U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–234 WASHINGTON : 2018

CHALLENGES FACING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE 

21ST CENTURY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 17, 2017 

Serial No. 115–16 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY AND INVESTIGATIONS

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 17, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security & Investigations, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security & Investigations, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Sheriff Jim McDonnell, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Chief Alonzo Thompson, Chief of Police, Spartanburg Police Department 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 7 

Mr. Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 8 

Chief Art Acevedo, Chief of Police, City of Houston 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 10 

(1) 

CHALLENGES FACING LAW ENFORCEMENT IN 

THE 21ST CENTURY 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Trey Gowdy (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gowdy, Gohmert, Chabot, Poe, 

Ratcliffe, Johnson of Louisiana, Jackson Lee, Conyers, Deutch, 

Bass, Richmond, and Jeffries. 

Staff Present: Margaret Barr, Counsel; Scott Johnson, Clerk; and 

Keenan Keller, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 

Security, and Investigations will come to order. Without objection, 

the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at 

any time. We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the challenges facing law enforcement in the 21st century, and I would recognize myself for an opening statement, just a matter of quick personal indulgence. 

I would ask everyone to please remember our friend and colleague Thom Tillis from North Carolina. I want to thank everyone 

for being here today, and I want to thank Chairman Goodlatte for 

this hearing. This week, we celebrate National Police Week, and 

that is important to all the members of this subcommittee and that 

we have a hearing to honor our law enforcement officers. 

I want to extend a special thank you to our witnesses for being 

here. We have with us today Chuck Canterbury, national president 

of the Fraternal Order of Police; my own personal chief and director of public safety, Alonzo Thompson, from the great city of 

Spartanburg, South Carolina; Sheriff Jim McDonnell from Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; and Chief Art Acevedo. 

Is that close? Forgive me, I am from South Carolina. I may get 

it wrong before I get it right again. From the great city of Houston, 

Texas. 

Each of you here today and all of our law enforcement officers 

across the Nation dedicate your lives and their lives to the precept 

which undergirds our country, and that is respect for, and adherVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:35 Jun 08, 2018 Jkt 030234 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A234.XXX A234
2 

ence to, the rule of law. And I know every member of not only the 

subcommittee, but every member of Congress would have their own 

personal story about how officers have impacted their lives and 

would have their own personal testimony to the respect that they 

have for the women and men of law enforcement. 

I know, as I was preparing for this hearing, my mind went to an 

officer in Greenville, South Carolina by the name of Allen Jacobs. 

Allen, about this time last year, maybe a little bit more than a year 

ago, learned that he was going to be a father again, but this time, 

it was going to be different. He had two boys, and this time, he was 

going to be a father of a little girl, and life had prepared Allen very 

well to be a father. He was an outstanding student. He was a great 

athlete in Greenville, South Carolina. 

He put that athleticism and intelligence to work for our country 

in the United States Army. He was deployed to Iraq for 15 months, 

and even volunteered to live in the neighborhoods of Baghdad because he understood that all people want to live in a peaceful, secure environment. And after Iraq, Allen was deployed to Haiti because he wanted to help the Haitian people in the aftermath of 

their tragic earthquake, but the tug of fatherhood is strong. 

And it is so strong that Allen decided to return to the upstate 

of South Carolina, but his desire to serve and protect remained. So, 

he left the uniform of the United States Army, and he put on the 

uniform of the Greenville City Police Department, and he pursued 

that calling with the same vigor and the same strength and the 

same professionalism that epitomized every other facet of his life. 

Whether it was service on the SWAT team, with the Cops on the 

Court, as a patrol officer for schools, or for a gang resistance team, 

Allen would stop his patrol car from time to time. He carried a basketball in the trunk just to get out and shoot basketball with the 

kids that could use a father figure like the one that he was providing to his own boys, you know, would provide to his daughter. 

I learned all of this about Allen in a telephone call that I had 

with his mother 2 days before his funeral. This man that survived 

Iraq and Haiti and boot camp and police officer training could not 

and did not survive an encounter with a teenage gang member who 

had just been released from jail. Never even had a chance to unholster his service weapon, serve, defend, protect. He was ambushed. 

His funeral gave all of us in South Carolina an opportunity to 

reflect, not only on his life, but, Chief Thompson, the life of Jason 

Harris we just lost in your own department, responding to a call 

for backup from one of his fellow officers, a Russ Sorrow, or Kevin 

Carper, or Marcus Whitfield, or Eric Nicholson, or any of the officers; the upstate of South Carolina who gave the most precious 

thing they had, so they could protect the most precious thing we 

have, which is life. 

Law enforcement officers are willing to do what most of us are 

not willing to do, and they are willing to interact with people that 

most of us are not willing to interact with, and they are willing to 

miss things in life that most of us are not willing to miss. So, 

today, we are not only here to honor you, but we are here to listen, 

and we are here, in part, to memorialize those officers who lost 

3 

their lives in the line of duty, but also to respect and pay honor 

to those that are still with us. 

So, I want to thank you for being here, and I am most interested 

in how we can help you do your jobs. There are challenges in our 

criminal justice system; I want a system that is not only respected, 

but worthy of respect, and there is not a system we have in our 

country that cannot be improved, and I am more than willing to 

hear ideas on how to improve it. But there is something different 

about law enforcement officers. And if we lose sight of that, as a 

society, that not only do they wear a uniform and a badge, but they 

serve symbolically as a line between law and order and those folks 

that are not of good conscience. If we ever lose sight of that, we 

are in trouble as a Republic. 

So, thank all witnesses. I will look forward to hearing from you, 

and with that, I would recognize the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies, 

and to the witnesses, thank you for your courtesy, as well. I was 

in a leadership meeting, and I thank you for recognizing, or at 

least accepting, my apologies for my delay. This is a very important 

hearing, and as the chairman has indicated, it is important that we 

try to help each other, law enforcement, and community. 

And I want to acknowledge Sheriff Jim McDonnell, Chief Alonzo 

Thompson, Mr. Chuck Canterbury, and Chief Art Acevedo for your 

presence here today and to say to you that we acknowledge, in this 

week, those who live, and those who have fallen. And we need to 

ensure that those who live recognize that we never want to see any 

more tragedies and families not seeing their loved one come home. 

In particular, I want to acknowledge Assistant Deputy Chief 

Clinton Greenwood of Harris County Constable’s Office who was 

literally executed and died on 4/3/17. Officer Richard K. Martin of 

Houston Police Department died on 5/18/15; deputy sheriff, Harris 

County Sheriff Darren Goforth, 8/28/15. Detective Jerry Ronald 

Walker of the Little Elm Police Department died in January 2017 

and then five officers. 

These are among others in Dallas who died July 2016: Brent 

Thompson, Sergeant Michael Smith, Senior Corporal Lorne Ahrens, 

Officer Patrick Zamarripa, and Officer Michael Krol. I went to that 

memorial and stood with those family members, and we will never 

forget. 

It is important in today’s hearing to explore the challenges and 

seek strategies from organizing or reforming our law enforcement 

practices and policies in order to increase police safety nationwide 

and prevent the use of lethal force against unarmed citizens and 

selfless law enforcement officers. We want to make sure that we 

look at both sides of the issue, and, particularly, we want to hear 

from you about building trust and respect. 

I would want to understand what has been used by many, police 

militarization, or how we can balance the protection that the community needs with the various assets that you utilize. The need for 

responsible and comprehensive data, I believe that data is the 

science of police work, and then, of course, to be able to deal with 

the question of lethal force and protecting your lives and those of 

the community. As Judge Learned Hand said, ‘‘If we are to keep 

our Democracy, there must be one commandment, ‘thou shalt not 

4 

ration justice.’ ’’ And so, today, I look forward to hearing from you, 

as well. 

And in keeping with this idea of justice, I just want to make a 

point, Mr. Chairman, that I have made before, and that is that this 

full committee, and we are the Subcommittee on Crime, as the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, subcommittee led by our esteemed Senator, Senator Lindsey Graham, we must have a full investigation and demand an investigation of the President, the Attorney General, and top White House aides. Democrats on the 

Oversight and the Judiciary Committee are asking for all memorandum that deals with the ending of the tenure of Director 

Comey, and, as well, the allegation that the President asked Director Comey to end the Flynn investigation, and, certainly, the release of classified information, recognizing that the President can 

release classified information, but what jeopardy have they put assets and intelligent community members in and, of course, our allies. 

I read into the record: we are concerned that the continued failure of House Republicans to take action in the face of this onslaught of allegations will cause significant damage to the faith 

that the American people have and the credibility and integrity of 

our committees and the House of Representatives. We have a solemn obligation under the Constitution to act as a check on the executive branch and to hold the President Trump accountable; 

again, not as Democrats and Republicans, but as Americans. It is 

time that we work together to be able to find the truth and, obviously, the truth will be our guide. 

I thank all of your for your service and your commitment to law 

and order and to the Constitution and for the service that we will 

never be able to thank you for as you protect the American people. 

I thank you so very much. I yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. We have a very distinguished panel today. I will begin by swearing in our witnesses. 

If you would please rise and raise your right hands. 

Do you swear the testimony you are about to give should be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

May the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You can sit down. 

I will introduce you en banc, and then recognize you individually 

for your opening statement. I will tell you on the front end that all 

of the members have access to your opening statements. All of the 

members have access to your opening statements, so if I could get 

you to summarize it, hit the salient points within the 5-minute 

time period, that would allow more time for questions. 

Our first witness is Sheriff Jim McDonnell. Sheriff McDonnell is 

the sheriff of Los Angeles County, California. Welcome, Sheriff. 

Our second witness is Chief Alonzo Thompson; he is not just the 

chief, to me; he is the director of public safety in the district that 

I represent in Spartanburg, South Carolina. He is incredibly wellrespected and well-regarded in my hometown. 

Our third witness is Mr. Chuck Canterbury, who is the national 

president of Fraternal Order of Police. 

And I will allow Ms. Jackson Lee to introduce our fourth witness. 

