Skip navigation

2005 Survey of Post-Agencies Regarding Certification Practices, Franklin, 2005

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
2005-DD-BX-1119
POLICE OFFICER CERTIFICATION REVOCATION INFORMATION SHARING:
NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DECERTIFICATION DATABASE

2005 SURVEY OF POST AGENCIES REGARDING
CERTIFICATION PRACTICES
Raymond A. Franklin

NOVEMBER, 2005

Performing Organization:
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement
Standards and Training (IADLEST)
6852 4th Street
Sykesville, Maryland 21784

Sponsoring Organization:
U.S. Department of Justice – Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Assistance
810 7th Street NW
Washington, DC 20531

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 2
CERTIFICATION, REVOCATION AND INFORMATION SHARING ....... 3
SURVEY METHODOLOGY ............................................................. 5
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................. 6
SURVEY RESULTS BY QUESTION .................................................. 8
SURVEY RESULTS BY STATE ...................................................... 12
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 33
APPENDICES ............................................................................... 35
APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER
APPENDIX B – SURVEY DISTRIBUTION LIST

1

INTRODUCTION
The 2005 Survey of POST Agencies Regarding Certification Practices was conducted as
part of the USDOJ funded, Police Officer Certification Revocation Information Sharing:
National Public Safety Officer Decertification Database project of the International Association
of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST). The purpose of the
project is to reduce interstate itinerancy of peace officers that were decertified for cause, that is
misconduct, either criminally adjudicated or administratively sanctioned. The project proposes
the facilitation of interstate access to information retained by peace officer standards and training
(POST) agencies within the United States.
An important part of the project effort is the establishment of current information
regarding state practices related to the certification of law enforcement officers, state methods of
information management, and existing impediments to the sharing of revocation action related
information. Other project activities include the convening of a national symposium and
development and operation of a pilot interstate database system.
This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-DD-BX-1119 awarded by the Bureau of
Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice,
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent the
official position or policies of the United States Department of Justice.

2

CERTIFICATION, REVOCATION AND INFORMATION SHARING
Certification is the process by which law enforcement officers are licensed in their
respective jurisdictions, establishing the satisfaction of both selection, training and continuing
performance standards. While most states currently provide such a system of licensure, no
comprehensive, national study has yet been performed of these processes.
Decertification is the loss of such certification for a variety of reasons, varying among the
several states. Revocation, or decertification for cause is generally understood to mean the loss
due to misconduct, through action of a state POST Board or Commission. Again, no
comprehensive survey of authority and practice in this regard has ever been performed.
POST agencies, in the furtherance of these tasks, maintain record keeping systems. A
variety of means have been devised, ranging from manual cards to elaborate, commercially
available electronic database management systems. Regardless of the method employed, POST
agencies generally do an adequate job of identifying prior loss of certification and thus prevent
in-state rehire of problem officers. Unfortunately, no formal system has existed for the
automated interchange of such information among the states, thus preventing rehire in another
state. This informational shortcoming has long been recognized and several solution
methodologies have been proposed. IADLEST has taken a leading role with the
establishment of its Peace Officer Registry Committee with responsibility to develop a
nationally accessible database to serve as a clearinghouse for persons decertified as law
enforcement officers for cause.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The Law Enforcement and Correctional Officers Employment Registration Act of 1996
proposed a comprehensive national registry for all police officers. Introduced in the 104th
Congress as S. 492 by Sen. Bob Graham (D. Fl). and H.R. 3263 by Rep. Harry Johnson
(D. Fl) the bill enjoyed the endorsement of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement
(FDLE) and IACP, however was never reported out of committee. In spite of this failure, FDLE
initiated a National Officer Clearinghouse pilot program. Promoted as a voluntary and nonintrusive pointer system, it attracted some interest and participation before being terminated in
2000 in the light of a newly unveiled IADLEST effort. In June of 1999, the database contained
some 129,224 records.
An IADLEST sponsored pilot effort commenced in July of 1999, under the auspices of
Peace Officer Registry Committee of the Association and within the scope of the POSTNet
Information Access and Exchange System, a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
Department of Justice - Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS).
Designed as a decertification pointer system, operation commenced in February of 2000.
In early 2000, the DOJ Office of Justice Programs expressed interest in supporting the
development of a comprehensive, fully operational, national certification data repository.
IADLEST responded with a grant application, largely organized by the Idaho Peace
Officer Standards and Training Council. It was subsequently disapproved.

3

While COPS Office funding of the IADLEST POST-Net Information System effort was
renewed in 2002, the new cooperative agreement specifically excluded continued
operation and development of the National Decertification Database component. COPS
cited unspecified legal concerns as the reason for the decision. IADLEST has
independently continued the NDD pilot effort, although additional development has been
significantly limited.
In 2004, the Bureau of Justice Assistance expressed interest in supporting the study of
existing certification information management practices, issues of data sharing and
management, and further development of the pilot system. IADLEST responded with a
comprehensive grant application. On September 16, 2005, the Office of Justice Assistance of the
US Department of Justice approved the current grant. Based on a series of pre-approval cost
letters, allowing the commencement of project operations, the survey was conducted.

