Law Enforcement Support Office

In 1944, the Surplus Property Act provided for the disposal of surplus government property, and spawned numerous short lived agencies like the Surplus War Property Administration (SWPA), in the Office of War Mobilization (OWM, February–October 1944), the Surplus Property Board (SPB), in the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion (OWMR, October 1944 – September 1945), the Surplus Property Administration and also corporations like the Petroleum Reserves Corporation (PRC) and the War Assets Corporation to deal with it. The War Assets Administration was the latest to operate and was abolished in 1949.

The "National Defense Authorization Act of 1990", section 1208 authorized transfer of military hardware from the Department of Defense broadly to "federal and state agencies", but specifically "for use in counter-drug activities".[10][11] as this legislation was passed in the context of the War on Drugs.[11][12] Until 1997, it was called the 1208 program and run by the Department of Defense from the Pentagon and its regional offices.[13]

In 1995, the "Law Enforcement Support Office" was created within the DLA to work exclusively with law enforcement.[13]

With passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, the 1208 program was expanded to the 1033 program allowing "all law enforcement agencies to acquire property for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission", and that "Preference is given to counter-drug and counter-terrorism requests".[10] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on 23 September 1996.[14]

In October the DLA Disposition Services first released information about the equipment distribution by county. An inflection point occurred in the fall 2014 after several events brought increasing public scrutiny, and the eventual release of Federal records on the movement of military goods to civilian police forces was made public on 21 November 2014.[15][16]

From 1997 until 2014, $5.1 billion in military hardware were transferred from DOD to local American law enforcement agencies, according to LESO, and material worth $449 million was transferred in 2013 alone.[10][18] About a third of the equipment is new.[19] The most commonly obtained item from the 1033 program is ammunition. Other most commonly requested items include cold weather clothing, sand bags, medical supplies, sleeping bags, flashlights, and electrical wiring.[20] The 1033 program also transfers office equipment such as fax machines, which many smaller police departments are unable to afford. The DLA also offers tactical armored vehicles, weapons, watercraft, and aircraft.[13][21]

As of 2014, 8,000 local law enforcement agencies participate in the reutilization program.[10] Police departments are responsible for paying for shipment and storage of material acquired, but do not pay for the donation. The largest number of requests for material comes from small to mid-sized police departments who are unable to afford extra clothing, vehicles and weapons. The program gives smaller police departments access to material that larger police departments are usually able to afford without federal assistance.[22] A memorandum of agreement between the DLA and the states participating in 1033 requires that local police forces either utilize the military equipment within one year or return it.[12] The rules allow police to dispose of or sell some goods after at least one year of usage.[23]

As of September 2014 more than twenty school district police agencies received military-grade equipment through the program.[24] The San Diego school district planned to return a military surplus vehicle after negative public reaction.[25]

The Los Angeles School Police Department has also received excess military equipment, including 61 assault rifles, three grenade launchers, and an MRAP vehicle.[26] Ten School Police Departments in Texas also participate in the 1033 program, in total acquiring 25 automatic pistols, 64 M16 assault rifles, 18 M14 battle rifles, 15 vehicles and tactical vests.[27]

As of 2014, at least 117 colleges and universities in the United States have used the 1033 program to acquire military-grade equipment through their campus police departments.[28] Higher education institutions that participate in the program include local community colleges, state universities, and Ivy Leagues, ranging from Hinds Community College, University of Central Florida, University of California, Columbia University, and Yale.[29]

In 2012, the University of California at Berkeley attempted to use the federal program to acquire an Armored Response Counter Attack Truck, also referred to as a Lenco BearCat, to deal with possible campus shootings, but public outcry forced UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgenau to reverse procurement of the eight-ton armored truck.[30] In 2013, Ohio State University acquired an MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicle, becoming the first campus in the U.S. to integrate this kind of military-grade equipment into their campus police department.[31] Florida State University used the program to acquire a Humvee, which campus police say is only to be used in the case of an active shooter, not a civil disturbance.[32] Central Washington University has also received an armored truck through the program, claiming the truck is used to train for active-shooter scenarios.[33] The most popular military equipment acquired by colleges and universities through the 1033 program is the M16. Campus police at the Arizona State University currently hold the most M16's with a total of 70, followed by Florida International University and the University of Maryland, which both carry 50 M16's.[34]