5 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, our fourth witness is no stranger to law 

enforcement; we are delighted with his service in the city of Houston. He is Chief Art Acevedo, who is an active member nationally 

in law enforcement issues and has served from California to Texas, 

most recently in the city of Austin, and now serves as the chief of 

police in Houston, Texas. 

And I would only offer to say that we have a very collaborative 

effort on law enforcement, and I am very pleased to say that the 

chief works with all of our law enforcement agencies from Federal 

to local to ensure the appropriate, safe travels of Houstonians and 

those who come to visit our great city. I am delighted to welcome 

Chief Art Acevedo, and I am also delighted to welcome family 

members. If any family members are here; I see a lot of smiling 

in the second row. I want to acknowledge them, as well, because 

they are so very important to our law enforcement officers. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and I acknowledge the ranking 

member who has come, Mr. Conyers. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Sheriff McDonnell, you will be recognized for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF JIM MCDONNELL, SHERIFF, LOS ANGELES 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; ALONZO THOMPSON, 

CHIEF OF POLICE, SPARTANBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL 

ORDER OF POLICE; AND CHIEF ART ACEVEDO, CHIEF OF POLICE, CITY OF HOUSTON 

STATEMENT OF SHERIFF JIM MCDONNELL 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. All right, sorry about that. Chairman 

Gowdy, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify this morning on behalf of the Major County Sheriffs of America and the National Sheriffs Association. 

As sheriff for the largest county in the United States and as a 

peace officer for more than 35 years, it is an honor to represent the 

sheriffs who are sworn to protect more than 100 million people 

across our great Nation. Policing in America has never been more 

complex, because we are the first responders to some of America’s 

greatest social challenges, whether it is the growing opioid epidemic, the emerging threat of cyberterrorism, homegrown extremism, and the growing prevalence of mental illness across our Nation. These are the 21st century challenges we should and must 

meet together. I have submitted written testimony that expands on 

what I can share here due to time, but it is available on the 

website. I will, however, be able to touch briefly on a number of 

critical topics. 

Last Friday’s cyber attack that attempted to strike 150 countries 

should make it crystal clear just how vulnerable we are and the potential scale that such an attack can have. These are complex 

threats that often lurk just beneath the surface of today’s news 

headlines. Often, they become known only after the imminent 

threat of a pending attack is made or, worse, after the assault 

itself. These are threats that challenge our government and buVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:35 Jun 08, 2018 Jkt 030234 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A234.XXX A234
6 

reaucratic institutions to be adaptive in our solutions and in our 

collective response. 

There is not a sheriff’s department in this Nation that is immune 

to the impact that mental illness and drug addiction are having on 

public safety in our jail systems. The deinstitutionalization of the 

mentally ill that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s have turned our 

jails and prisons into de facto mental health hospitals. My jail system in Los Angeles County is the Nation’s largest mental health 

institution; 70 percent of the inmates processed into our jails report 

a medical or mental illness. Nearly one-third of my jail population 

suffers from some sort of serious mental health issue. 

On any given day, upwards of 5,000 inmates need treatment for 

their illness. That population is forecasted to double over the next 

10 years. In L.A. County, we will need to invest more than $2.2 billion in a new consolidated correctional treatment facility that can 

provide the mental health and medical services for this population 

which has nowhere else to go. Los Angeles County Jail, along with 

Rikers Island Complex in New York City and the Cook County Jail 

in Chicago, are the top three largest mental healthcare providers 

in the Nation. 

This is a failure of our criminal justice system nationwide. Are 

there times when jail is the best or most appropriate option? Yes, 

but it is our experience that jail is frequently not the best solution. 

As a Nation, we have a critical need and a moral obligation to build 

capacity for treatment options in our communities. We have the 

ability to support strategic partnerships with our mental health 

and social service agencies to provide the kind of wrap-around 

treatment services that can stabilize these individuals and keep 

them out of our jail system. We have a professional obligation to 

provide training for our officers of whom too much is expected. 

Too often, our deputies arrive at a call for service always facing 

the unknown and frequently facing a situation where they are 

asked to take on the role of a mental health professional. In Los 

Angeles County alone, in areas policed by the sheriff’s department, 

911 calls involving people with mental illness have grown 55 percent since just 2010. We need to fund and provide crisis intervention training to all first responders, both law enforcement and fire 

personnel. Let us work together toward a nationwide expansion of 

highly successful program of teaming up mental health professionals with law enforcement officers who work as an intercept 

first responder team. 

In the Los Angeles County, for instance, we have had these 

teams since the 1990s; some other major cities and counties 

throughout the Nation have some variation of this program which 

are also highly successful, but seriously overworked and understaffed. Most cities and counties that operate such a program cannot provide the service 24/7 and in many places because of the geography it becomes very difficult to respond in a timely manner. 

However, in our experience, when a team such as this is called to 

a scene, we have the ability to divert the individual away from the 

criminal justice system and into proper mental health treatment 

facilities in 99 percent of the encounters. 

The third step is diversion. I would like to thank Congress for 

passing the National Stepping Up Initiative which provides counVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:35 Jun 08, 2018 Jkt 030234 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A234.XXX A234
7 

ties and cities with funding to divert those dealing with mental 

health illness away from our county jails. We should also look at 

dedicated mental health courts that could recommend better options for those suffering from mental illness other than jail or prison. And, lastly, we need to have an adult conversation about what 

to do with those suffering from mental illness that do end up in 

the criminal justice system and in our jail and our prisons. 

We as a Nation, can agree that not everyone suffering from mental illness or other disabilities can be diverted. Some individuals 

who are pretrial and classified as a harm to themselves and to others, will end up in our jails. As such, we need to provide the most 

humane, modern, and safest setting for them so they can receive 

the treatment and get the help they need. The MCSA and NSA 

seek to be a positive source of ideas. We look forward to continuing 

a dialogue and working with you. We cannot be successful unless 

we, as a Nation, are committed to finding solutions. I thank the 

chairman for his commitment to collaboration and willingness to 

engage in local law enforcement on these issues that are so critical 

to all of us. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Chief Thompson. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF ALONZO THOMPSON 

Chief THOMPSON. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, the members of 

the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. I am truly honored by the invitation to address this distinguished body. 

The challenges facing the law enforcement in the 21st century 

are numerous and very dependent upon whether there is a local, 

State, or Federal entity. Domestic terrorism, gangs, illegal narcotics, gun violence, cybercrimes, social media, behavioral health, 

and highway safety issues pose significant challenges to law enforcement at all levels, and this is not an all-inclusive list by any 

means. 

In addition to those widely-recognized concerns, there exist three 

pressing matters that are demanding our immediate attention, especially at the local level: community police relations, recruitment 

and retention, and budgetary restraints. Our ability and capacity 

to respond appropriately and effectively to the aforementioned concerns is largely dependent on how well we manage these three 

foundational issues. 

Highly publicized police citizen contacts have gotten the attention of our Nation. Increasingly, citizens are interested in how police departments operate and the decisions made by law enforcement practitioners. Now, more than ever, questions about police accountability, police training, and organizational culture are commonplace. As a result of intense scrutiny, improving community relations is paramount. Even agencies such as my own that have traditionally valued and focused their efforts on community engagement must continually strive to strengthen those relationships and 

to build new ones. We will not be as responsive or successful without strong, collaborative partnerships. 

With baby boomers retiring and shrinking applicant pools, recruiting and retention is a struggle for law enforcement agencies 

8 

today. The inherent dangers of the profession and its intense scrutiny and harsh criticism discourage some from entering and/or remaining in law enforcement, while others pursue more lucrative, 

less stressful, and safer career fields. And retention has been negatively impacted by tightening budgets; they have resulted in stagnant wages, increasing cost of employee benefits, and limited performance-based incentives and special skills pay. 

This funding issue segues into the third and final challenge I 

wish to share with you this morning: budgetary restraints. In a climate where many government bodies are plagued with lingering 

economic woes and are forced to make very difficult decisions about 

budgets, many police departments are underfunded. Consequently, 

it has become increasingly difficult to compete with corporate 

America for qualified applicants and to retain experienced personnel. We are also facing the growing necessity for advanced technology. For example, body-worn cameras, less than lethal weapons, 

integrated records management, and inter-operable communication 

systems, some of these amount to unfunded mandates. 

However, in the 21st century policing environment, these are not 

niceties; they are, indeed, necessities. For instance, many law enforcement agencies committed to equip officers with body-worn 

cameras which expanded the opportunities for officers to capture 

more of those critical police citizen encounters. Well, this technology comes with a cost. Additional funding from governmental 

sources will be needed, not only for equipment, but for training 

that enhances a diversity consciousness of law enforcement professionals such as implicit bias, de-escalation, use of force, and other 

subject matters deemed necessary. Although the specific needs may 

vary, the challenge or dilemma is the same. 

And, in conclusion, I reiterate these issues must be immediately 

addressed. Enhancing community relations is fundamental to local 

law enforcement gathering information and proactively combating 

crime and terrorism. This includes building community partnerships to solve an array of societal problems. Recruiting and retaining law enforcement professionals at a local level will ensure that 

we have a highly trained and experienced work force to provide police-related services and conduct complex investigations whether 

they involve criminal activity, terrorism, or a nexus between the 

two. 

We need enhanced capabilities to handle current issues as efficiently as possible and to give us the time we need to look forward 

and toward the future to anticipate and prepare for new crime 

trends and emerging opportunities. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on the challenges facing law enforcement 

in the 21st century, and I thank you very much for your time. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. Canterbury. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, distinguished members of the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and Investigations. I am 

here this morning representing 330,000 members of our law enforcement community and I would like to take this opportunity to 

9 

thank you for having this hearing at this very opportune time with 

National Police Week just concluding. 

Today, Mr. Chairman, my members are concerned about their 

safety. According to a recent FBI report analyzing 50 cases in 

which officers were shot and killed, 28 percent of the assailants 

were motivated by a hatred for police or for social-political reasons. 