4

SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The present survey included all U.S. peace officer standards and training (POST)
agencies. Currently, all states with the exception of Hawaii maintain POST commissions, boards
or equivalent entities. The Honolulu Police Department, the largest law enforcement entity in
that state, provided a survey response. Additionally, the District of Columbia Police Training
and Standards Board was surveyed. The paper based survey was sent to each POST director for
completion. The survey distribution list is attached as Appendix B. A preliminary review of
submitted data was conducted and follow up contact with respondents provided for clarification
of responses.
Quantification of data utilized both commercial survey management data processing
applications and manual calculation methods.

5

KEY FINDINGS
CERTIFICATION AND REVOCATION AUTHORITY AND ACTIVITY
46 POST entities reported having the authority to certify or license law enforcement
officers. All except the Rhode Island Municipal Police Training Academy and the Vermont
Criminal Justice Training Council reported the ability to revoke that license. The most common
basis for revocation was felony conviction. 29 entities also reported the authority to revoke for
conviction of certain misdemeanors. 24 reporting agencies reported the ability to
administratively revoke a certificate for misconduct. Notably, six respondents reported the
ability to revoke for the conviction of any misdemeanor offense. 33 states also reported the
authority to temporarily suspend a certificate. All POST agencies, with the exception of the
Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, reported the affording of due process
through hearing or appeal.
According to the 2000 IADLEST Sourcebook, a periodic study of POST agency data, 43
of the current POST agencies were established between 1959 and 1976. Rarely, has revocation
authority existed from POST inception. Approximately half of all POSTs with revocation
authority gained it in the 1970s, with inception ranging from 1967 to 2005.
A bare majority (26) of respondents reported the exception of certain personnel from the
state certification process. Often elected sheriffs, other less common exceptions include chiefs
of police, state police and reserve officers.
Two respondents, the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards
Commission and the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, reported that
another state agency had authority to certify and decertify certain classes of law enforcement
officers, the North Carolina Sheriffs Education and Training Standards Commission and the
Illinois State Police, respectively.
Many of the agencies surveyed reported the authority to certify other public safety
personnel. 19 retain the authority to certify correctional officers, 21 certify parole/probation
personnel and eleven certify dispatchers or police communications personnel.
Since the inception of revocation authority, over 19,000 law enforcement officers had
their certificates revoked for misconduct by U.S. POST agencies. In 2004 alone, over 2000
officers were revoked for cause. This is generally consistent with the figure of 1,810 law
enforcement officers reported to have had sanctions imposed in 1999, reported in the previously
referenced 2000 IADLEST Sourcebook.
Over 13,000 of the identified revocations were conducted in California, Florida and
Georgia. All other states provided approximately 6,000 actions.

6

CERTIFICATION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
A small majority (53 percent) reported use of an agency developed data management
system to support the certification function. 17 percent reported use of a commercial automated
process, prevalently the Skills Manager Personal Computer application marketed by Crown
Pointe Software. Ten percent reported the use of a manual card based system. Only the
Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy and the Mississippi Peace Officer Standards and
Training Board reported use of a card based system to the exclusion of a secondary automated
data processing system.
Fully 29 POSTs reported use of Social Security Number or modification thereof as a
certification identifier, although eight of that number used a non-SSN identifier also.
44 respondents reported retention of records of denial of initial certification.
The vast majority of respondents with certification authority reported indefinite record
retention requirements.

REVOCATION INFORMATION SHARING
Of those agencies with revocation authority, only three, the Kansas Law Enforcement
Training Center, the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training and the
Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission reported a legislative proscription to
the sharing of revocation information. Additionally, the California Commission of Peace Officer
Standards and Training, the Delaware Council on Police Training and the Indiana Law
Enforcement Academy responded that the information was unknown. In addition, the Colorado
Peace Officer Standards and Training Board did not respond to this question. Interestingly, the
Colorado POST Board, the Delaware Council, the Indiana Academy and the Kansas Training
Center reported the publication of revocation actions. As such, a limitation on the inclusion of
revocation actions in a central repository may only exist in three currently authorized
decertifying agencies.
17 POST agencies reported current data entry participation in the current pilot database.
Currently the database reflects participation of 19 state agencies. Immediately subsequent to the
survey Maryland joined the system. Florida, historically a major data contributor to the system,
has suspended data entry citing compatibility issues.
A variety of reasons for not participating were cited and are reproduced in the tabulation
below. Several agencies reported current interest or action toward participation. Notably, all
responding entities expressed willingness to consider participation.
Remarkably, only seven POST agencies reported routine query of the existing database
system, significantly lower than the rate of data contribution. Eleven agencies reported
occasional query of the system, with 29 reporting never having queried the system.

