By Josephine Wonsun Hahn, Ram Subramanian, and Tiffany Sanabia  

  Low-level offenses, especially misdemeanors, constitute a majority of the nation’s criminal dockets, including in New York City. A Brennan Center report examining minor offense enforcement trends finds that the city’s minor offense system has shrunk since 2010. But enforcement still falls hardest on communities that have high proportions of people of color and experience elevated levels of poverty. Minor offense criminal justice reform has so far not made a dent in the troubling racial disparities in cases across the city.  Brennan Center researchers interviewed police, prosecutors, court officials, city government officials, criminal justice advocacy organizations, community-based service providers, and community leaders — people who contribute to public safety efforts in neighborhoods most impacted by minor offense enforcement — to better understand what may be driving interactions with the city’s minor offense criminal justice system and perpetuating racial disparities. Study participants, as well as previous research, point to particular drivers often referred to as social determinants of justice: social disadvantages such as poverty, housing instability, poor mental health, and substance use; poor conditions and a lack of resources in the most impacted communities; and the criminal justice system’s persistent inability to address social problems and community needs. While recent increases in public disorder in New York City may invite simplified punitive responses that expand enforcement, such responses are unlikely to fundamentally change the conditions under which minor offenses — including those related to nuisance and disorder — grow. No strong empirical evidence exists demonstrating the effectiveness of punitive enforcement in either changing disorderly behavior or reducing crime. In particular, one 2019 meta-analysis contradicts the assumed causal connection between disorder and crime; another finds that aggressive order-maintenance enforcement that targets individual disorderly behaviors does not significantly reduce crime, whereas community and problem-solving approaches do. Such approaches involve people in the community to help identify problems and solutions — and can include non–criminal justice responses, such as referrals to community-based service providers. In any event, a punitive-only approach  also comes at too high a financial and human cost. Minor criminal offenses, most of which do not result in a jail sentence, can cause people to lose their jobs and homes, become unemployable, or be burdened with unpayable fines and fees. These compounding burdens make it even harder for people already struggling to exit the revolving door of the criminal justice system.5 Promising strategies already exist in New York City to address root causes of crime and disorder via programs with targeted interventions and resources within communities with high numbers of minor offense cases. These mostly small-scale experiments provide examples of the choices the city can make to help prevent crime while also reducing the cycle of criminal justice system involvement that helps fuel racial disparities. New York City can build on these strategies and programs to both shrink overly punitive responses and address some of the drivers of criminalized behavior in precincts with high caseloads. Although the programs and practices discussed below are based in New York City, many will be relevant to policymakers across the country. Some cities, counties, and states have adopted similar practices that divert people charged with minor offenses — many of whom face substance use, trauma, and mental health problems — from the justice system. Like New York City, other jurisdictions are looking to community-based strategies for solutions outside the criminal justice system. However, these innovations remain limited in scale and scope. Rules governing eligibility shut too many people out, often focusing on only a narrow slice of the population charged with minor offenses — typically a small subset of youth, people with mental illness, people who use drugs, people arrested and charged for the first time, or people arrested and charged with nonviolent offenses.6 There also may be structural limitations based on geography, funding, or capacity. To achieve a smaller, more responsive system that better addresses underlying needs and racial disparities, state and local policymakers, with support from nonprofit organizations and private philanthropy, should consider a range of effective strategies that target communities with elevated minor offense enforcement — neighborhoods in New York City that are home to predominantly Black and Latino populations. These starting steps include: ƒ scaling up successful diversion programs; ƒ building crisis response systems to address mental health and substance use; ƒ expanding supportive housing programs; and ƒ investing in crime-prevention models in which law enforcement, residents, city agencies, and others work together to build public safety and address community needs    

New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2024. 17p.

By Stephen Rushin

This Article argues that, if effectively regulated, policing represents a fundamentally important social institution that advances the community interest in public safety, justice, equality, and the rule of law.

In recent years, a significant and growing body of legal scholarship has called for the shrinking of police responsibilities, the defunding of police budgets, or the complete abolition of local police departments. A countervailing body of scholarly literature has questioned the wisdom of some of these proposals, arguing that they could unintentionally make policing worse or have unintended public safety effects.

This Article enters this debate by affirmatively defending the importance of the institution of policing. It argues that effectively regulated policing is critical to the investigation of harmful criminal behavior, the responses to public safety emergencies, the deterrence of future harmful conduct, the physical protection of historically marginalized communities, and the rule of law.

However, policing can only serve these important functions if it is effectively regulated and accountable to the community it serves. Too often, the failure of policymakers to properly regulate police behavior has led to unaccountable policing agencies that regularly violate the constitutional rights of their constituents, particularly the rights of historically marginalized populations. However, that represents an ongoing regulatory challenge rather than an indictment of the fundamental importance of the institution of policing.