Others were simply out to get justice and told their friends and 

families or members or used social media to communicate their intent to hurt law enforcement officers. The FOP has long argued 

that a hateful vitriol-amplified social media is leading to violence 

directed at law enforcement officers and I think this report by the 

FBI bears that out. 

Our views of law enforcement as a society have changed in the 

past few years, and the respect we once had in our communities 

and amongst our elected leadership has greatly been diminished, 

but a recent Gallup poll showed that police officers were 77 percent 

approval rating in this county. Mr. Chairman, every American that 

looks at a law enforcement officer, should look at him as somebody 

that is there to defend the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, 

but, unfortunately, with social media and the media, excessive 

force, terms like ‘‘acted stupidly,’’ and ‘‘police brutality’’ have become a common term. 

Another persistent false narrative recycled in the news is the 

militarization of law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, I submit that it 

is more modernizing. The previous administration ignored the 

input of law enforcement community and imposed broad restrictions on Federal equipment program. Throughout the program created by President Clinton, many basic equipment items were provided to departments that could not afford those. It was a huge and 

harmful overreaction to negative media coverage in the fake militarization narrative. 

The 1033 Program administered by the Department of Defense 

was singled out for specific criticism, but the executive order imposed new prohibitions and restrictions on equipment throughout 

the Federal Government, including the DOJ and Homeland Security. I do not need to point out that the post-nightclub shooting, the 

San Bernardino shooting, many of that equipment was utilized to 

protect police officers’ lives and citizens’ lives. These are not militarized vehicles, as a matter of fact, they are demilitarized. 

We are working with the new administration to restore the integrity of these programs and we urge this subcommittee to consider 

H.R. 426, the Protecting Lives Using Surplus Equipment Act. The 

need to restore these programs and provide assistance to State and 

local law enforcement is not just limited to equipment. The administration of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

needs to be funded fully as it has been in the past years. We have 

less police on the streets today and recruitment and retention is 

one of the biggest challenges facing law enforcement in the 21st 

century. There are less men and women policing and violent crime 

is on the rise in many of our cities. 

For this reason, I urge the subcommittee to support fully funding 

the COPS hiring program and the Edward Byrne Memorial and 

Justice Grant programs. These programs have been a godsend to 

local law enforcement and in these challenging economic times, 

10 

State and local law enforcement officers cannot perform their duty 

without these extra funds. 

Mr. Chairman, I spoke about the challenges facing our profession 

as a whole. Law enforcement officers are expected to be mentally 

healthy and resilient, but the job and the situations that we must 

respond to takes a toll on the mental health of an officer. Officers 

responded to a shooting, or who have lived through things like the 

attacks in Dallas and Baton Rouge, or who responded to event like 

Sandy Hook or the post-nightclub, may need to be dealing with 

these experiences. 

That is why we were very pleased that Senator Donnelly’s S. 867 

bill passed in the Senate yesterday. The FOP helped craft that legislation, as well as H.R. 2228 that has been introduced into the 

House. This bill will allow the Attorney General to work with the 

Department of Defense and Veteran Affairs to collect information 

about the mental health programs provided to officers and will expand officer wellness. 

During this week, National Police Week, where we honored 234 

of American’s heroes who passed away last year, this is a very appropriate time for Congress to take up these issues. Mr. Chairman, 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I would like to 

point out that, as of last night, we lost our 18th officer by gunfire, 

which put us at 6 percent higher than the rate last year. To date, 

we have had 95 officers shot in the line of duty, 18 of them have 

perished. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury. 

Chief Acevedo. 

STATEMENT OF CHIEF ART ACEVEDO 

Chief ACEVEDO. I want to thank you for inviting me to testify 

here today. I appear before you as the chief of Police of the city of 

Houston; the fourth largest city in the Nation and our Nation’s 

fastest growing. It is my privilege to speak to you on behalf of the 

Major City Chiefs Association where I am the first vice president. 

This organization represents the 69th largest law enforcement 

agencies in the United States. 

As a police chief of two major cities over the last past 10 years, 

with a total of 31 years of law enforcement experience, I can say 

with unqualified certainty that building strong bonds with communities is what makes law enforcement agencies successful and communities safe. A respectful relationship with the people we serve 

enables police to overcome what I consider our biggest challenge 

today, regaining the community’s trust. 

In order to build strong relationships to the community, police 

departments must engage all members with a community. Community engagement done correctly builds trust so that when something goes wrong, which is inevitable in a mission as complicated 

as ours, the committee knows that the department and its leadership will address the problem honestly and openly and take positive action to correct any deficiencies. 

One of the challenges that law enforcement is facing is building 

trust among the community is immigration enforcement. As you 

know, recently, SP4 passed in the State of Texas which really 

opens local law enforcement to the perception of being immigration 

11 

agents. Immigration enforcement officers were seen as that, it really hurts the bonds of trust that we have built over the last many, 

many years. 

Immigration enforcement is a Federal function that cannot be 

delegated, should not be delegated to city police departments. Immigrant communities, whether document or not, begin to fear local 

police officers when they become too heavily involved in immigration enforcement. Then, they stop reporting crimes and coming forward as witnesses or victims which increases the victimization of 

immigrant communities and allows criminal conduct to go unchecked making the entire community less safe. 

Community engagement must include everyone if a police department is going to be successful and we urge the Congress, as 

we have been urging for many years now, to enact comprehensive 

immigration reform once and for all instead of this hodge-podge approach is starting to happen, starting in Arizona, and now moving 

on to Texas. 

Recruitment and retention. Chief Brown nailed it after the Dallas tragedy when he said, called on young men and women instead 

of protesting, to, ‘‘put down the signs and come in and sign up.’’ 

You know, make a difference, join the police department, join us, 

and see that we can and will continue to make a difference. 

Thanks to his call, 344 percent increase occurred in their recruitment there in the city of Dallas. Large cities like Houston are cast 

draft and in constant battle for staffing and resources. We are hundreds of officers short as Mayor Turner has so aptly stated time 

and again as a police department and adding more unfunded mandates such as immigration certainly does not help, and we need to 

maintain funding. 

One of the things that we hope, as my colleagues have said, is 

that the COPS office continued to have full funding, or JAG 

Grants, any grant, HIDA Grants, federally-funded grants are really 

key, and, also, protect asset forfeiture. Asset forfeiture when they 

are taken from criminals, from criminal syndicates, criminal organization, drug traffic organizations, and placed in the hands of law 

enforcement, it is money that is put back into crime fighting and 

keeping our communities safe. Having said that, we should not 

allow departments to take money from people unless there is really 

a criminal predicate and we are actually taking them from crooks 

and not from hard-working Americans. 

Consent decrees, consent decrees while they have a good value, 

we hope that as we move forward that that will be the hammer 

that is left as a last resort and that we move towards a variety 

memorandums of agreements. While most officers serve their community with sensitivity and respect there are unavoidable times 

when police work can be violent and ugly. 

There are also times when, obviously, we do not do the right 

thing. We have to maintain the trust of the folks that we serve, 

and we believe that collaborative approaches with the Department 

of Justice with memorandum of agreements, it takes off the monitor, quite frankly, has become a cottage industry. Where millions 

of dollars that should be spent on training, on equipment, and an 

accountability at the local level and placed at the hands of the 

mayors, the councils, and, ultimately, the community at the local 

12 

level and the Department of Justice, go wasted in giving to Federal 

monitors to, quite frankly, again, it has become a cottage industry. 

And I have more information that in here. 

We need strong oversight. We support strong oversight. But we 

want to be smart, and again, not waste those precious dollars. A 

heartfelt partners of the community is really the most important 

thing that we can do. They are our greatest force multipliers, and 

I would, again, urge Members of Congress to work on issues to help 

build communities of trust, bridges of trust, and not tear down 

those bridges. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Chief. The chair will now recognize the 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize in advance if I leave after my questions. I am the chairman 

of the Small Business Committee, and we have a meeting at 11:00 

that I have to chair, but I will be here long enough to ask questions, and thank you for your testimony. If I could go to Sheriff 

McDonnell and Chief Thompson first, the same question I will address to both of you. I think you had both mentioned the body-worn 

cameras, and could you touch upon both the positives and the concerns that a local police department has when you are considering 

whether to go towards body cameras? And maybe you first, Chief? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Yes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. A 

number of issues I think need to be addressed when a department 

is looking at deploying body-worn cameras, and those include not 

only the hardware, which is actually the cheapest part of the whole 

equation, but then everything that goes behind that. And that 

would include the ability to be able to retain, on either a cloud or 

a server, the video. And there is a tremendous amount of video 

when this camera is rolling all the time. 

And then, behind that, again, is the policies in place and the 

agreements with the D.A. and others as to when you are going to 

release the footage and when you are going to hold it as part of 

an investigation. That needs to be covered up front with the 

public’s expectations being realistic. 

And then, on the other side, is the personnel cost. The amount 

of discovery that is created as a result of having the cameras and 

the footage is an inordinate burden on an organization if they do 

not have already in place the personnel who are trained and certified to be able to go in and identify the appropriate amount of 

footage to disclose, and to be able, then, in the cases where they 

need to be able to pixelate uninvolved third parties for their own 

protection, to be able to do that as well. 

And you can imagine a scene where there is a backup or a help 

call goes out and 20 deputies, 20 officers respond, each with body 

cameras rolling. They have to go through whatever the workload 

is times 20 to be able to deal with that. And that is a burden that 

I do not think has been addressed enough, and it is a tremendous 

expense on top of the hardware and the things that people are 

aware of on the surface. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Chief Thompson? 

Chief THOMPSON. I think you gave a very detailed response, and 

I concur with everything you mentioned. 

13 

That additional cost, again that applies to one of those unfunded 

mandates I referred to in my remarks earlier, the storage fees, the 

upgrades that are required pose some hardship on some of the local 

municipalities. But in addition to that, I am a strong proponent of 

the body-worn cameras, but I want to make sure that we realize 

though it is not a panacea. It does not solve all of the problems. 