7

SURVEY RESULTS – BY QUESTION
Section A – Certification and Revocation Authority and Activity
1. Does your agency certify law enforcement officers?
Choice
Count

Percent

Yes

46

90.20%

No

5

9.80%

2. Does your agency have the authority to revoke certification for cause?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

44

86.27%

No

6

11.76%

No Comment

1

1.96%

3. What are the bases for revocation? Please check all that apply.
Choice

Count

Percent

Felony Conviction

43

84.31%

Misdemeanor Conviction (any)

6

11.76%

Misdemeanor Conviction (certain)

29

56.86%

Administratively for misconduct

24

47.06%

Failure to meet training/qualification requirements

29

56.86%

Termination of employment

14

27.45%

Other

16

31.37%

Questions 4 – 6 are open ended and therefore not quantified.

7. Are revoked officers afforded due process through hearing or appeal?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

43

84.31%

No

1

1.96%

No Comment

7

13.73%

8

8. Can your agency temporarily suspend certification?
Choice
Count

Percent

Yes

33

64.71%

No

14

27.45%

No Comment

4

7.84%

9. Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements, e.g.
Chiefs, Sheriffs, State Patrol?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes (Identify below)

26

50.98%

No

20

39.22%

No Comment

5

9.80%

10. Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes (Explain below)

2

3.92%

No

45

88.24%

No Comment

4

7.84%

11. Does your agency also certify:
Choice

Count

Percent

Correctional Officers

19

37.25%

Parole/Probation Officers

21

41.18%

Private Security Officers

4

7.84%

Communications Personnel/Dispatchers

11

21.57%

Other

10

19.61%

Section B – Certification Information Management
1. What methods do you use to manage the certification/revocation function? Please check
all that apply.
Choice
Count Percent
Card based manual system

5

9.80%

Agency developed electronic data management system

27

52.94%

Commercial electronic data management system

17

33.33%

Other

5

9.80%

9

2. Certification records are numbered using:
Choice

Count

Percent

Social Security Number (SSN)

28

54.90%

A variation or modification of SSN

1

1.96%

A non-SSN related number

23

45.10%

3. How long are records maintained?
Choice

Count

Percent

Indefinitely

42

82.35%

Other

3

5.88%

No Comment

6

11.76%

4. Does your agency issue wallet cards or other pocket proof of certification for officers?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

17

33.33%

No

30

58.82%

No Comment

4

7.84%

5. Does your agency maintain records of denial of initial certification?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

40

78.43%

No

4

7.84%

No Comment

7

13.73%

Section C – Revocation Information Sharing
1. Is your agency legislatively proscribed form sharing revocation information?
Choice
Count
Percent
No

38

74.51%

Yes

3

5.88%

Unknown

3

5.88%

No Comment

7

13.73%

10

2. Does your agency publish revocation actions?
Choice
Count

Percent

Yes

22

43.14%

No

23

45.10%

No Comment

6

11.76%

3. Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification Database
(NDD)?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

17

33.33%

No

28

54.90%

No Comment

6

11.76%

Question 4 is open ended and therefore not quantified.

5. Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database?
Choice
Count
Percent
Routinely

7

13.73%

Occasionally

11

21.57%

Never

29

56.86%

No Comment

4

7.84%

6. Would you consider participation in an improved national revocation database?

Choice

Count

Percent

Yes

45

88.24%

No

0

0%

No Comment

6

11.76%

7. In your personal opinion, should query access to the database be made available to law
enforcement hiring entities?
Choice
Count
Percent
Yes

44

86.27%

No

3

5.88%

No Comment

4

17.84%

11

SURVEY RESULTS – BY STATE
Question A – 2: Does your agency have the
authority to revoke certification for cause?

Question A – 1: Does your agency certify
law enforcement officers?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

12

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Question A – 3: What are the bases of revocation? Check all that apply.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Felony
Conviction
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Any
Misdemeanor
Conviction
Yes

Certain
Failure to meet
Termination of
Misdemeanor Administratively
training
Convictions for misconduct requirements employment
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

13

Yes
Yes

Yes

Question A – 3: Continued
Other
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusett
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Yes
Yes

see attachment Ed. Note: Specifies felonies and misdemeanors.
Fraudulant application, not guilty verdict based on mental capacity

Yes
Yes

Not being able to possess firearm by federal law
Restriction of right to bear arms

Yes

Misrepresentation or Fraud during application for certification

Yes

Violate our order of probation. Violate any of our administrative rules. Mental condition
including alcohol or substance abuse

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Yes
New
Yes
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North
North Dakota
Ohio
Yes
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Explain

Gross misdemeanors and falsification of information to obtain certificate
Resignation in lieu of termination.

Misdemeanor: If charged with a felony, but pleads guilty to a misdemeanor pursuant to a
negotiated plea agreement in which the person agrees to surrender the certificate.

Yes

Violation of moral fitness standard, falsification

Yes

Good character issues

Yes
Yes

Cancellation of license(s), permanent/term voluntary surrender of license(s).
Misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence

Yes
Yes

Must be requested by the chief or sheriff to de-certify or both
Failure to complete basic training, equivalency basic requirements of certification

Yes

For any reason including retirement.