Understanding the importance of policing as a social institution has more than mere academic significance. As some scholars push for a fundamental reimagination of public safety, it is vital for these proposals to understand the value conferred by the institution of policing. Only by understanding the importance of policing can both abolitionists and reformers develop solutions that balance public safety and the protection of constitutional rights.

76 South Carolina Law Review 133 (2024), 47p.

By Jeannine Bell and Stephen Rushin

This Article considers how policymakers can more effectively constrain police authority during traffic stops to reduce racial disparities and prevent unnecessary violence.

We begin by chronicling the power granted to police officers during traffic enforcement and the harms generated by this discretionary power. Under existing criminal procedure, police officers have considerable authority to stop motorists for any technical violation of the traffic code, even if the stated justification is a pretext for investigating an unrelated hunch or suspicion. After stopping a motorist, existing doctrine gives police the ability to question motorists, search vehicles under numerous circumstances, arrest drivers for minor violations of the law, and otherwise use traffic stops as a justification for criminal fishing expeditions. This makes police traffic stops an entryway into officer misconduct and violence.

Moreover, the harms of police traffic enforcement are felt disproportionately by communities of color. Empirical evidence generally suggests that Black and Hispanic drivers are more likely than their white counterparts to experience traffic stops. Black and Hispanic drivers are more likely to be stopped during daylight hours relative to nighttime hours when their race is apparent to police through visual observation. And searches of Black and Hispanic motorists are less likely to produce contraband than searches of white drivers, suggesting that police may employ a less rigorous standard of probable cause when justifying vehicle searches of drivers of color.

Given the growing body of literature on the harms caused by police traffic enforcement, some have called for the abolition of police traffic enforcement. Short of abolition, though, this Article shows how jurisdictions across the country have already moved to limit the authority of police during traffic encounters. This approach does not seek to eliminate entirely the police from the enforcement of traffic laws. Rather, it involves state and local policymakers enacting restrictions on police power during traffic enforcement that go beyond those mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court under existing doctrine. Indeed, in recent years, states and municipalities have enacted limitations on the use of pretextual traffic stops, consent searches, and unrelated questioning of motorists after stops. Others have restricted or banned the use of quotas as a police management tool. Some prosecutors’ offices have announced declination policies designed to disincentivize police from using traffic stops as a tool for the investigation of other unrelated crimes. Still other jurisdictions have explored additional reporting requirements and even technological replacements for the use of police officers in the enforcement of the traffic code.

Combined, we argue that this sort of criminal justice minimalism can reduce the harmful and racially disparate effects of police traffic enforcement without compromising public safety

57 Arizona State Law Journal, 2025, 52p.

By Jillian Long

Incidents of police-involved shootings resulting in the death of unarmed civilians, such as Andre Hill in 2020, Bijan Ghaisar in 2017, and Michael Brown in 2014, have raised concerns about law enforcement use of deadly force, particularly involving firearms. In light of these concerns, growing attention has been paid to less-than-lethal weapons (LLWs) and the role LLWs may play in providing law enforcement officers alternatives to the use of deadly force.

A multitude of weapons marketed as less-than-lethal alternatives to firearms are currently in use by federal, state, and local law enforcement, including batons, pepper sprays, and stun guns. There are also a number of LLWs in development, such as unmanned aircraft systems (drones) equipped with tear gas, rubber bullets, and TASERs.

Some observers contend that LLWs offer the possibility of minimizing risk of death and serious injury to citizens and officers while simultaneously providing law enforcement with effective tools to incapacitate violent or noncompliant persons. Nevertheless, there is evidence that LLWs may present a number of potential health risks, lending credence to arguments that LLWs are less-than-lethal in name, but, depending on the circumstances of their use, can be lethal in practice. For example, a team of journalists led by the Associated Press, in collaboration with the Howard Center for Investigative Journalism programs at the University of Maryland and Arizona State University, documented over 1,000 deaths that followed local and state police officers’ use of less-than-lethal force from 2012 to 2021. Similarly, a 2019 Reuters investigation of deaths related to law enforcement use of TASERs found that 1,081 individuals had died after being hit by a police TASER from 1983 to 2017.

Should policymakers consider examining ways to legislate on the use of LLWs, numerous issues may garner attention. Currently, there is no single, universally accepted definition of less-than-lethal weapon, and the use of the term varies greatly among U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Conceptualizing a definition for LLWs raises a number of questions, including whether LLWs should be defined

• under a label other than less-than-lethal,

• according to a common capability,

• according to a common operational utility,

• according to an intended use to minimize risk of death and permanent injury, or

• according to a common application.