But, it is definitely a tool that is needed, but because of the cost 

involved it has been cost-prohibitive for some of my fellow chiefs 

and law enforcement agencies to require them. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. Mr. Canterbury, I will go to 

you next, if I can. I happen to be part of an institution, the Congress, and we get excited when we get higher than the teens in 

popularity, which does not occur very often. Most of the polling we 

are down there with head lice and Ebola virus and stuff if you look 

at popularity. But you had mentioned the police in our country is 

about 77 percent public support, which I think is tremendous. 

On the other hand, you also indicated that I think it was 28 percent of the murders of police officers around the country are motivated by people who have a hatred of police officers or a political 

point of view which allows them to justify shooting, you know, a 

police officer, ambushing he or she. I mean, it is incredible, but it 

certainly happens. Are there any steps that you would suggest on 

how we as a community, a society, can reduce the amount of public 

hostility that some people in our country have towards law enforcement? Or is it just an element that you are always going to have 

to live with and you have to protect yourself from them? What 

would you suggest? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I am a firm believer that there are some bad 

people. There are just some bad people. But, unfortunately, in the 

last 25 and 30 years, law enforcement has become the only form 

of government that many local governments have as a resource to 

go into economically depressed areas. We believe that if there is 

not a holistic approach to building trust in communities with every 

aspect of government, law enforcement cannot be sent into a neighborhood to clean the neighborhood up. 

Because if you do not attack the underlying root problem of poverty, you are never going to break that cycle. You know, people forget that Marilyn Mosby asked for high-intensity patrols in the area 

where Freddie Gray died. And it was the only arm of government 

that the Baltimore City officials had to work in that neighborhood. 

If there is not a total holistic approach with all aspects: community 

activists, churches, schools; then we are never going to address the 

problem, especially in economically depressed areas. Job training, 

unemployment, single parents, all of those issues have to be attacked before we are going to see improvement. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the 

full committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have never been on 

a panel where we have had this much police and law enforcement 

leadership at one time, and so I am going to go to the heart of my 

relations with police that have been so important to me all my life. 

14 

And that is the importance of us improving the relationship between the African-American and other minority communities and 

yourselves and your offices. 

This has been an ongoing problem, and I support you on the 

funding. I support your concepts. But, you know, there is a certain 

element in law enforcement that is racial. That is anti-diversity. 

And let’s just speak as honestly as you can for a few minutes about 

that part of your relationship because you cannot build trust if 

there is glaring instances of police disrespect for the minorities in 

communities, and there has been a long history of that. 

We are still coming out of racism in our society, and in law enforcement, it becomes glaring. And I would like to ask the national 

president of the Fraternal Order of Police to lead off this discussion, and I hope all of you will join in with your honest opinions. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Mr. Conyers, I do not know when and how 

that personal bias will be gone in this country, but I do know that 

in my 30-plus year career in law enforcement, I have never been 

taught that racial profiling was a legitimate police practice. I have 

never been taught that anybody of color should be arrested at a 

higher rate. I have never been taught that everybody should not be 

treated fair and equally in this country. 

But we do recognize that there is implicit bias, and there are individual officers that may have those bias. It is our job to make 

sure that those officers are rooted out and put out of this career 

field. But again, it cannot be the first call of a politician when a 

white officer arrests somebody of color. It can never just be the first 

thing that we hear from social media. Freddie Gray for instance, 

there were three African-American officers involved and three 

white officers involved, and to say that the three African-American 

officers committed some sort of a heinous act because of color is 

just ludicrous, you know. But we believe working together with our 

communities we can help build that trust. 

But we cannot be the answer to that, Mr. Conyers. We cannot 

go into the inner city as law enforcement and fix the problems unless we attack the underlying problems of poverty. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I agree with you that there are a lot of economic and cultural considerations involved in this part of our discussion. But I want to see, and I am watching carefully the police 

systems across this country to make sure that everybody is doing 

as much as we can to root out some of these bad apples. There are 

only a few, but it only takes one to really create a very negative 

view. Who else here would like to make a comment? Yes, sir. 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Thank you sir. Thank you for the opportunity. When you look at where we are in America today, I believe 

we have come a long way. Always, there is room for improvement. 

The police are called to situations that are out of control. 

We get there when situations are fueled often by emotion, alcohol, drugs, or mental illness. So, it is always a dynamic situation 

when you get into it. Race on top of it is kind of the third rail of 

American policing, if you will. And look at what has happened recently and over our history in this country. 

I think the answers are to continue to talk about it. People are 

afraid to talk about race. Unless we engage, unless we talk openly 

and honestly about it, we are not going to come to a place where 

15 

we are all going to be proud of what we are doing. There are 18,000 

police departments in our Nation. Are they all the same? They are 

not. We are working to be able to raise the bar for every department in America, so that we are comfortable that anybody goes out 

there in the field represents the profession and does so in a professional way. 

I believe today we are dealing with issues of misconduct to try 

and be able to get at the root of that, and we are separating people 

from employment who are out there doing it the wrong way. Because, when you look at the amount of police in this country that 

is about one third of one percent of our population are charged with 

the public safety for the remainder, that is not very much that we 

can be able to do that on our own. We have to be able to work with 

the communities that we are privileged to serve in a way that is 

positive, in a way that we are all on the same team. 

But again, it goes back to I think not only the race issue, but police go where crime is. And that is driven by poverty, by lack of 

opportunity, by lack of education, and all of the other societal ills 

that I think police being inserted into a situation that is volatile, 

that is highly charged, police often get the blame for whatever the 

underlying reason was. But beyond the control of what we can do 

to be able to affect that at its root. 

So, as we move forward, I think a big step is focusing on youth 

programs. That is not a core police mission, but it is one we have 

taken on because we see the need to do that. That if we can bridge 

that gap at an early age and be able to help kids after school have 

a safe environment. We do that in L.A. with our Sheriff’s Youth 

Foundation, to be able to give kids that safe environment, ensure 

that they do their homework, and then they are allowed to do 

after-school activities. Sports programs, work on the computers and 

those kind of things. 

That is really where we have to begin to look for the future is 

to be able to work with kids at their earliest opportunities. 

Mr. CONYERS. If we do not do anything more today with you four, 

to me the most important thing is that you take back a message 

that there are people like myself who have been working in different capacities long before I came to Congress in race relations. 

And these racial tensions are factors that are not solely about police and the Black community. They come from these related concerns of poverty, unemployment, and other educational disadvantages. 

But I need to make sure that you take this back with you, because you will affect some of those people who may be thinking 

they can get out of line. The major concern is improving race relations with all the other folks that may be considered minorities in 

our community. Who wants the last word? 

Mr. GOWDY. Because of my respect for the gentlemen, we are 3 

minutes over, but if you want to take a very quick stab at answering that question, it is important enough for us to go 4 minutes 

over. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are very kind. 

Chief THOMPSON. Well, thank you sir for the question. It is so 

important that we engage our community during nonconfrontational or non-contentious times to break down barriers 

16 

and form relationships. Relationships translate ultimately into collaborative partnerships, and it starts as the gentleman on my right 

mentioned. Hiring the right people. Having a work force that is 

representative of the community that it serves is really important. 

I am real proud of the fact that in my area the service population 

is 70 percent white, 30 percent non-white, and our department reflects that same level of diversity. And to get that level of diversity 

it must be intentional, and there are qualified applicants out here 

of all race, ethnicities, and gender. But you have to go where they 

are and attract them into your agency. And by being reflective and 

being responsive to the citizens in a respectful and equitable way, 

that draws people to you and also helps build that public trust and 

confidence that you are looking for. And rewarding the behavior 

that is desired is key. 

And also, as mentioned, addressing that strongly and directly for 

that that is inappropriate is extremely important as well. But, so 

much of what we can do prior to the good-God-almighty situations 

were taking place, you lay the groundwork before that as I said, 

during those non-contentious times. And I stressed that enough. 

And I will sit in and just say this: if you go online and see 

Spartanburg in a new light, you will see one of our latest initiatives where we brought people together. It did not matter what 

side of the tracks you were on, your socioeconomic status, we were 

all at the one table, one voice working on a public’s art project that 

calls us to talk and start building relationships. And bridging gaps. 

And it is evidence of what we can do when we come together with 

unity of purpose and that singleness of mind. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

all of you for your important testimony today and for your faithful 

service. I am the son of a first responder. My father was a firefighter, and in 1984 he was blown up in an explosion. He got 

burned 80 percent of his body, third degree burns, is permanently 

disabled. He was a training officer, and I grew up at the fire and 

police training academy, so I have tremendous respect for what you 

do and the dangers you face. 

Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you for your testimony about 

the need to modernize our law enforcement. I really believe, and 

maybe you do as well, that people that use terms like ‘‘militarize’’ 

do not understand the real challenges that you face. 

And I think language is important, and I appreciate you making 

that distinction. As you noted, our great tragedy in Baton Rouge 

this past year got the attention of my State in Louisiana, and we 

have the distinction right now of being the most dangerous State 

in America for law enforcement. And I wish we could do something 

about that. We are going to try. 

The question is for you, Mr. Canterbury. The Department of 

Homeland Security renewed a bulletin late Monday that warned of 

the dangers posed by home-grown terrorists, and they called the 

threat environment in our country right now one of the most serious since the 9/11 attacks. I was just wondering, in your opinion 

17 

do you agree we will continue to see an increase in smaller, more 

localized terrorist attacks? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. I think social media has allowed 

terrorist organizations over there to influence young Americans in 

the United States and have glamorized that type of terrorism. So, 

yes. I have served on the Homeland Security Advisory Council both 

for President Obama and for President Bush, and it has always 

been a major concern and will continue to be. 