13

Question A – 4: In what year did your agency gain the authority to revoke certification?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

1971 - Any felony conviction is a bar
8/10/1973
1968
1975
About 1973-1975
Felonies- always (1974), Certain Misdemeanors since July 1, 2001
1982
Since the Council on Police Training (COPT) inception Ed. Note: 1969
Approx. 1974
1970
1974
August 13, 1999 Public Act 91-495
this year
1986
1982 (But only actively pursued since 1998 when full time investigator hired)
1998
1976
1984
1966
N/A
1998
1978
1981 - enabling legislation
1992
1994
Approximately 1991, actions didn't start until 1996
1967
1985
N/A
1978
1972
1989
1997
1988
1969
1974
N/A
1976
1975
1982
9/1/1969
1977

2002
Unknown
1990
Always for Felony Conviction / 1991 for other than Felony

14

Question A – 5: How many officers have had certification revoked since authority was granted?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

72 since 1995 (no records prior to 1995)
38
656
59
5000 +/88
26
Unknown-records do not extend that far
Stats are not available – avg. approx. 260/yr.
Since 1974. Ed Note: Current NDD submissions
exceed 4,100.
4,377
75
86
0
39
49
3
Unknown
109
1
N/A
72
91
45
263 including 27 permanent surrenders
68 revoked or suspended
26
data unavailable at this time
189
N/A
85

25
145
74
over 200
exact number unknown
N/A
not tracked
Unknown
UNK- records were not kept
Information not available.
312
approximately 15
37
Unknown
126
54

15

Question A – 6: How many officers had their certification revoked in 2004?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

4
2
45
6
0
16
2
2
257
540- revoked, 30-surrenders
16
17
0
1
4
None
2
9
0
N/A
Eight
3
4
28 including 14 permanent surrenders
19 revoked or suspended
1 in 2004, 3 in 2005 to date
4
20
N/A
9
123 suspended (indefinitely or not less than 5 years) or revoked
2
21
Six
62
One
N/A
14
7
49 decertified, 18 suspended
49 revocations, 20 cancellations, 39 permanent surrenders - 108 total
17
One
12
5 in the year 2005
8
3

16

Question A – 8: Can your agency temporarily
suspend certification?

Question A – 7: Are revoked officers afforded
due process through hearing or appeal?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

17

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Question A – 9: Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Georgia
Hawaii

No

Idaho

Yes

Illinois
Yes
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

Denver city and county sheriff deputies
State Police, Marshall's, State's Attorney Inspectors

Only sheriffs have enforcement authority and are exempt by the Florida
constitution; Chiefs are not required to be certified but have no enforcement
authority if not certified

Any elected official (sheriff), deputies serving civil process, director of Idaho
state police, parking or animal control officers
Illinois State Police - Has own merit board. Sheriff's - are elected officials - not
required to have basic training – However, most have a corrections or law
enforcement background.

Sheriffs are not required to be certified, but may choose to do so
Chiefs and Sheriffs
Heads of Law Enforcement Agencies, Deputy Head of Agency (eg Deputy
Sheriff, Deputy Chief)
N/A
Elected Sheriffs
Sheriffs, elected chiefs, constables
Sheriffs

Sheriffs

Yes
No

Sheriffs of North Carolina's 100 counties

No
Yes
Yes
Yes

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Sheriffs- only the elected sheriff, all deputies must be certified
Sheriffs

Yes

Yes
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

Elected officials are exempt, appointed members of the Governor's cabinet

Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No

Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper's certification and training is conducted by
the Superintendent with approval of the director of public safety. Chiefs of
Police who do not function as peace officers.
Reserve officers
State Police, Sheriffs, Park Rangers
Providence P.D. has their own Police Academy and specific certificate. R.I.
State Police has their own Police Academy and specific certificate. R.I.
Sheriffs (Court Security mostly) – they also train their own.
Sheriffs
State officers

Training requirements are "optional" for elected officials.

Heads of Law Enforcement Agencies
Elected Officers (Sheriffs and Constables)

18

Question A – 10: Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Illinois State Police - Has own merit board

No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

N.C. Sheriff's Education and Training Standards Commission

19

Question A – 11: Does your agency also certify:
Correctional
Officers
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina

North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

Parole/
Private
Communications
Probation Security Personnel/ Dispatch Other

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Juvenile Corrections : Jailors

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Juvenile detention, Juvenile Probation Officers

Yes

Parole/Probation officers with sworn status

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Harbor Masters, Court Security Officers, Capitol
Security, Shellfish Wardens
Juvenile Justice Personnel
Yes

Private Security Officers with arrest authority only

Yes

Yes

Local jail officers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Juvenile Probation, Livestock Brand Inspectors,
Detention Officers, Motor Carrier Services Officers

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Juvenile Justice Officers, Local Confinement Personnel
(local jailors). (Sheriff's Commission certifies
communications personnel)
Yes

Canine, Bailiff, Jailers

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Canine Handling

Yes
Yes

Private security is in a different section of the agency
which does licensing of companies and registering of
personnel

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Yes

Yes

Wyoming

20

Local Jail/Secure (Juvenile) Detention Officers
Detention Officers (County Jails), Coroners and
Deputies

Question A – 12: Additional information or comments:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York

North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

AZ Post approves correctional officer employment standards and basic curriculum, but does not "certify" correctional officers
Since 1-1-04, we may not revoke/cancel certification. We may only annotate the record in our database "not eligible to be a
peace officer in CA" and so inform the employing agency. This is the result of a change in the law.

Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board certifies the following : Law Enforcement Officers - Full time and
Part time, County Correctional Officers - Full time, Court Security Officers

MCOLES has had discussions with stateholder groups regarding expanding revocation to certain misdemeanors - no action
at this time.

New Jersey requires compulsory training of law enforcement officers, which results in the issuance of a certification of
training. We do not have the more comprehensive licensure requirement which includes certification and decertification.
The state of New York does not license police officers or peace officers. State law does require successful completion or
basic training for police and peace officers. State law also requires each police and peace officer to be registered with the
DCJS. Officer discipline is handled by the employing agency.

Rhode Island Department of Corrections does it's own training.

All requests for de-certification must originate with the chief of police, sheriff, or regional jail administrator. We have no
authority to initiate any such request on our own.

Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

21

Question B – 1: What methods do you use to manage the certification/ revocation function?

Card based
manual
system
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania

Commercial
electronic data
management
system

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Crown Pointe Software

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Case File
Yes

Crown Pointe and Skills Management

Yes
Yes

Skills Manager (Ed. Note: Crown Pointe)
Created in-house in filemaker

Yes
Yes

None at this point
Pathlore Learning Management System
Crown Pointe "Skills Master"

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Northup Grumman (Michigan Information and Tracking
Network)

Yes

Crown Pointe

Yes
Yes

Skills Manager and Crown Pointe Technologies
Ingenium - CLICK2LEARN.COM

Yes

Skills Manager - Crown Pointe

Yes

Microsoft Access
Independent vendor developed electronic data
management system
Certificate issued to graduates (copies kept on file)
Law Enforcement Training System (LETS), Logicalis Division of Data Tech. - Washington State

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Agency
Developed
electronic data
management
system

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Crown Pointe/Training Manager
Crown Pointe

Yes

Skills Manager by Crown Pointe Technologies.

Yes
Yes
Yes

22

Question B – 2: Certification records are numbered using:
SSN
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Modified SSN

Non-SSN
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

23

Question B – 3: How long are records maintained?
Alabama

Indefinitely

Alaska

Indefinitely

Arizona

Indefinitely

Arkansas

Indefinitely

California

Indefinitely

Colorado
Connecticut

Indefinitely

Delaware

Indefinitely

District of Columbia
Florida

Indefinitely

Georgia

Indefinitely

Hawaii
Idaho

Indefinitely

Illinois

Indefinitely

Indiana

Indefinitely

Iowa

Indefinitely

Kansas

Indefinitely

Kentucky

Indefinitely

Louisiana

Indefinitely

Maine

Indefinitely

Maryland

Indefinitely

Massachusetts
Michigan

Indefinitely

Minnesota

Indefinitely

Mississippi

Indefinitely

Missouri

Indefinitely

Montana

Indefinitely

Nebraska

Indefinitely

Nevada

Indefinitely

New Hampshire

Indefinitely

New Jersey
New Mexico

Indefinitely

New York

Indefinitely

North Carolina

Maintain for 5 years from date of separation, then sent to Archives; decertified
officer's records are kept indefinitely

North Dakota

Indefinitely

Ohio

Indefinitely

Oklahoma

Indefinitely

Oregon

75 years for officer files

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina

40 years by Rhode Island law
Indefinitely

South Dakota

Indefinitely

Tennessee

Indefinitely

Texas

Indefinitely

Utah

Indefinitely

Vermont

Indefinitely

Virginia

Indefinitely

Washington

Indefinitely

West Virginia

Indefinitely

Wisconsin

Indefinitely

Wyoming

Indefinitely

Electronic records maintained for length of officers career - life. Most routine
paper records are returned to department

24

Question B - 5: Does your agency maintain
records of denial of initial certification?

Question B – 4: Does your agency issue
wallet cards or other pocket proof of
certification?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No

25

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Question B – 6: Additional information or comments:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

If the officer fails the Basic exam these records are maintained indefinitely.

Our Information System has the ability to issue wallet cards. We currently issue
Basic Training Certificates as licenses. Statute requires the return of the
certificate upon demand.

Under # 4, wall diplomas are issued

Cannot deny initial certification as long as requirements of law are met.

Certification records are available at www.wilenet.org (A secure web site)

26

Question C – 1: Is your agency legislatively
proscribed from sharing revocation
information?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Question C – 2: Does your agency publish
revocation actions?