Policymakers could consider whether it is beneficial to establish a statutory definition of less-than-lethal weapon. Codifying the meaning of LLWs could be useful in terms of clarifying what weapons are (and are not) classified as less-than-lethal, which may help sharpen the focus and potential efficacy of policies. On the other hand, some may argue that law enforcement agencies and departments are better suited to define LLWs and, thereby, address LLWs in their individualized use-of-force policies, based on their organization’s specific needs, duties, and circumstances.

Moreover, there are relatively little federal data available on law enforcement officers’ use of LLWs and, consequently, few studies analyzing the health effects caused by law enforcement’s use of such weapons. Policymakers may wish to direct a federal agency or department to conduct research into LLW injury and mortality. Based on these findings, policymakers could consider legislative actions to influence law enforcement use of LLWs, such as (1) passing a bill encouraging or limiting federal law enforcement officers’ usage of LLWs and (2) placing provisions on or withholding funding from existing federal grant programs to incentivize or discourage state and local law enforcement usage of LLWs.

R48365

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, January 23, 2025I

27p.

By Mylan Denerstein

This is the Monitor’s 23rd report and second report focused on the compliance of the New York City Police Department’s (the “Department” or “NYPD”) Neighborhood Safety Teams (“NST”) and Public Safety Teams (“PST”) with constitutional requirements in executing stops, frisks, and searches. In March 2021, the NYPD initiated NST units in certain precincts to combat gun violence in high-crime areas. Officers in NST units engage in proactive stop, frisks, and searches, and generally they are not expected to respond to 911 calls-for-service. NST officers drive unmarked cars and wear uniforms distinct from those worn by NYPD patrol officers. In June 2023, the Monitor filed the Nineteenth Report of the Independent Monitor (the “19th Report”) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which contained results of the Monitor team’s 2022 audit of the NSTs. That report concluded that NST officers performed substantially below constitutional standards and had a rate of unlawful Terry stops nine percentage points higher than their counterparts in regular patrol positions. In addition, the report concluded that supervisors in the Department failed to identify and remediate unlawful reported stops. To determine Fourth Amendment compliance with the stops, frisks, and searches conducted by NSTs since the filing of the 19th Report, the Monitor began a second, more comprehensive audit of NSTs and PSTs, another specialized proactive enforcement unit, to assess their compliance with court-ordered reforms. This follow-up report audits NST, PST, and regular patrol officers based on stops, frisks, and searches conducted in 2023. It compares NST officers with their counterparts on regular patrol and in PSTs and measures compliance rates of all supervisors and officers regardless of unit assignment. Based on the 2023 audit, the Report concludes that NST and PST officers are not performing stops, frisks, and searches at constitutional levels, and that supervisors of NST, PST, and patrol officers are not appropriately overseeing their officers. Some of the key findings are below: • This 2023 audit shows that NST officers’ constitutional compliance with respect to stops, frisks, and searches did not improve since the Monitor’s 2022 audit. • In the 2023 audit, NST officers had reasonable suspicion (and thus a lawful basis) for 75% of the reported Terry stops, slightly below the NST percentage of 76% compliance in the 2022 audit. • In the 2023 audit, NST officers made lawful stops at a rate of 75%, 17 percentage points lower than their patrol counterparts’ rate of 92%. • In the 2023 audit, PST officers also made lawful stops at a rate lower than patrol officers, with only 64% of their reported stops being assessed as lawful, which is 28 percentage points lower than their patrol counterparts’ rate of 92%. • In the 2023 audit, NST officers and PST officers overwhelmingly conducted self-initiated stops (70% and 77%, respectively, were self-initiated), while officers on routine patrol primarily conducted stops based on radio runs (68% were radio runs). • In the 2023 audit, regardless of the officer’s unit assignment (NST, PST, Patrol, or other), Terry stops based on a complainant/witness (100% lawful) or a radio run (94% lawful) were nearly all constitutional, while only 65% of self-initiated stops were assessed as lawful. • In the 2023 audit, NST officers had reasonable suspicion for only 58% of the frisks assessed and had a legal basis for only 54% of the searches assessed. • In the 2023 audit, despite significant numbers of unlawful stops, frisks, and searches, command-level supervisors of NST, PST, and Patrol officers only determined that 1% of stops were unlawful and 1% of frisks and searches were unlawful. • In 95% of the stop reports in this audit in which race was identified (N=385) and 93% of the BWC videos assessed (N=697), the person stopped was identified as Black or Hispanic. Of the 397 stop reports in which gender was indicated, 97% were male. Overall, in this audit, 89% of the individuals encountered were Black or Hispanic males. The NYPD must focus on supervisors ensuring implementation of constitutionally compliant stops, frisks, and searches. The Department must improve Fourth Amendment compliance levels and NST and PST units must be better supervised. The ball is in the Department’s hands, and the NYPD can do this. The law requires no less.

New York: New York Police Department Monitor, 2025. 51p.