But we, obviously, are going to see an uptick in lone-wolf style 

and American attackers that have never been to that part of the 

world, but have been energized by the social media and those markets. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Recognizing that to be the case, all 

of us feel the burden of it. We feel that we need to do everything 

we can to try to address that threat. And I guess a follow-up question is, to adequately prepare and respond to these local terrorist 

attacks that seem to be popping up, do you think there are improvements and reforms that could be made to better apply the lessons learned? And specifically in terms of maybe coordination 

among various first responders. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Well, I think that the communications from 

the Federal level to State and local has greatly improved since 9/ 

11. But it can continue to get better, and I would like to point out 

we still do not have an interoperability radio system in this country. We are much closer than we were, but I testified in 2003 after 

9/11 of the importance of that, and the contracts for building that 

system out have just been let in 2017. So, the communications 

must continue. It needs to be both ways. JTTFs need to be fully 

funded. HIDAs need to be fully funded. And the fusion centers 

need to be fully funded. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I appreciate your work in that arena. 

Maybe this question could be for any of our distinguished panel 

members. The police chiefs and the sheriffs back in my home State 

of Louisiana are facing growing threats and challenges because 

their resources, as I know all of you have testified to and you have 

struggled with, the challenges are going up, the resources are going 

down, basically. 

Can any of you elaborate, just to that we have it on the record, 

about the 1033 Program and how that has proven to be a critical 

source for your department and your county in purchasing equipment? 

Chief ACEVEDO. Let me take a stab at that. The 1033 Program, 

the program is not the problem. It is all about proper training, 

proper policy, and proper use. I remember when the MRAVs came 

out people started saying, ‘‘We have got these things that were 

being used in Iraq.’’ And although, I did not choose to get one in 

Austin because it was not good for our tight streets, I defended 

that because I said, ‘‘There is flooding in a lot of rural counties.’’ 

In Houston we have a huge problem with flooding. 

So, it is not the equipment. It is really the policy that is implemented as to its use, and the way it is used. So, we have helmets, 

we have binoculars, office equipment, helicopters, MRAVs. And 

again, there is no offensive equipment other than rifles, but other 

than that it is all defensive. And it is all about protecting the 

18 

American people. So, we hope that, again, we are thoughtful. And 

I do not think the 1033 Program has been destroyed by any means, 

but that we keep that program alive and well. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Anybody else? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Yeah. If I could, sir. The 1033 Program, I 

would ask that reconsideration be given to looking at the needs of 

local police. When you see any of these active shooter situations, 

terrorist situations on our home soil, who gets the call? People call 

911, local police respond. If they are showing up in a black-andwhite with their sidearm and that is all they have got, they are at 

a tremendous disadvantage. They are probably going to put themselves in a position where they are going to end up being hurt or 

killed and not being able to accomplish the mission of rescuing 

downed kids or people in a mall or a theater or whatever. 

But having the equipment that we have been able to get through 

the 1033 Program, we have been able to go into a hot zone, to be 

able to stop the shooting, to be able to extract people who were 

down at the scene and get them off to medical attention without 

the tools necessary for the exception. We do not use them every 

day, and as Chief Acevedo mentioned, it is about leadership. 

It is about accountability. It is about using the right tools at the 

right time, not using them for situations where we have seen, in 

our recent past, that people can cite and say they are not intended 

for that. They are not. But they are intended to be able to put our 

officers, our deputies in a position between danger and the public, 

and to be able to do hot zone extractions of downed citizens. To be 

able to get them out, and get them help, and stop the threat as 

quickly as we can. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, 

I am out of time, but I just want to close by saying this. This is 

not just a feel-good exercise. We greatly value your input. And I 

know there is a commitment of the people on this subcommittee 

and our full committee to work towards these reforms to help you 

out. So, thank you for what you do. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman very much. I was 

happy to yield to my ranking member Mr. Conyers, but I want to 

take note of the fact, Sheriff, that your member Congressman Bass 

is a very active and full member of the committee and was here 

at the beginning, and we thank her for her service. To acknowledge 

Congressman Deutch, his presence here today. And to acknowledge 

Congressman Richmond’s presence here today on the subcommittee 

for our members, and we are delighted to have all of you here. And 

to take note of the fact that we are interested in working together. 

So, I want to start with Mr. Canterbury, and thank you for the 

representation of 300,000. To you and your collective membership, 

let me continue to offer my acknowledgement of their service, and 

as well, sympathy for their loss and their families. In my past life, 

I served as a municipal court judge, and interacted not only with 

citizens but with officers on a regular basis. And as I sometimes 

say, not necessarily clothed in their blue, but clothed in their undercover clothing seeking probable cause warrants. So, we know 

the variety of work that is done by our officers, and we thank you. 

19 

But I want to follow the line of questioning of my ranking member, and to say that we have got to meet each other halfway. There 

is no doubt that the Walter Scott case and the Jordan Evans case, 

these are very conspicuous cases that loom large in the psyche of 

Americans no matter what racial background they are. I want to 

know the FLB will work with us. As you well know, we are working on a trust and integrity bill that I believe is a hand of friendship. 

It also includes a collection of data, and that is numbers. You 

have just cited the FBI report, but I view it as science that help 

drives us toward providing the funding that you are interested in. 

I was a great supporter of the Cops on the Beat program, I want 

to make sure that is going forward. Byrne Grants, like you said, 

helping as much as possible. 

I want to get to Sheriff Acevedo for him to further emphasize 

some of the tactics we have used in Houston, and I want to thank 

Mayor Turner for emphasizing, in terms of community outreach, 

who you have engaged in. And then, if you would also answer the 

question. Just this past Monday Secretary Kelly, and I know that 

you have gotten this notice in working without joint terrorism, indicated that we may be in one of the most serious terrorist threat 

atmospheres since 9/11. This falls to local police. What kind of resources and what you need dealing with that question. 

And I thank you, Mr. Canterbury. Sheriff, will you take hold of 

this question please so that I will not have to say it again? Really 

interested in your comments about mental health. To answer the 

question, are you saying that some of these people who come to 

you, they are not criminals? They need mental health help. Thank 

you, and Chief Thompson, if you want to jump in please do. Mr. 

Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I would like to lead off by saying that I think 

the difference in the Walter Scott case versus some of the other 

cases is that the city of Charleston handled the entire investigation 

and the pre-work that Chief Thompson was talking about in the 

city of Charleston. If you look after the Emmanuel Church shooting 

as well, I am a proud South Carolinian, we did not go to the 

streets. We did not ride in South Carolina. We walked arm in arm 

on King Street in Charleston and demanded an end to the violence. 

And I think it is the pre-work that happened there. But on a national level, we have always been committed to data gathering. 

What we also like to see, though, is a mandatory collection of assault on police officers, as well so that we can demonstrate the 

total number. It is voluntary reporting currently. 

So, yes, we would work with you in any way possible to increase 

the amount of data. Scientific data is a basis for asset allocation, 

policing strategies. But on the other side, we also want to collect 

the data on the number of police officers that are being assaulted. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am going to take you up on that offer. Thank 

you, Chief. Thank you. 

Chief ACEVEDO. Good morning, again. In the city of Houston, we 

are really focusing on building relationships, building trust. Mayor 

Turner sets the tone and we all follow, including yourself and the 

police department. And we do not paint people with broad brushes. 

Black Lives Matter, some folks will paint them with a very broad 

20 

brush as a bunch of anarchists, when we know that the vast majority of the people in that movement are our neighbors, our friends, 

our coworkers, and people that just want to see good policing. 

And so, what we are doing in Houston is engaging one another, 

building those bridges. When SB4 is trying to marginalize immigrants and paint them as a bunch of thugs and rapists and drug 

dealers, we are painting them as what they truly are the very vast 

majority, and that is day laborers, and cooks, and nannies, and 

people that are building our homes and our bridges and our roadways. And so, I think that we need to put down our brushes and 

start talking to each other instead of yelling at each other. And actually instead of running away from activists I run towards them. 

And because of that, we have built I think trust. And we call 

each other on the carpet when we need to, and have those, I think 

like Sheriff McDonnell was saying, honest, open, blunt discussions. 

But respectful. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Sheriff. 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Thank you, ma’am. On the issue of mental 

health, I have on a daily basis 17,000 inmates in our custody in 

L.A. County jail system. Of that number, 4,000 to 5,000 are seriously mentally ill. If you were to look at the remainder of them and 

you look at issues such as PTSD, the number would probably be 

in the range of 90 percent. So, we have a population that is very, 

very challenged, that needs a different kind of care than traditionally we have been used to providing. 

Many of our folks are in custody because they are acting out on 

their mental illness. There is a cycle of dysfunction that continues. 

They come into our custody, they are treated, we try and stabilize 

them on medication and be able to get them functioning, only to 

be released from the system back out onto the street. 

Many are homeless, they go back to either skid row or living 

under a bridge or a freeway, and then re-offend and find themselves back in custody. A very expensive cycle, a very inhumane 

cycle of dysfunction that we need to break. What we need is additional funding and focus on community-based mental health care 

and treatment. To be able to provide alternatives to incarceration 

for people who can be better treated outside in a medical setting 

than in a custody environment. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chief. 

Chief THOMPSON. I would just briefly add that, you know, we 

have a lot of veterans coming back with PTSD that we are having 

to deal with. We also have citizens like my son, who has autism. 

And we are finding more and more situations where the actions, 

although they may appear to be criminal in nature, would be better 

served if we were to defer or get the people to the type of help that 

they need. And it is so important that we try to identify resources 

within our community and leverage those resources to assist those 

that are having some of these behavioral health issues. 

And just one last word on Autism. It is a growing epidemic. One 

in every 62 children born are on the spectrum and amongst boys 

it is 148. So, this is not a situation that is going to go away any 

time soon. So, we need to put energy and effort into dealing with 

our fellow citizens as they grow older because they do get older. As 

our little boy will be taller than me next year, probably, and he is 

21 

only 12. But as a police officer and having him as a young Black 

male who is not going to understand some of the orders of police, 

I think I am in a unique position to try to help on both sides of 

this equation of how to respond and also how to give parents some 

assurance that we are going to do all that we can do. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Chief. 