No
No
No
No
Unknown

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No
Unknown
No
No
No
No
Unknown
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No

27

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No

Question C – 3: Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification
Database (NDD)?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No

28

Question C – 4: If your agency does NOT contribute to the IADLEST NDD, please state the reason.
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

We are checking on how to start this now

Legal advice (being reviewed again now) is such that disclosure violates CA peace officer
confidentiality laws.
We were told to wait by IADLEST
Unaware of the database. Never proposed.
Initially provided information, but compatibility issues arose & no more has been provided
We have never been asked to contribute. Approximately 7 years ago we shared info about our
data but that was it.

Participation if optional

Moving in that direction.
Not a good reason - been too busy doing other things - poor excuse!
Haven't been asked / didn't know
Unsure of the process. Concern about the current system.
Insufficient records, MD "non-certification" upon termination of employment may confuse
database
We are interested and considering participating
The issue is on the agenda for the July 2005 POST board meeting
Working on web based system; state law allows revoked officer a new hearing after 2 years.

I plan to look into contributing to NDD in near future.

Council recommendation.

Choice and preference of legal counsel and administrative leadership

Use of previous member identification and password not available.
Because we can't currently decertify-we are working to get rules in place to allow same!
The individuals have been imprisoned and unavailable for any employment.
Legislative prohibition
Database info could easily be confused with decertification for other reasons. (Beyond
Wisconsin decertification)
Final clearance not gained - working on it.

29

Question C – 5: Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Never
Never
Never
Routinely
Never
Occasionally
Never
Never
Never
Never
Routinely
Never
Occasionally
Occasionally
Never
Never
Never
Never
Never
Never
Occasionally
Never
Routinely
Occasionally
Routinely
Occasionally
Occasionally
Occasionally
Never
Occasionally
Routinely
Never
Never
Routinely
Never
Never
Never
Routinely
Never
Occasionally
Never
Never
Never
Never
Never
Occasionally
Never

Question C – 7: In your personal opinion,
should query access to the database be
made available to law enforcement hiring
entities?

Question C – 6: Would you consider
participation in an improved national
revocation database?
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

31

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Question C – 8: Additional information or comments:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Most agencies work out "deals" with officers to just go away. Consequently a database is
only going to be of minimal use.
Have not yet queried the database, we will in the future

FDLE does not query the database because in FL the local agencies are responsible for
their own backgrounds. That is why we need #7 above.
Should only be available to state certifying entity

Access to database that does not require full IADLEST membership fees and annually
renewed

It may be beneficial to require a query of the NDD as part of the background process

Rhode Island is still in the dark ages!

Although Washington State would like to participate, we are still working to resolve legal
issues regarding the privacy of decertification files.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The incident survey provided a comprehensive view of current certification and
revocation practices. Based on the survey data, several important insights have been gained. The
following conclusions and recommendations are offered in furtherance of additional research,
development and operational enhancement.

CONCLUSIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Most states have the authority to both certify and decertify for cause law
enforcement officers and other criminal justice personnel.
A significant number of POST agencies additionally certify other public safety
personnel.
A significant population of officers sanctioned for misconduct exists and
continues to expand.
Basis for revocation varies greatly among the states.
Use of the revocation sanction varies greatly by state.
POST agencies generally believe that due process is afforded in the revocation
process.
In most cases, POST agencies are generally not prohibited from sharing
revocation information.
POST agencies often certify additional, non-police personnel.
Disparate information management systems are utilized by U.S. POST agencies.
Generally, responding POST personnel do not oppose the availability of
database information by law enforcement hiring entities.

RECOMMENDATIONS
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Reporting of revocation actions to the NDD should be contingent upon the
availability of due process.
The NDD should consider inclusion of records of initial denial of certification as
well as those of temporary suspension. In addition, consideration should be
given to the inclusion of decertified, non-police personnel such as correctional
officers and parole/probation agents.
The NDD should either provide a minimum detail of the basis of the revocation
action specifying felony conviction, misdemeanor commission, etc., or include
an effective disclaimer regarding variability of possible basis of action.
NDD query results should clearly establish the exclusion of certain personnel
from the state certification and thus revocation sanction.
Secondary use of Social Security Numbers should be maintained by all POST
agencies to assist in identification of prior certification.
Given the large number of revocation actions by certain states, a method of bulk
data entry should be provided. Alternatively, state controlled linking of existing
state databases with the central index should be considered.
A standards based data management model should be proposed for use by POST
agencies. Establishment of a web based XML conformance plan would simplify
data entry, data communications and query operations.
33

•
•

All POST agencies should routinely query the NDD prior to certification as a
law enforcement officer.
Query access by law enforcement hiring entities, such as police departments,
should be considered.

34

APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND COVER LETTER

International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training
(IADLEST)

Police Officer Certification Revocation Information Sharing
National Public Safety Officer Decertification Database

2005 Survey of POST Agencies
June 1, 2005
Dear POST Director,
I am pleased to inform you of our success in securing funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance
of the US Department of Justice for the further development of our National Decertification Database.
The new project will maintain our current effort and result in an improved and more secure decertification
pointer system. An essential task of the current project is this survey of all state POST agencies
regarding current certification and revocation practices, policies and procedures. A summary report will
be prepared and made available to all IADLEST member agencies.
Please take the time to complete the survey and return to me by June 30 at:
Raymond A. Franklin
IADLEST Project Director
Public Safety Education and Training Center
6852 4th Street
Sykesville, MD 21784
A stamped and pre-addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience.
Should you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact me directly at 410-875-3606 or
mail@rayfranklin.com.