In 2018, Queensland was the first Australian jurisdiction to provide police with new powers to conduct searches in cases where:

A missing person meets the definition of a ‘high-risk missing person’ because they are either: under the age of 13 or are at risk of serious harm if not found as quickly as possible

A police officer holds a reasonable suspicion that searching a particular place may locate the person or provide information relating to their disappearance, and

The occupier of the place cannot or will not give consent for the search to occur.

These provisions are contained in Chapter 7, Part 3A of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

Under section 879 of the Act, the CCC was required to review the provisions.

The CCC’s review identified that although the powers are rarely used, they proved to be a useful and valuable tool to progress investigations. It has made two recommendations for consideration by government.

State of Queensland, AUS: Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission: 2024. 22p.

By Shelley S. Hyland

This report describes the purpose for developing the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD), a centralized repository of official records documenting instances of law enforcement officer misconduct as well as commendations and awards to help inform hiring, job assignment, and promotion decisions. It also provides statistics on the NLEAD’s records, the federal law enforcement officers included, and its usage. This is the first annual report, and it covers NLEAD records for events occurring in calendar years 2018 to 2023 and usage of the NLEAD from January 1, 2024 to August 31, 2024.

Launched on December 18, 2023, the NLEAD was established in accordance with Section 5 of Executive Order 14074, Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices To Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety. The Justice Management Division was given responsibility for developing and maintaining the NLEAD, and BJS was given responsibility for producing the annual report.

Highlights

● As of September 20, 2024:

○ All federal law enforcement agencies required to report to the

NLEAD (N=90) and four additional agencies voluntarily submitted records or submitted documentation that they had zero qualifying incidents for all their officers for 2018–2023.

○ There were 4,790 records of federal officer misconduct and 4,011 federal law enforcement officers in the NLEAD for 2018–2023.

● In 2018–2023, 63% (3,031) of incidents in the NLEAD were for sustained complaints or records of disciplinary action based on findings of serious misconduct.

● From January 1, 2024 to August 31, 2024, 9,985 searches were conducted on records in the NLEAD.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2024. 15p.

By Shani Buggs

This essay argues for increased recognition and support of community-based violence intervention (CVI) as an integral element of public safety strategies to reduce community violence. While the work of CVI has long been important to the communities in which they were created, the unprecedented rise in gun violence since 2020, coupled with growing recognition from community members, elected officials and law enforcement that violence reduction strategies rooted in community are necessary for community safety, make this work more vital than ever. Achieving sustained reductions in violence will require not just the incorporation of CVI into public safety plans, but also the intentional investment in an ecosystem of human capital development and community stability for the people and neighborhoods most impacted by violence.

New York: Arnold Ventures, 2022, 14p

By The Police Executive Research Forum.

This report is about two opposite but related issues: (1) the use of drones by police agencies to protect public safety and (2) the use of drones by malicious actors to commit various crimes such as acts of terrorism. Thus, the story of drones is about two radically different sides of the same coin. This report should be seen as two separate reports. The bulk of the document, chapters 1 and 2, provides guidance to police and sheriffs’ departments about how to identify the ways in which drones could facilitate their work and how to create a drone program to accomplish those goals. The remainder of the document, chapter 3, is about the malicious use of drones. As of early 2020, the United States is extremely vulnerable to drone attacks because only in late 2018 were federal law enforcement agencies given the legal authority to use the most effective types of technologies to detect and mitigate drone threats. Local police and sheriffs’ departments still are unable to purchase or use most counter-drone technologies because of concerns they might break the law when employing them and the danger of interference with air traffic in the National Airspace System. This is not merely oversight by Congress and federal agencies; there are important reasons for limiting drone detection and mitigation technologies. Careless or unskilled use of these technologies could result in disaster. For example, technologies that use radio signals to jam an incoming malicious drone or seize control of it, improperly used, might interfere with radio signals used by commercial or private airplanes or air traffic controllers. A number of federal and local law enforcement agencies have begun to explore counter-drone strategies at major events and mass gatherings such as the Super Bowl. But this work is still developing. Federal, state, and local lawmakers and government officials, including law enforcement officials, should accelerate their efforts to address these issues as soon as possible. The drone strikes against oil facilities in Saudi Arabia in September 2019, which temporarily disrupted approximately half of that kingdom’s oil production capacity, demonstrate how much harm can be done by the malicious use of drones. The United States must not wait until it suffers a drone attack to undertake large-scale efforts to develop strategies by law enforcement agencies at all levels of government for (1) identifying drone threats and (2) mitigating drone threats in real time.