Mr. GOWDY. Really appreciate it. 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. If I could, just to add on to the interaction 

of the police with the public as it relates to autism and other cognitive disorders. If we can find the way to provide crisis intervention training to all of our police officers and deputy sheriffs, that 

is another tool in the tool box. We train the academy command 

presence how to go in and be authoritative. Take control of a situation that is very dynamic and chaotic. 

If we do that with somebody that is autistic, we are going to 

guarantee that it is going to set them off based on their illness and 

we are going to end up with a potential use of force and a bad outcome. If people know what to look for based on their training and 

can look for cues in the environment and can recognize symptoms 

and come off with a different approach, we get a different result 

and everybody benefits. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Sheriff. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, you have been very gracious. Can 

I just acknowledge a person in audience Mr. Chairman? It was an 

advocate of police union relations. Mr. Gerald Womack is here from 

Houston Texas, who has worked with the Chief and came here to 

acknowledge police, National Police week. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. GOWDY. Welcome, Mr. Womack. The chair will now recognize 

this gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank the chairman. Thank you all for being here. I 

assume that all four of you are here this week, along with thousands of other police officers and families of the slain officers to 

honor the fallen, not just from last year, but the previous years as 

well. 

Chief Acevedo, as you know, in Texas last year we had 21 police 

officers killed and numerous others wounded. More killed in the 

State of Texas last year than any other State in the United States. 

Five of them were in the Dallas area that were ambushed by a 

sniper while a demonstration was taking place in the city of Dallas. 

Ironically, the officers were protecting the demonstrators and the 

crowd, and then the sniper opens fire. Took place over quite a long 

period of time. Five officers killed. Several others wounded. Citizens killed, and then, finally, the sniper was taken out, as he 

should have been, by law enforcement. 

So, as a member of this committee along with the others, we 

mourn the loss of all of those officers, plus the over 130 that were 

killed throughout the Nation. And thank you for being the head 

guy for all of those, for our department. 

Chief Acevedo, I want to talk a little bit about the Justice of Victims Trafficking Act that has been implemented. As you know the 

bill that passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate and 

signed by the President goes after the trafficker, and I call that 

person the slave master. Goes after the buyer, who is the consumer 

22 

and then it also helps the victim and treats the victim like a victim 

of crime and not a criminal. 

The City of Houston recently had the Super Bowl and the City 

of Houston Police Department was in charge, and correct me if I 

am wrong, but Chief, I believe the City of Houston was in charge 

of the entire process on trafficking and making sure that those outlaws stayed out of our town during the Super Bowl. You worked 

with Federal, State, the NFL, and other organizations. 

My question to you is specifically on the bill goes after the buyer, 

the consumer. The person who buys sex, primarily with young children, and for years that person seemed to always get away with 

that conduct in our criminal justice system. Can you give me some 

success or not success of the law in taking, going after the buyers 

and Justice for Victims Trafficking Act in our City of Houston? 

Chief ACEVEDO. Good morning. Thank you so much. Unfortunately, the City of Houston is actually the epicenter for human 

trafficking and sex trafficking. It is nothing we are proud of, but 

it is something we are combating. Two things that we are doing 

that I think is really important. 

Number one, kind of General Kelly, Secretary Kelly is talking 

about, the war on drugs, you can focus on the people that are selling the dope or we can focus on treatment and going after the people that are buying it. In terms of this scourge, we do need and we 

are thankful of the fact that we are starting to focus on what we 

really need to be focusing on which is the consumer. 

In the City of Houston with the District Attorney’s Office and the 

leadership of Kim Og and Mayor Turner and, obviously, the police 

department, we are now treating the victims as they are. These 

women are victims. These boys, these children, these girls are victims and we are treating them as such instead of treating them as 

suspects and consequently what we are doing is they are helping 

us identify the bad guys that are actually taking advantage of 

these folks, whether it is the trafficker or the john. 

And, one other thing that we are doing is we are actually publishing the photos of these people. Put them on notice first, before 

the Super Bowl, publishing the photos—— 

Mr. POE. Sounds like something I would have done as a former 

judge in the city. 

Chief ACEVEDO. Yes, sir. There were some interesting people that 

ended up in those pictures. I will just leave it at that. But, we are 

very grateful for that bill, and we are hopeful it will help us fight 

that. 

The last thing is, a lot of these folks are so traumatized that 

when they are stopped by law enforcement with the pimp, with the 

trafficker they are afraid to say anything. So, actually training police officers on what the indicators are, how to investigate somebody on the side of the road has gone a long way and I would encourage all police departments across the country to be required to 

have training in that area. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Chief, and I think the Mayor’s office has 

a tremendously adequate and excellent protocol on dealing with the 

issue of human trafficking. I hope more cities take it in the future 

and will make us the hub of not trafficking, but the answer to trafficking. 

23 

Last comment I wanted to make to chief or Mr. Canterbury. I 

want to thank you for supporting the bill that I have introduced 

to back the blue, the Back the Blue Act, which punishes outlaws 

more who commit crimes against police officers throughout the 

country. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. Gentleman from Texas yields back. The chair will 

now recognize a gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr. Richmond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Let me thank all of you for being here and I will 

start with Mr. Canterbury since you represent so many people and 

I just want to start off that these are not ‘‘gotcha’’ questions. So, 

if we can answer them quickly it will help get to where I want to 

go. 

Would you agree that so many municipalities and local leaders 

and States and cities and counties are so cash-strapped that they 

are using the police departments as a revenue generator from either fines or fees, citations, traffic tickets, et cetera? Do you think 

that policy fosters or hampers community police relations? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. It hampers community relations. In St. Louis, 

there were 68 police departments in that county issuing tickets. 

The FOP brought that to the forefront. We should never be used 

to generate revenue. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Let me ask you another question. You would 

agree that the street code of ‘‘no snitching’’ erodes the safety of 

those communities and it hampers law enforcement’s ability to 

identify and convict criminals that are terrorizing those same communities? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And on the converse with the ‘‘blue code,’’ which 

has been termed as in terms of police officer’s unwillingness or reluctance to do the same to other police officers that the fact that 

it is out there and people talk about it erodes the community’s confidence in their police departments? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe that the discussion of it erodes it. I, 

personally, do not think that the blue code exists to the extent that 

it is meant to be. I have seen officers that might turn a blind eye 

to a policy violation. I have never seen anybody turn a blind eye 

to a criminal violation. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The other thing is and you mentioned and I was 

glad to hear you say that you do not think, you know, they are real 

biases but you think some officers come in with their own personal 

implicit bias. And to the extent that chiefs and others have the 

ability to root that out, and most often I see at least in civil service 

or others that the union will always come to the defense, no matter 

how much evidence and I think that also erodes some community 

confidence. 

But let me ask you another question, because you mentioned the 

18 officers this year. You talked about Baton Rouge, which is in my 

district. You did mention St. John a couple years earlier, which 

was in my district, and you talked about officers being gunned 

down, which is what we are concerned about. And, you mentioned 

home grown terrorism. 

But what I have not heard here today is the group Sovereign citizen that has killed more police officers than anybody else. And so, 

24 

when we do not mention them, I think it gives the perception to 

the public that you have some outlaw, you know, urban kids or 

other people who are targeting police, which is an unfair depiction 

when we know Sovereign citizen, who they are, and we never ever 

talk about them or call them by name. And my law enforcement 

officers tell me they are more concerned about stopping a car that 

is a Sovereign citizen than any other thing on the job. Would you 

kind of agree with that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I think Sovereign citizens are a scourge on this 

country and I think that it is not covered by the media the way 

it should be, but I think law enforcement is extremely concerned 

about Sovereign citizens. There is a number of incidents, Baton 

Rouge, the assailant professed to be a Sovereign citizen. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And so, in St. John Parish, where we lost deputies, both in my district, were both sovereign citizens. I am on 

Homeland, I am on Judiciary, and I am the only one that talks 

about sovereign citizen. And that concerns me and I think that if 

you can talk about it at least with my colleagues, it will help us, 

because it will get to my last point, which is you all are outgunned. 

They have better ammunition. They have higher capacity cartridges. They have better bullets that go through the body armor 

that you have and they have better body armor. So, if we talk 

about Baton Rouge specifically, those officers got out of those cars 

with hand guns and he had a long gun with a vest on. A long gun 

that he probably invested about $5000 in. There was nothing that 

could have saved them. Not their helmet, not their shield, not their 

car door. His bullet would have went through everything. 

So, we have to have an honest conversation about what people 

on the streets can buy and whether there is a need for it, because 

our officers are walking into situations where it is Iraq, except they 

are armed as a crossing guard and the bad guys are armed as terrorists. So, if you could help us, and we are not talking about taking people’s guns. We just want the police to be on a fair footing 

with the criminals. Could you respond to that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Mr. Richmond, in the last 10 or 15 years I 

have seen a big shift in law enforcement perspective on the 2nd 

Amendment, and our position has been that better background 

checks, mental health records being available to conduct those 

background checks, would go a long way. The assault rifle bill that 

was signed in by President Clinton, the numbers did not prove, at 

the conclusion, that that bill had any success in reducing the number of guns that were sold or the number of crimes committed. 

So, I think preventing those people from getting those weapons 

that should not have them should be the first and foremost thing 

that we should work on. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, can I just end with a comment? 

Mr. GOWDY. Sure. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The FN57, which is a hand gun which will go 

through body armor. It has no knock down power so it cannot be 

self-defense, it is sold in Cabela’s and everywhere else. It is strictly 

a killing gun. So, the question is, do we have the need for that and 

just anecdotally on assault weapons band, I was a kid during those 

times and I do not know what the data shows, but I know the 

25 

street value and the street cost of a AK47 at that time went from 

400 to 500 in the store or on the streets to 1,500. So, it made it 

a little bit harder for somebody to buy that gun and hopefully 

calmer heads prevailed before they were able to purchase it. So, 

that is just my life experience. But thank you all for what you do. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me go over. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, gentleman from Louisiana. The chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, the former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you all 

for being here today. I am sure over the course of this week, Police 

Week, you are going to receive a lot of kind words and praise, and 

it is certainly richly deserved. 

