Managing criminal justice organizations

Body Armor Policy

Rational for the Implementation of a Policy to Require the Use of Body Armor

The use of weapons of all types by those with criminal intent, particularly hand guns, pose, a constant threat to police officers. Since the death of U.S. Marshall Robert Forsyth more than 200 years ago more than 14,000 officers have fallen in the line of duty. Whether officers are responding to an armed robbery, a domestic quarrel, or a routine traffic stop an unexpected armed confrontation can occur. At times like these, an officer needs the protection provided by body armor. Those who forsake the protection of armor continually expose themselves to unnecessary pain and suffering, or even death. They also fail to consider the potential impact of their actions on their families. Case studies and statistics also support the importance of the routine use of body armor. The risk of sustaining a fatal injury for officers who do not routinely wear body armor is 14 times greater than for officers who do. This information alone should be sufficient to persuade even the least cautious individual about the benefits of the routine use of body armor. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) believes that it is in the best interest of all police departments to promote the full-time use of body armor. Aside from armor sparing officers and their families' pain and suffering, the economic impact on a department when an officer is killed in the line of duty is staggering (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998).

Concerns

While 99% of law enforcement agencies responding to a recent Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) survey indicated that their officers currently are provided body armor, only 59% of these agencies indicated that they require their officers to wear body armor at least some of the time. Less than half of the agencies that mandate body armor be worn have a written policy on this issue in place, making enforcement of the policy more complex. Most agencies use body armor that protects officers against 9mm and .40 caliber bullets. This armor does not protect against rifle or armor-piercing bullets. Only 29% of the agencies surveyed issue supplementary trauma plates to officers for added protection of the torso, the most vulnerable part of the body (Police Executive Research Forum, 2009).

While almost all agencies do provide fiscal support/resources to ensure their officers wear body armor, most agencies do not have stringent fit and maintenance policies. 12% of the departments reported their officers are not fitted for body armor, other than receiving a size that approximates their body size. Given the importance of fit to the proper functioning of body armor, this percentage is of some concern. 90% of the reporting agencies do not conduct inspections to ensure that officers' body armor fits well and/or is maintained properly. Of the few agencies that do conduct these inspections, most frequently, inspections for fit are conducted only once a year or less. 78% of law enforcement agencies surveyed do not have a database or automated record system for a body armor replacement schedule and nearly one-quarter of agencies have no policy concerning replacement of body armor so it's difficult to ascertain how often they actually replace their armor (Police Executive Research Forum, 2009).

Discussion

Zakhary and Carnes (2007) report gaining acceptance of concealable body armor has been difficult. Originally vests were expensive, and officers complained that they were by and large uncomfortable, hot to wear in warm climates, and limited flexibility. Most of these issues have been mitigated to some extent.