The research behind this report In 2018 and 2019, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), with support from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, conducted research, disseminated a survey of law enforcement agencies, and hosted a two-day forum to discuss police use of drones and the police response to the threat of drones being used maliciously. This project consisted of three major components: (1) an informal survey of 860 law enforcement agencies nationwide; (2) interviews with more than 50 police executives and personnel in agencies that operate a drone program or have plans to implement one; and (3) a two-day national conference in which police executives, federal stakeholders, and other experts from across the country discussed and debated the considerations associated with police use of drones. The purpose of this report is to assist police agencies interested in establishing their own drone programs.1 Key findings and recommended practices This report is divided into three chapters:

1. Pre-Implementation Considerations

2. Establishing a Drone Program

3. Malicious Use of Drones

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.2020..128p.

By Kathleen Patterson, District of Columbia Auditor and PFM Group Consulting

Over 18 months, PFM collected the most reliable data available to form its conclusions. This involved benchmarking reported crime, levels and types of agency staffing, specialized functions, and unique responsibilities with six other police agencies. The PFM team also engaged with MPD and Department of Forensics Sciences (DFS) personnel, conducted numerous interviews, and led group discussions throughout MPD to ensure a comprehensive understanding of MPD operations. The PFM team included experts in police staffing and organization with substantial experience working with other departments to develop workforce strategies, improve operations and increase department efficiencies. To review the findings, please consider the context of MPD’s staffing as of October 1, 2023. At that time, MPD had 4,000 filled and vacant sworn positions. Of these: 47.3% (2,257) of the positions were allocated to Patrol Services (PS). 11.5% (547) of the positions were allocated to the Investigations Services Bureau (ISB). The remaining 41.2% (1,196) positions were allocated to other, primarily support, sections of the Department, including Professional Development (652), Homeland Security (244), Executive Office of the Chief (60), Technical and Analytical Services (19), Youth and Family Engagement (161), and Internal Affairs (60). The study’s primary focus was on patrol services and investigations, the backbone of MPD’s operations and crucial to every community. Other sections of the Department were examined primarily for the impact of their work on PS and ISB. We found that MPD data were insufficient for a robust analysis of current and historical staffing levels by bureau, division, rank, and positions. The Study concluded that the department’s Patrol Services is adequately staffed at its current level of 1,340 officers. However, it also identified ways in which patrol personnel’s current placement and shift assignments do not align with the study’s workload-based staffing model. Additionally, the study found a shortage of 65 Investigators (primarily District Detectives) based on the workload of the Investigations Bureau. Patrol Services and Investigation Services Bureau staffing and personnel placement recommendations used PFM’s workload-based staffing model, which is based on analytical methods and peer-reviewed research developed for the U.S. Department of Justice. Additional findings include: MPD urgently needs to gather more comprehensive data on how PS and ISB personnel spend their time. Better understanding time consumed by activities such as guarding arrestees and prisoners at hospitals, performing homeland security-related duties, and engaging in various proactive policing activities could significantly improve future staffing needs assessments. MPD’s proportion of professional (non-sworn) personnel is less than that of the benchmarked agencies and comparably sized agencies tracked in the FBI data tables. Better success with civilianization could free sworn personnel to do more work that explicitly requires their skills. The Department’s time and attendance system needs improved functionality to collect, monitor, and report comprehensive information to track and analyze overtime use. This information impacts the agency’s ability to make timely and thoughtful staffing decisions. MPD’s use of officers from patrol and non-patrol assignments to fulfill special details, such as large scale events and the movement of dignitaries, impedes these personnel’s ability to do their primary jobs and merits a data-based analysis of long-term Homeland Security Bureau staffing needs. A key conclusion is that staffing decisions will inevitably change as work requirements tied to Department goals and community expectations evolve. This dynamic nature of staffing decisions underscores the need for adaptability and flexibility. In responding to the draft report MPD states that in the last five years use of overtime indicated the need for “500 or more officers to meet community needs” but included no data to support that assertion. This underscores the need for accurate and comprehensive data collection to inform future studies and to more critically assess staffing adequacy, policing effectiveness, and community satisfaction. As a result, workload-based data should be regularly reviewed and incorporated into short-, medium-, and long-term strategies and staffing plans

Washington, DC:Office of the District of Columbia Auditor , 2024. 459p.

By Aaron Chalfin, Jacob Kaplan, Michael LaForest

 For more than one hundred years, street lighting has been one of the most enduring capital investments to maintain public safety. In this study, we provide a comprehensive examination of the effect of street lights on crime, by estimating the effect of nearly 300,000 street light outages in Chicago neighborhoods on crime. We find that outdoor nighttime crimes change very little on-street segments affected by street light outages, but that crime appears to spill over to nearby street segments during these outages. These findings suggest that crime may follow patterns of human activity and that the impact of localized street light outages can reverberate throughout a community. 