As U.S. Attorney under President Bush, the opportunity to serve 

as the top Federal law enforcement officer in the eastern district 

of Texas gave me the opportunity to stand shoulder-to-shoulder 

with so many officers and police departments across the 33,000 

square miles of that district and really instilled in me an appreciation that I did not have before about what your men and woman 

are asked to do every day. The sacrifices that they are asked to 

make and the circumstances under which they are asked to make 

them and to my mind, every week should be police week in this 

country. 

But rather than just talking the talk as legislators. We need to 

put words into action. We need legislation that does more than just 

say that we are grateful that proves that to you. We have had a 

lot of great comments, even on this subcommittee today from members on both sides of the aisle. Two of you, specifically, mentioned 

one specific piece of legislation that I introduced last congress and 

again this congress, which is the PLUSE ACT, Protecting Lives 

Using Surplus Equipment, and it was legislation that became necessary when the prior Administration decided to restrict the 1033 

Program and actually take back some of the equipment that had 

been transferred to law enforcement agencies under the program 

through the Department of Defense. 

I want to yield my time to you all. You have had some opportunity to talk about it, but one of the things and we have had a 

chance, many of us, to talk before. Mr. Canterbury working with 

your folks on this particular issue. I cannot tell you how much we 

appreciate it and how much we look forward to continuing to engage. Chief Acevedo, you and I had a chance to talk about this 

issue a few months ago at an event. 

But, you know, there is a narrative out there, a false narrative 

in some folk’s mind that this is Barney Fife from the Andy Griffith 

Show playing weekend warrior with RPGs. And so, there is a misconception about what the equipment involved is and what it really 

means. And, you know, Sheriff McDonnell, you live right next door 

to the jurisdiction where the San Bernardino attack happened. 

So, you know, I would really like you to take a few minutes and 

talk about the fact that this is not theoretical and that this particular program, what it really means in terms of saving lives, not 

just of officers, but of the citizens that they protect. And I would 

like to yield to you, all of you in that respect. 

26 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Well thank you, thank you for that opportunity. We touched on that briefly. The 1033 Program has been 

very valuable to State and local departments in the ability to be 

able to have the tools necessary to respond to those calls that are 

certainly out of the ordinary. But when you need the equipment, 

you need the equipment. To be able to put yourself in an armored 

vehicle between the suspect and some downed citizens, some 

downed officers to be able to affect a rescue, those seconds, sir, are 

life-saving. 

So, to be able to get in there without waiting, to be able to have 

the tools necessary, and rapidly deploy them. If we are waiting for 

some entity that is far away to be able to respond, this stuff as you 

see all the time on TV, these active shooter situations often are 

over in seconds or minutes. To be able to mobilize, get the equipment there, and be able to do what needs to be done in a way that 

is as safe as possible, the 1033 Program has given us tools that 

otherwise we would not have had. 

Chief ACEVEDO. And I would like to add, also, from Houston, that 

without this equipment, you know, we learned in Katrina that if 

you are going to wait for the Federal Government to come and save 

you, you are going to be waiting for a while. And so, the more that 

we can equip our local agencies to be prepared for all threats, 

whether it is by nature or the next multi-shooter incident you 

might have from homegrown extremist to Sovereign citizen or an 

overseas ratified person, the better off we are going to be. 

Again, our high-water vehicles when, you know, Houston is very, 

it is basically at sea level and when those rains come in we deploy 

these vehicles and some people, again, think about Iraq, but there 

is no offensive capability with 99 percent of the equipment that we 

are talking about. It is all equipment that helps us just conduct our 

everyday mission of keeping Americans safe. 

Chief THOMPSON. And I would just like to add for those departments that are kind of strapped financially, being able to get this 

equipment at a lower cost is advantageous to us, because to try to 

get some of the equipment from the private sector is extremely 

costly. And it is cost-prohibitive for us. So, it is a valuable tool or 

resource for us. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, you know, I am not sure there is another 

occupation out there where someone is expected to make correct, 

split-second, sometimes life and death decisions while navigating 

complicated laws and procedures. In the process, laying his or her 

life on the line for total strangers for relatively little compensation, 

and where every aspect of those actions draws public scrutiny and 

in some places criticism from sectors through the public or the 

ports. That is what your folks do every day. 

I hope there is a special place in heaven for folks like that and 

again, I think every week should be Police Week. So, I appreciate 

you all being here today. Please communicate that to the brave 

men and women that work with you, and I will yield back. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The chairman will now recognize his friend from New York, Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his leadership and for yielding as well as this distinguished panel for your 

presence here today, your service to this country. 

27 

If I could start with Chief Acevedo, the Department of Justice, 

under Attorney General Sessions, is now calling for a review of consent decrees involving local police departments, and it appears that 

they have attempted to stop movement in that direction as it relates to the Baltimore Police Department, which has had a history 

of problems highlighted by the Freddie Gray matter, but a series 

of other issues as well. 

Now, I believe that you came to the city of Houston and previously was in the city of Austin. Is that right? And during the 

time with Austin PD, I think, there was a Voluntary Cooperation 

Agreement between the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the Department in Austin. Is that right? 

Chief ACEVEDO. Yes, there was, we were investigated, pattern 

and practice investigation by the Department of Justice. It lasted 

about 4 years the entire process. But rather than enter into a consent decree and the challenge with consent decrees is a lot of 

money goes into what I described earlier as a cottage industry of 

these folks that get paid to, and have a vested interest of never getting out of a consent decree. 

For example, in Chicago it cost about $6 million in litigation. If 

we can use consent decrees as a last step for cities and counties 

that do not want to be helped by the Department of Justice and 

spend those precious dollars on training and equipment and the 

things that really will change outcomes, we are better off. And so, 

we are actually going to have a meeting with the Attorney General’s folks, the Civil Rights Division in 2 weeks. The agency chiefs 

and to talk about this issue. 

We do not want them to abandon them, but we think that cooperative agreements with teeth in them, without these monitors, 

these monitors that are sometimes getting, 1-, 2-, $3 million a year 

may be better for the tax payers. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And what were some of the policy and programmatic changes that were made as a result of this voluntary 

agreement? 

Chief ACEVEDO. Oh, lord, I mean for me it was a great tool to 

have at the Department of Justice as a new chief in Austin, because quite frankly they were validating what this new chief that 

came from the outside from the State of California was observing. 

Our systems, our processes, our policies were so outdated. Use of 

force, we would wait, there would be a check. If I used my PR 24, 

which is my baton on somebody, we would have a sergeant come 

to the scene in Austin at the time to assess to what was the use 

of force? To document the use of force. 

And so, we changed, we had 163 or so recommendations and we 

implemented 161 of them. So, it is a great partnership, a great tool 

and we hope that the collaborative agreements will be the preferred method moving forward with the consent decree being the 

final step. And, quite frankly, without the Department of Justice, 

a lot of the cities and counties simply will not invest in the training 

and the equipment the police officers need to do a very complex job 

unless they are forced through these agreements in terms of the 

Department of Justice. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So, it is fair to say as a result of the Department 

of Justice’s engagement, involvement, presence, that the Austin PoVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:35 Jun 08, 2018 Jkt 030234 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A234.XXX A234
28 

lice Department was able to modernize itself and significantly improve the relationship between the police and community, is that 

right? 

Chief ACEVEDO. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, I know Sheriff McDonnell, I think the L.A. 

Counties also had some experience with the consent decree, is that 

right? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the consent decree came about as a result of 

allegations, accusations of the excessive use of force directed, in 

particular, at communities of color. Is that right? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. That is one of them. We have one in the 

jails and we have one in the Antelope Valley. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And can you tell me about your experience with 

the Department of Justice, and has it resulted in positive changes 

resulting in improved safety of facilities, kept officers safer and potentially improved the relationship between the police and the community? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Well, I also have prior experience with 

LAPD with long term consent decree as well. And to echo some of 

the comments here before. It is a vehicle for change, for positive 

change. It needs to be managed in a way in a macro sense, so that 

it does what it is intended to do. That the things that are being 

counted are things that matter in change. A lot of times you will 

have a consent decree with a number of different recommendations 

for change. The completion of the consent decree is contingent upon 

some of those will affect organizational change, cultural change, 

and some of them are more check the box kind of things, which are 

not as helpful. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Can you give me one example, as my time expires, 

of the type of thing that could affect organizational change in a 

positive direction? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. Absolutely, in looking at pattern and practice in the Antelope Valley racial profiling allegations we were able 

to drill down on that where were measuring what is occurring out 

there. I think our greatest measure is public satisfaction. 

There was a recent article done by the L.A. Times measuring 

where we were prior and where we are today and it was very complementary of the change within the organization as it relates to 

police community interaction. So, we are very proud of that. 

Within the custody environment, that is a different place today 

than it was a few years ago. We are very proud of the progress we 

have been able to make there. Our uses of force, significant uses 

of force by deputies on inmates is down dramatically. And, when 

we look at the population at the jails that we have in California, 

they have changed dramatically. A much more sophisticated, much 

more violent criminal in for much longer period of time than previous. So, the challenges are greater, but we are managing them, 

I think, much better than in past years. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Sheriff, and I would hope that this 

committee would consider strongly taking a position that the Department of Justice should proceed carefully with any effort to 

eradicate oversight, accountability, involvement and just work to 

29 

establishing the best productive relationship as possible. Thank 

you, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Gentleman from New York yields back. The chair 

will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan for purposes of introducing his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is what I want to do. I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you. The chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the witnesses 

being here today, but I appreciate even more the jobs that you do 

and serving people and your cities and the country. 

I want to follow up on the consent decree issue, and I guess we 

are all affected by our own personal experiences. But based on my 

experiences having been a prosecutor, and then doing mainly civil 

litigation but getting court appointments time to time but also 

being a felony judge and a Chief Justice, I have seen it from a lot 

of different angles. And it lead me to believe that my friend and 

he is a brilliant intellect had clerked for the Supreme Court, he is 

just a smart guy, Mark Levine had said he felt like the consent decrees were being used to federalize local police departments. 

