain the cost of living hikes. While the contract provides for annual three percent boosts, a "me too" clause is included that grants the same pay boost to officers as non-union employees might gain in the future. A beginning police officer will now earn about $28,600.