With best regards,

Raymond A. Franklin
Project Director

35

2005 Survey of POST Agencies Regarding Certification Practices
Definitions
Certification
The state licensure or accreditation of peace
officers, without which an individual may not
legally perform the duties of a law
enforcement officer.

Revocation
The permanent removal for cause of law
enforcement officer certification. Often
referred to as decertification or cancellation.

Section A – Certification and Revocation Authority and Activity
1
‰
2
‰
3

Does your agency certify law enforcement officers?
Yes

‰

No

Does your agency have the authority to revoke certification for cause?
Yes

‰

No

What are the bases for revocation? Please check all that apply.

‰

Felony conviction

‰

Misdemeanor conviction

‰

Administratively for misconduct

‰

Failure to meet training/qualification requirements

‰

Termination of employment

‰

Other ...............................................................................................................

4

‰

Any

‰

Certain

In what year did your agency gain the authority to revoke certification?

.................................................................................................................................
5

How many officers have had certification revoked since authority was granted?

.................................................................................................................................
6

How many officers had their certification revoked in 2004?

.................................................................................................................................
7
‰
8
‰

Are revoked officers afforded due process though hearing or appeal?
Yes

‰

No

Can your agency temporarily suspend certification?
Yes

‰

No

36

9

‰

Are certain law enforcement officers excluded from certification requirements, e.g.
Chiefs, Sheriffs, State Patrol?
Yes (Identify below)

‰

No

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
10
‰

Does another state agency also certify/revoke law enforcement officers?
Yes (Explain below)

‰

No

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
11

Does your agency also certify:

Yes
No
Correctional Officers ......................................................................... ‰ ................‰
Parole/Probation Officers .................................................................. ‰ ................‰
Private Security Officers ................................................................... ‰ ................‰
Communications Personnel/Dispatchers .......................................... ‰ ................‰
Other .......................................................................................................................
12

Additional information or comments:

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

Section B – Certification Information Management
1

What methods do you use to manage the certification/revocation function? Please
check all that apply.

‰

Card based manual system

‰

Agency developed electronic data management system

‰

Commercial electronic data management system
Software name/manufacturer ........................................................................

‰

Other ..............................................................................................................

37

2

Certification records are numbered using:

‰

Social Security Number (SSN)

‰

A variation or modification of SSN

‰

A non-SSN related number

3

How long are records maintained?

‰

Indefinitely

‰

.........................................................................................................................

4
‰

Does your agency issue wallet cards or other pocket proof of certification for
officers?
Yes

5
‰

‰

No

Does your agency maintain records of denial of initial certification?
Yes

6

‰

No

Additional information or comments:

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

Section C – Revocation Information Sharing
1
‰
2
‰
3

‰
4

Is your agency legislatively proscribed from sharing revocation information?
‰

No

‰

Yes

Unknown

Does your agency publish revocation actions?
Yes

‰

No

Does your agency contribute to the current IADLEST National Decertification
Database (NDD)?
Yes

‰

No

If your agency does NOT contribute to the IADLEST NDD, please state the
reason(s).

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

38

5
‰
6
‰
7
‰
8

Does your agency query the current IADLEST National Decertification Database?
Routinely

‰

Occasionally

‰

Never

Would you consider participation in an improved national revocation database?
‰

Yes

No

In your personal opinion, should query access to the database be made available
to law enforcement hiring entities?
‰

Yes

No

Additional information or comments:

.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................

Section D – Respondent Information
Name

Agency

Telephone

E-Mail Address

Please return the completed survey to:
Raymond A. Franklin
IADLEST Project Director
Public Safety Education and Training Center
6852 4th Street
Sykesville, MD 21784

39

APPENDIX B – SURVEY DISTRIBUTION LIST
R. Alan Benefield, Chief
Alabama Police Officers Standards and Training
P.O. Box 300075
Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0075
Jim Meehan, Acting Director
Alaska Police Standards
4500 Diplomacy Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Thomas Hammarstrom, Executive Director
Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training
2543 East University Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85034
Terry Bolton, Executive Director
Arkansas Law Enforcement Training Academy
P.O. Box 3106
East Camden, Arkansas 71701
Kenneth J. O'Brien,
Executive Director
California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training
1601 Alahambra Blvd.
Sacramento, California 95816
John Kammerzell, Executive Director
Colorado Police Officers Standards and Training
1525 Sherman Ave., 5th Floor
Denver, Colorado 80203
Thomas Flaherty, Director
Police Standards and Training
285 Preston Avenue
Meriden, Connecticut 06450-4891
Joan Weiss,
District of
300 Indiana
Washington,