And, it certainly appeared from what I had seen personally that 

when departments were having to spend money and time on the 

experts they really do, they make a career out of being expensive 

and being indispensable under consent decrees that there is a lot 

of money wasted on those people that should be wasted, not wasted, but actually spent where it is more productive on people, manpower, and equipment to keep them safe. And, it always seemed to 

me having watched a Federal judge there in my hometown of Tyler 

take control of the State prison system as, he was the legislature 

executive and judicial branch all in one as he managed the prison 

systems in Texas for, I do not know, over 30 years, I think. That 

that certainly seemed unconstitutional that no one person should 

have that kind of authority for that period of time to run facilities 

and systems. 

But again, that was under a decree that was agreed to, basically, 

giving the Federal Government one Federal judge, that kind of control. But, I had a court appointment who told me that after the 

Federal judge took control of the Texas Prison Systems, he had 

been in prison before, and he had been in after. And there was 

night and day difference after the Federal judge took control. He 

was in much more danger, and it was much more difficult to do 

time in prison. 

But in any event, it seems like if there is a problem, I always 

felt like there should be a lawsuit. Get it straight. But the oversight does not continue. It just ends up if we have to come back, 

it is going to be more expensive again. And then, leave it to the 

locals to clean it up with their knowledge that if they do not, the 

Federal Government will come back in. And it will be more expensive and costly next time. I do not believe, has Houston been under 

a consent decree? I did not think you had. 

30 

Chief ACEVEDO. No, sir, not that I am aware of. I have only been 

there 6 months, and I am pretty certain we have never been under 

a consent decree. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I would hope that is not something you were 

looking forward to. 

Chief ACEVEDO. That is a lotto ticket no police chief would like 

to win, to be honest with you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, Sheriff McDonnell, I get the impression that 

is not someplace you wanted to be either, right? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, I also wanted to ask you about something that has constantly come up over the 8 years. This emphasis 

on people in Federal prison for simple possession, and the public 

was given the impression that we had lots of folks in Federal prison for simple possession. And my experience was that if there was 

nothing but simple possession, the Feds left that to the State for 

prosecution. About the only time we hardly ever saw the Feds take 

a simple possession was when somebody agreed to a plea agreement to testify, and in return they would only pursue the possession. 

For those who say that drug crimes are victimless crimes, I 

would just like to finish by hearing each of your opinions on whether or not simple drug offenses are victimless crimes. Sheriff 

McDonald, if you could? 

Sheriff MCDONNELL. You know, I look at simple possession cases 

in the State of California based on Prop 47 are now a citation, not 

just once, but every time you are caught. And it does not matter 

the type of drug, so we are probably in a different place than many 

States. 

But the drug market, the drug industry if you will, drives crime. 

It is organized crime. The cartels are involved. There is violence associated with it from the lowest levels to the highest levels. 

So, to say that it is a victimless crime I think is very wrong. 

When you look at what is happening today across America with our 

opioid crisis, and you see we are losing 91 people a day in this 

country to overdoses primarily from opioids. And you look at that, 

and you just see these are primarily young kids, 18 to 25. And 

Fentanyl has now been introduced to the market, which is extremely powerful, deadly in some cases, with carfentanil, in particular. And you look at where that is taking us. 

At the same time, we are moving away from using the tools of 

the justice system to be able to deal with drugs, and I do not believe that those are the tools that should be used solely. It is a 

health problem. It needs to be dealt with as a health problem, but 

I think we also need to be able to have leverage to be able to get 

people into treatment. We have lost that in California. By having 

that leverage using the criminal justice system, we have the ability 

to get people into treatment and hopefully be able to get their lives 

back on track. Without that leverage, people do not have the ability, based on their addiction, to get themselves into treatment and 

to be able to break that cycle of dysfunction that we see too often. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I ask the chairman’s indulgence. If I could have 

all three answer that question? 

31 

Mr. GOWDY. I am the only one that has not asked their questions 

yet. I was trying to get done by noon, but if you can accommodate 

Mr. Gohmert with whether or not drugs are a victimless crime, I 

am happy to wait longer. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Chief Thompson. 

Chief THOMPSON. Not a victimless crime, but we do, especially 

for the first offender, is try to defer what we can from court to get 

the type of assistance that they need to stop their dependency. And 

most of the cases are handled at the city and county level or State 

level for us, with State statutes. And we are not filling the Federal 

Government or Federal penitentiary to the simple possession. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. Mr. Canterbury. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. The vast majority of traffickers in the Federal 

sector are very involved in the violent side of narcotics. It is a misnomer that the Federal prison is full of nonviolent drug offenders. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Chief. 

Chief ACEVEDO. Well, I do not have the data with me, but I think 

we need to be smart on crime, especially at a time where we have 

limited resources. So, we need to distinguish between those that 

are simple users that, as Secretary Kelly has said, we need to start 

getting those people treatment, not putting them in prison. We 

were charging people with felonies for having three bindles of cocaine for personal use. We have to differentiate true dealers that 

are out their poisoning our streets with people that are just addicted. So, treatment goes a long way in getting rid of the underlying problems. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentleman yields back. The chair will now recognize himself. I want to thank all four of you for being here today 

and for your service for our country. I am going to confine my 

interactions with my own police chief and start by thanking you 

and your family who is with you today for your service to our community and other communities throughout your distinguished career. We are really fortunate to have you in Spartanburg, and Tim 

Scott and I want to thank you for helping us with our police community relations roundtables. As you know, they are confidential 

because we want people to tell the truth, and your voice is an important one that we have benefitted from. 

Your predecessor was a really good friend of mine, Tony Fisher. 

He also is a law enforcement officer of color, without whom I never 

would have been elected District Attorney. So, if folks are looking 

for someone to blame for me being in public service, Tony Fisher 

would be the person to blame. 

And Tony and I would lament from time to time the notion, the 

deeply-held notion, within certain communities that victims of color 

were valued less than white victims. In homicide cases in particular, that the sentences did not reflect valuing the lives of Black 

victims the same as White victims. And it is interesting to have 

that conversation with a law enforcement officer of color who well 

knew prosecutions are only as good as the evidence that we are 

given. 

So, when you say community relations, the first thing I think of 

is how do we get the community to trust you and your officers 

32 

enough to give us the information we know that they have to 

present the evidence we know that they possess, so we can value 

the lives of people of color in exactly the same way we do as white 

victims? How do we do that? 

Chief THOMPSON. I do not think it is an easy fix, sir. But as I 

have mentioned earlier, it is what you do before crimes and situations arise. You know, there is no substitute for quality, professional, and equitable service, and respectful service in dealing with 

our citizens in all areas of our city. But breaking down these unfortunately historical or traditional barriers between police and the 

community are hard. I will say that this no-snitching or not telling 

the police, giving us what we need to solve crimes, is not as significant as we may think it is because otherwise, we would have solved 

nothing. 

Information is definitely power. We would not get information 

readily at the scene, but oftentimes because of relationships built, 

we will get that anonymous call of someone giving us what is necessary to identify someone responsible and eventually bring them 

to justice. 

But like you and Director Fisher, that is a tremendous frustration because we value life, but the community that is being hurt 

by this violence has to value life, too, and stepping up to do what 

is necessary to bring the people that is responsible for causing the 

pain and the hardship back to justice. 

And really, relationships, if there is one thing that I can just 

stress. When we go to calls, we are not being invited over for tea 

or barbeque, obviously. But when we can get together during noncontentious times, and break down those barriers into where we 

see that we have a singleness of purpose. We do care about the 

community. 

For example, I try to lead by example by being a mentor, so 

being on boards. For example, I chair the Boys and Girls Club in 

the upstate of South Carolina. I am on AMI White Pines Kids. 

These are kids that have run afoul of the law. Being intimately involved, and the people see that you are sincere in your efforts to 

assist and that we are not just some entity to come in, effect an 

arrest, write a ticket, and leave. I think that starts us on our way 

of getting the type of information that you are wanting and that 

we are needing to be successful in our prosecution of perpetrators 

of crime. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, you and your officers are incredibly active in 

our community, and I regret deeply that it takes a funeral for some 

of your guys and gals to know how appreciated they are. The community outpouring of support for your agency was incredibly, tragically beautiful to watch. I just hate that it took Jason Harris’ life, 

and it does not have to do that. I hope your officers feel appreciated, even on the days they come home safely. 

So, I will say this, when you were making your opening statement, I was sitting here writing a summary. The pay is low. The 

work is hard. The danger is intense. The scrutiny is exacting, and 

the margin for error is zero. I do not know how in the hell you recruit anybody for that line of work. I just do not. So, in a world 

clamoring for bipartisanship and apolitical causes, I hope you can 

33 

take back to all of your agencies and entities that Republicans and 

Democrats, at least on this subcommittee, greatly value your work. 

And we are cognizant of the sacrifices that not just you, but also 

your officers and their families, make. And if you would let them 

know that and to Johnny Ratcliffe’s point, we will try to communicate that the other 51 weeks out of the year, too, and not just 

this one. So, with that, thank you for your service. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOWDY. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent for 

statements to be put in record. Mine, I think you did general leave, 

and then a letter dated from the ACLU, dated May 17th. 

Mr. GOWDY. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then, just to associate myself with the 

comments of the chairman as he concludes is that there is, you 

have a blue line. There is legislation called the Thin Blue Line, but 

there is no divide in the affection that we have for those who are 

on the front line for all of us. 

And the questions that we have asked, I believe, are both instructive and productive for us ensuring that we are both working 

in commonality, and respect, and dignity. And we certainly offer 

our sympathy this week for those who have fallen. And we commit 

ourselves to make that zero as we work with our communities and 

our young people across the Nation. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. 

Mr. GOWDY. The gentlelady yields back. The other members will 

have 5 legislative days with which to submit additional questions 

for the record or any other extraneous materials. With that, we are 

adjourned. Thank you for your service. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