The Department of Defense[35] has provided a variety of military and police equipment to both private and public universities across the country. Equipment allocated has ranged from gauze,[36] trousers, and other basic supplies, to armored vehicles,[36] grenade launchers, and M-16 assault rifles.[37] Many spokespersons for colleges and universities that received this military equipment have cited cost efficiency as the main motivation for engaging in this partnership, including University of Florida's dean of students Jen Day Shaw, who stated that the program "is a cost savings for taxpayers."[35]

Participating campus departments pay only for delivery and maintenance of allocated military supplies, paying a mere $507.43 for as many as 12 M-16 rifles (University of Louisiana at Monroe).[35] If colleges and universities seek to acquire material not obtainable directly through the 1033 program, like other local law enforcement agencies, they may purchase said equipment through federal grants allocated by the DOD. Another justification for involvement in the 1033 program is the epidemic of school shootings on U.S. campuses, with many college and university representatives citing the Virginia Tech shooting as reason for concern and increased militarization of campus police departments.[35]

In instances where campus police departments fail to or do not directly attempt to acquire excess military material from the 1033 program, partnership with local and regional law enforcement through mutual aid allows colleges and universities to indirectly benefit from the program by utilizing military equipment obtained by law enforcement agencies in the surrounding area.[38] Where police jurisdiction overlaps between college and universities and the municipal area they inhabit, the acquisition of material such as an MRAP by a municipal law enforcement agency can substitute acquisition by a campus police department, as was the case between the city of Davis, CA and the University of California at Davis in 2014.[39]

Law enforcement agencies must declare the intended use for each item, maintain an audit trail for each item and conduct inventory checks for DLA. Firearms, certain vehicles and other equipment must be returned to the Defense Department after use.[23] "For security reasons [1033 program record] information is not subject to public review", per DLA.[23]

A state coordinating agency in each U.S. state, except for Hawaii, headed by a state coordinator that is appointed by the state governor must approve an application, and is supposed to function as oversight after dispersion of equipment.[40] The state coordinating agency is housed within a state agency that varies from state to state, for example in the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, the Alaska Department of Public Safety and so on.[41] The fact that in Arizona a Payson, Arizona Police Department Detective, was appointed as the state coordinator, made it easier for Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County, Arizona to amass "more than $7 million worth of Humvees, fire trucks, firearms, defibrillators, barber chairs, underwear, thermal-imaging scopes, computers, motor scooters and other in 2010–2012, which he told county supervisors he would auction off to balance his budget.[23] This is because the detective had appointed an office grants administrator in the Pinal County Sheriff Office to help him "oversee and authorize military-surplus requisitions". The Sheriff's speaker described it as chance to cherry-pick, "as we can start approving our own requests".[23] After the Arizona Republic newspaper expose the DLA "announced agency-wide reforms, and Sheriff Paul Babeu was directed to retrieve vehicles and other equipment his office distributed to non-police organizations" and "about the same time, weapons requisitions were temporarily suspended and audited nationwide.[42]

In 2003, a Defense Department Inspector General audit found incorrect or inadequate documentation in about three-quarters of the transactions analyzed, declaring 1033 Program records unreliable.[23]

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the Pentagon "does not have management controls in place" to avert waste, abuse and fraud in the program. Investigators identified "hundreds of millions of dollars in reported lost, damaged, or stolen excess property ... which contributed to reutilization program waste and inefficiency."[23]

Kara Dansky, senior counsel for the ACLU, wrote that the federal government is deliberately militarizing local law enforcement agencies.[19]

According to a study by social scientist Dr. Casey Delehanty and colleagues, larger 1033 transfers are associated with increased killings by police.[57]