Executive Director
Columbia Police Training and Standards Board
Avenue, NW, Suite 5031
DC 20001

Harry W. Downes
Director of Training
Delaware State Police Training
1453 North DuPont Highway
Dover, Delaware 19901-0430
Bill Hutson, Director
Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Council
5000 Austell Power Springs Road, Suite 261
Austell, Georgia 30106
Michael Crews, Program Director
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
P.O. Box 1489
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489
Robert Prasser
Honolulu Police Department
801 South Beretania Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

40

Michael N. Becar,
Executive Director
Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training
P.O. Box 700
Meridian, Idaho 83680-0700
Thomas J. Jurkanin, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board
600 S. Second Street, Suite 300
Springfield, Illinois 62704-2542
E. A. "Penny" Westfall, Director
Iowa Law Enforcement Academy
P.O. Box 130
Johnston, Iowa 50131-0130
Scott C. Mellinger, Executive Director
Indiana Law Enforcement Training
5402 Sugar Grove, P.O. Box 313
Plainfield, Indiana 46168-0313
Ed H. Pavey, Director
Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center
P.O. Box 647
Hutchinson, Kansas 67504-0647
John Bizzack, Commissioner
Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training
521 Lancaster Rd., Funderburk Bldg.
Richmond, Kentucky 40475-3137
Michael Ranatza, Executive Director
Louisiana Police Officers Standards and Training Council
1885 Wooddale Blvd., Room 208
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806
John B. Rogers, Director
Criminal Justice Academy
15 Oak Grove Road
Vassalboro, Maine 04989
Patrick Bradley, Executive Director
Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions
6852 4th Street
Sykesville, Maryland 21784
Dennis Pinkham, Executive Director
Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council
484 Shea Memorial Drive South
Weymouth, Massachusetts 02190
Raymond Beach, Jr., Executive Director
Commission on Law Enforcement Standards
7426 North Canal Road
Lansing, Michigan 48913
Neil Melton, Executive Director
Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training
1600 University Ave., Suite 200
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825
Robert D. Davis, Executive Director
Board of Law Enforcement Standards and Training
3750 I-55 Frontage Road,
North Jackson, Mississippi 39211

41

Jeremy Spratt, Program Manager
Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training
P.O. Box 749
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0749
Allen Horsfall, Executive Director
Montana Police Officers Standards and Training
P.O. Box 201408
Helena, Montana 59620-1408
Steve Lamken, Director
Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center
3600 North Academy Road
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801-0403
Richard Clark, Executive Director
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training
5587 Wai Pai Shone Avenue
Carson City, Nevada 89701
Keith H. Lohmann, Director
Police Standards and Training
17 Institute Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-7413
Donald McCann, Chief
New Jersey Police Services Section
P.O. Box 085
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0085
Thomas D. Lyon, Director
Department of Public Safety Training and Recruiting Division
4491 Cerrillos Road
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507-9721
James R. DeLapp, Deputy Commissioner OPS
New York Division of Criminal Justice Services
4 Tower Place
Albany, New York 12203-3764
D. Scott Perry, Director
North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training
P.O. Box 149
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Mark Gilbertson, Executive Secretary
North Dakota Police Officers Standards and Training Board
P.O. Box 1054
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-1054
Steve Schierholt, Executive Director
Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy
P.O. 309
London, Ohio 43140
Jeanie Nelson, Ph.D., Director
Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training
P.O. Box 11476
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73136-0476
John Minnis, Director
Department of Public Safety Standards and Training
550 North Monmouth Ave.
Monmouth, Oregon 97361

42

John Gallaher,
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Municipal Police Officers Education and Training Commission
8002 Bretz Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-9748
Glenford Shibley, Acting Director
Police Academy
Flanagan Campus 1762
Louisquisset Pike
Lincoln, Rhode Island 02865
William R. Neill, Deputy Director
South Carolina Criminal Justice Academy
P.O. Box 1993
Blythewood, South Carolina 29206-1993
Bryan Gortmaker, Training Administrator
Rol Kebach Criminal Justice Training Center
East Highway 34, 500 East Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-7070
Mark Bracy, Director
Tennessee Law Enforcement Training Academy
3025 Lebanon Road
Nashville, Tennessee 37214-2217
Jim Dozier, J.D., Ph.D.
Executive Director
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
6330 U.S. Hwy 290 East, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78723
Robert W. Morris, Acting Director
Peace Officer Standards and Training
Post Office Box 141775
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-1775
R.J. Elrick, Executive Director
Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council
317 Sanatorium Road
Pittsford, Vermont 05763
George Gotschalk, Chief
Standards and Training
Department of Criminal Justice Services
805 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Michael Parsons, Ph.D., Executive Director
Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
19010 1st Ave.
South Burien, Washington 98148
Chuck Sadler, Executive Director
Criminal Justice and Highway Safety
1204 Kanawha Blvd.
East Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Dennis Hanson, Director
Wisconsin Training and Standards Bureau
P.O. Box 7070
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7070
Donald Pierson, Executive Director
Wyoming Peace Officers Standards and Training
1710 Pacific Ave.
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002

43