Working Paper,  2021.  56p. Final version is at: Journal of Quantitative Criminology 38(1):1-29

By Liam Michaud a a , b , * , Gillian Kolla c , d , Katherine Rudzinski Graduate Program in Socio-Legal Studies, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada b e , Adrian Guta

The ongoing overdose and drug toxicity crisis in North America has contributed momentum to the emergence of safer supply prescribing and programs in Canada as a means of providing an alternative to the highly volatile unregulated drug supply. The implementation and scale-up of safer supply have been met with a vocal reaction on the part of news media commentators, conservative politicians, recovery industry representatives, and some prominent addiction medicine physicians. This reaction has largely converged around several narratives, based on unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal evidence, alleging that safer supply programs are generating a "new opioid epidemic", reflecting an emerging alignment among key institutional and political actors. Employing situational analysis method, and drawing on the policy studies and social science scholarship on moral panics, this essay examines news media coverage from January to July 2023, bringing this into dialogue with other existing empirical sources on safer supply (e.g. Coroner's reports, program evaluations, debates among experts in medical journals). We employ eight previously established criteria delineating moral panics to critically appraise public dialogue regarding safer supply, diverted medication, and claims of increased youth initiation to drug use and youth overdose. In detailing the emergence of a moral panic regarding safer supply, we trace historic continuities with earlier drug scares in Canadian history mobilized as tools of racialized poverty governance, as well as previous backlashes towards healthcare interventions for people who use drugs (PWUD). The essay assesses the claims of moral entrepreneurs against the current landscape of opioid use, diversion, and overdose among youth, notes the key role played by medical expertise in this and previous moral panics, and identifies what the convergence of these narratives materialize for PWUD and healthcare access, as well as the broader policy responses such narratives activate.

International Journal of Drug Policy 127 (2024) 104423

By The Violence Policy Center

Silencers are devices that are attached to the barrel of a firearm to reduce the amount of noise generated by the firing of the weapon. By providing a larger contained space for the gases generated by the discharge of the gun’s ammunition round to dissipate and cool before escaping, silencers reduce the sound generated by the weapon’s firing. Since 1934, silencers have been regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).1 The NFA requires that transferees of silencers submit fingerprints and a photograph, pay a special tax, and undergo a background check. It also requires a “Chief Law Enforcement Officer” or CLEO to sign a statement confirming that a certifying official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant and that the certifying official has no information indicating that possession of the silencer by the applicant would be in violation of state or local law. In January 2016, however, the Obama administration finalized a new rule that eliminates the CLEO sign-off requirement and replaces it with a requirement that local law enforcement need only be notified of the transfer of a silencer Hiram Percy Maxim is credited with patenting the first silencer in 1908. But a short time later their utility in crime was demonstrated in a tragic murder-suicide on Central Park West in New York City in 1915. In the decades that followed, silencers were used by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) during World War II for clandestine missions. Silenced handguns were also used in Vietnam for multiple purposes. According to a former Special Forces NCO, military units used suppressed pistols “for all sorts of sneaky ops, from dumping guards to out and out assassinations.”2 In 1967, a new generation of silencers was developed by Mitch WerBell for Sionics, a company that specialized in counterinsurgency equipment. The acronym Sionics stood for Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter Subversion. The company supplied silencers and similar items for covert operations by military and “CIA-type” clandestine organizations.3 These next-generation silencers were more efficient than their turn-of-the century predecessors and could effectively be used on battle rifles and Carbines. Today’s military silencers are used by special operations units to reduce noise and muzzle flash. A relatively new priority for the gun lobby and firearms industry has been to expand the market for the legal use of silencers. In 42 states silencers are now legal. But the ultimate goal is to weaken federal law regulating the transfer and use of silencers. Legislation has been introduced in Congress to accomplish this goal. Misleadingly labeled the “Hearing Protection Act,” the bill would remove silencers from the list of NFAregulated firearms and accessories, making them subject only to the regulations that currently apply to hunting rifles. In their public statements, proponents of the bill would like the public and policymakers to believe that silencers are innocuous devices used merely to protect the hearing of shooters, including children. But in fact, the campaign to deregulate silencers is merely the latest attempt by the gun lobby and firearms industry, in the wake of declining household gun ownership, to market yet another military-bred product with little concern for its impact on public safety.4 In fact, because the “Hearing Protection Act” would allow silencers to be sold under the same standards as traditional hunting rifles, this would allow the gun industry to manufacture firearms with integral silencers, creating a whole new class of firearm that could be marketed to the general public. ,,,,, A ban on silencers for civilian use would enhance public safety. The explosion in the popularity of silencers has significantly increased the likelihood they will be used in crime. The advantages of using silencers, including reduced noise and increased accuracy, make them attractive to mass shooters, terrorists, and common criminals. In addition, the administrative burden placed on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives diverts resources from the agency’s more important regulatory and law enforcement responsibilities. Conversely, silencers serve no sporting purpose.

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Institute, 2019.  16p.  

By Ben Struhl, Alexander Gard-Murray

Many American communities are wrestling with how to reform their approach to public safety in the wake of police killings, particularly of Black men. There are many ideas for what the right reforms might be, ranging from minor policy tweaks to wholesale replacement of departments. To help communities as they sort through these ideas, we review real experiences with policing reform, highlighting wherever possible the best scientific evidence on the subject.  

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Crime and Justice Policy Lab, 2022. 23p.

By John S. Hollywood, Keith Gierlack, Pauline Moore, Thomas Edward Goode, Henry H. Willis, Devon Hill, Rahim Ali, Annie Brothers, Ryan Bauer, Jonathan Tran

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security requires research and development to assess methods for reducing the propensity and loss of life from attacks on soft targets and crowded places (ST-CPs). Researchers conducted a comprehensive landscape assessment of the threat to ST-CPs and corresponding security measures to identify needs for improvement, and they recommended research and investment priorities for addressing those needs. 

The number of attack plots is broadly aligned with regional population counts, except that there were more plots in New York City and Washington, D.C. The most-common motivations for ST-CP attacks have been personal, followed by terrorist and racial and ethnic extremist motivations. The ST-CP locations targeted have been diverse and often directly accessible. Education and private buildings (workplaces) are the most–frequently targeted types of ST-CPs. In general, locations in which a would-be attacker had ready access to a dense crowd on scene had the highest average lethality (close to six deaths, on average, as compared with fewer than three when there was not a dense crowd present). Not surprisingly, locations that typically have large crowds without controlled entries, such as houses of worship, shopping malls, restaurants, bars, and nightclubs, had the highest average lethality.

RAND Corporation, Mar 27, 2024, 148 pages

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

RALPH NAFER

In "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile," readers are taken on a thought-provoking journey through the intricate web of risks intertwined with the iconic American car industry. Delving deep into the history and mechanics of automobile design, this compelling book challenges conventional perceptions of safety and unveils the unsettling truths behind the glossy facades of popular car models.

With meticulous research and stark analysis, the author sheds light on the overlooked perils that lurk beneath the surface of these ubiquitous machines. From flawed engineering practices to profit-driven decision-making, "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" serves as a wake-up call for consumers and enthusiasts alike, urging them to confront the uncomfortable realities of an industry built on speed, power, and, at times, compromise.

This eye-opening exposé prompts readers to question the status quo and demand greater transparency and accountability from manufacturers. "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED" is a must-read for anyone concerned about the hidden hazards that accompany the freedom of the open road.

New York. Published by Pocket Books. 1966. 285p.

By The National Police Foundation (Canada)

In the realm of public safety, Members of the RCMP play a vital and unique role, bearing the responsibility of upholding the law, protecting communities, and ensuring the well-being of Canadians, through municipal, provincial, and federal policing. Too often, they do so at risk of their own mental health and well-being. By choosing a life dedicated to the service of others through a career in public safety, they also accept the challenges and adversities inherent to their unique line of duty. Members are confronted daily with a myriad of stressors, risks, and emotionally taxing situations unique to their career which invariably take a toll on their psychological well-being. The very nature of their profession exposes them to violence, trauma, high-pressure situations, and a relentless demand for vigilance. This is compounded by organizational and operational stressors, mental health stigmatization, and a lack of comprehensive and accessible mental health services and supports. Over time, these factors have been shown to accumulate and lead to an array of mental health challenges, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and a heightened risk of suicidal behavior. Understanding the mental health challenges faced by Members is a crucial step toward caring for Members and enhancing the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the RCMP. By recognizing and addressing these challenges, we can work towards more resilient, healthier, and better equipped Members who can continue to serve and protect Canadian communities safely and effectively. The National Police Federation (NPF) has demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting the mental health and wellbeing of Members of the RCMP. Recognizing the unique challenges and stressors faced by our Members, the NPF has actively engaged in partnerships to research and address mental health issues within the RCMP. Most recently, the NPF in partnership with the University of Regina and the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment (CIPSRT), funded a survey of serving Members across Canada. The NPF would like to thank all Members who took the significant time and commitment to participate in this survey. Some of the questions were potentially traumatic and tough, but by providing their voice, Members are helping make a difference for current and future Members.

Ottawa: National Police Federation, 2024.26p.

By: Kesha Moore, Ryan Tom, Jackie O’Neil

Promoting public safety is serious business and requires precise, thoughtful analysis, not distortions designed to evoke fear and anger.

We model the contextual analysis of crime data needed to guide an effective approach to improving public safety.

Unsubstantiated crime narratives prevent us from understanding the factors contributing to recent increases in violent crime and undermine our investments in evidence-based solutions. Misdiagnosing the causes of crime compromises public safety, similar to when a doctor misdiagnoses you with the wrong ailment and subsequently prescribes medication that fails to address your underlying issues while exacerbating your condition.

Politicians have lobbed disparaging attacks against criminal justice reforms despite contradictory evidence. Public officials, regardless of party affiliation, create fear-mongering narratives about why crimes are happening to convince the public that their strategy is correct. Whether it is Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) incorrectly arguing that crime would increase without aggressive prosecutors and increased police funding, or New York City’s Democratic Mayor, Eric Adams, blaming the city’s bail reforms for increases in crime, public actors disparage criminal justice reforms based on false and inaccurate premises. These political actors engage in this rhetoric despite research studies proving their assertions are flatly wrong. This rhetoric leads to harmful and counterproductive policies that aim to increase policing and incarceration, which particularly harm Black people. Unfortunately, the pattern of peddling harmful “tough-on-crime” narratives is not new, but a cyclical component of U.S. history.

Promoting public safety is serious business that requires precise, thoughtful analysis, not distortions designed to evoke fear and anger. Crime is a complex and varied phenomenon, and solutions to address crime must be grounded in data, equity, and fairness. The need for accurate assessments is critical, lest false narratives and distorted data contribute to the harming of communities by law enforcement, just as they did in the War on Drugs. Here, we examine three false narratives presented by politicians and the media to explain the recent increase in homicides nationwide: the expansion of bail reform, practices of progressive prosecutors, and calls to defund the police. Our analysis reveals that the empirical data contradicts these narratives. Our data substantiates other reasons for a spike in homicide rates: pandemic-induced instability and econmic inequality.

Washington, DC: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 2020. 41p.

By Felipe Gonçalves, Elisa Jácome, and Emily Weisburst

How does immigration enforcement affect public safety? Heightened enforcement could reduce crime by deterring and incapacitating immigrant offenders or, alternatively, increase crime by discouraging victims from reporting offenses. The researchers study the U.S. Secure Communities program, which expanded interior enforcement against unauthorized immigrants. Using national survey data, they find that the program reduced the likelihood that Hispanic victims reported crimes to police and increased the victimization of Hispanics. Total reported crimes are unchanged, masking these opposing effects. The researchers provide evidence that reduced Hispanic reporting is the key driver of increased victimization. Their findings underscore the importance of trust in institutions as a central determinant of public safety.

Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research,  Northwestern University, 2024. 95p.

By Jesse Jannetta, Sino Esthappan, Jocelyn Fontaine, Mathew Lynch , and Nancy G. LaVigne

Many communities throughout the United States that face high levels of crime and concentrated disadvantage—particularly communities of color—also struggle with high levels of mistrust in the police and strained police-community relations. Recognizing that a lack of legitimacy and community trust in policing was a serious and persistent problem with deep historical roots, and that addressing that problem required a wellresourced, multidimensional approach combining proven practices with new tools and approaches, the US Department of Justice launched the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice. Led by John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s National Network for Safe Communities (NNSC), and in partnership with the Center for Policing Equity (CPE), Yale Law School (YLS), and the Urban Institute, the National Initiative for Building Community Trust and Justice (National Initiative) brought together practitioners and researchers to deliver a suite of interventions focused on law enforcement and community members in six cities: Birmingham, Alabama; Fort Worth, Texas; Gary, Indiana; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Stockton, California. Core National Initiative interventions included (1) training and technical assistance for police officers on engaging with residents in a procedurally just manner, (2) trainings that encouraged officers to understand and mitigate implicit biases, (3) developing model police department policies and identifying key changes to extant policies, and (4) reconciliation discussions, during which police officers and community members had authentic conversations to acknowledge historic tensions, harms, and misconceptions and to repair relationships. The Urban Institute evaluated the National Initiative’s implementation and impact to inform potential replications and/or modifications of the initiative’s components, and to guide future research on police efforts to build community trust. The evaluation focuses on National Initiative activities occurring from January 2015 through December 2018. Researchers collected the following qualitative and quantitative data to support the evaluation: ◼ monthly teleconferences among members of the National Initiative implementation team that included partners from CPE, NNSC, and YLS ◼ publicly available information and media coverage of the National Initiative and issues pertaining to police-community relations in the pilot sites ◼ fieldwork that included observations of National Initiative activities and interactions between National Initiative partners and site stakeholders ◼ routine teleconferences with site coordinators, police chiefs, and other stakeholders ◼ documents provided by the sites and National Initiative partners ◼ semistructured interviews with police and community stakeholders in each site ◼ learning assessment surveys of officers receiving National Initiative trainings in each site ◼ surveys of residents in areas with high levels of concentrated crime and poverty/disadvantage in each site The implementation evaluation focused specifically on the successes and challenges of the collaboration among the National Initiative partners, participating police departments, and communities.

Washington, Urban Institute, 2019. 112p.