CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee is a joint, bipartisan, statutory committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. It was established in 1972 to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and statutory compliance of selected state agencies and programs, recommending remedies where needed. In 1975, the General Assembly expanded the committee's function to include investigations, and during the 1977 session added responsibility for "sunset" (automatic program termination) performance reviews. The committee was given authority to raise and report bills in 1985.

The program review committee is composed of 12 members. The president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, the speaker of the house, and the House minority leader each appoint three members.

2005-2006 Committee Members

Committee Staff

Carrie Vibert, Director

Catherine M. Conlin, Chief Analyst

Jill Jensen, Chief Analyst

Brian R. Beisel, Principal Analyst

Michelle Castillo, Principal Analyst

Maryellen Duffy, Principal Analyst

Miriam P. Kluger, Principal Analyst

Anne E. McAloon, Principal Analyst

Renee La Mark Muir, Principal Analyst

Scott M. Simoneau, Principal Analyst

Carrie O. Evangelinos, Legislative Analyst II

Bonnine T. Labbadia, Executive Secretary

Project Staff

Scott M. Simoneau

Carrie O. Evangelinos

STATE CAPITOL ROOM 506 HARTFORD, CT 06106 (860) 240-0300

Email: pri@cga.ct.gov www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.htm

Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

State Environmental Conservation Police

December 2006

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

I. Authority

Overview 3

Purpose, Mission, and Authority 3

Evolution of Current Authority 5

Interviews and Survey Results 7

Technical Issues Re: Enumerated Provisions 8

Further Description of Major Responsibilities 10

II. Selection and Training

Selection 17

Training and Recertification 20

III. Budget

Operating Budget 23

Revenue 25

IV. Organization and Structure

Major Roles and Functions 27

Deployment 29

Incidents and Enforcement Actions by Location 32

Areas of Responsibility: Recent Changes 36

V. Incidents and Enforcement Actions

Regulated Activities 38

Incidents, Enforcement Actions, and Warnings 41

Incidents and Staff Deployment 48

VI. Staffing

Overall Considerations for Staffing 51

Principles of Police Staffing 58

Police Staffing Model 62

Projected Retirements 65

VII. Equipment

Condition of Equipment 67

Adequacy of Equipment 67

Use of Technology 68

Division Facilities 70

Evidence Storage 70

VIII. Selected Management Practices

General Orders 73

Complaint System 77

Emergency Dispatch Center and Computer Aided Dispatch 80

Coordination 83

APPENDICES

A. LRR&IC Survey of Conservation Officers

B. LPR&IC Survey of Park Supervisors

C. Statutory Authority

D. Incidents and Enforcement Actions by Town

E. Mission Comparison

F. Top 20 Parks for Incidents

G. Delayed and No Response Calls

H. Summary of the Law Enforcement Division Space Needs Study

I. Agency Response

Executive Summary

State Environmental Conservation Police

In April 2006, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to undertake a study of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon police). The focus of the study was to evaluate their performance in enforcing fish and game laws, state parks and forest rules, boating laws, and applicable criminal laws, and in conducting related functions.

The current State Environmental Conservation Police can trace their origins to the first ten men appointed as “Special Game Protectors” by the Commission of Fisheries and Game, which was established by the General Assembly in 1895. Under the authority of the commission, the game protectors were assigned to enforce fish and game laws anywhere within the state. Since then the duties and responsibilities of the conservation officers have expanded from the original role of protecting fish and game to also include:

• enforcement of boating law;

• enforcement of snowmobile and all terrain vehicle laws;

• enforcement of motor vehicle law;

• enforcement of criminal law;

• policing the 137 state parks and forests;

• assisting and supporting state and municipal police departments;

• assisting and supporting homeland security;

• assisting and supporting the U.S. Coast Guard on Long Island Sound; and

• responding to search and rescue missions and missing person incidents in state parks and forests, on state lakes and rivers, and on Long Island Sound.

This study examined the adequacy of the division's authority, the deployment of officers and sufficiency of overall staffing, the trends in the nature and types of incidents and enforcement actions, the condition of EnCon equipment and facilities, and a number of selected management practices. The committee found that while overall operational trends tend to indicate the division could benefit from additional staffing, a more detailed assessment of staffing needs requires that EnCon and DEP management clearly identify and define the mission, goals, and objectives the division is expected to achieve.

While the division is highly regarded by those organizations and agencies that depend on it, some fundamental questions have to be answered before a fair assessment of its needs and achievements can be performed. The committee made a number of recommendations regarding the development of a policing philosophy, a strategic plan, and the creation of standards for the level of service EnCon police should be providing to assist the division in answering those questions.

The committee also developed specific recommendations in a number of areas to improve the current operation of the division. These include modifications to its authority, a re-examination of its deployment practices, revisions to its General Orders, training and equipment improvements, standardization of procedures for the department's dispatch center, and improvements to other selected administrative practices.

At its December 14, 2006 meeting, the committee adopted 26 recommendations. The approved recommendations are listed below.

Recommendations

1. The authority of EnCon police should be modified to allow conservation officers to enforce narcotics violations, traffic signal violations, and larceny in the fifth and sixth degree off of DEP owned and controlled property, without having the violation enforced in conjunction with a breach of the laws enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a). In addition, the crimes of negligent hunting and hunting under the influence should be explicitly enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a).

2. The division should regularly assess the training needs of its personnel to ensure the training they receive allows them to perform their duties with confidence in the field.

3. The administrative sergeant located at the Central Headquarters in Hartford should be responsible for finding appropriate elective training events and implementing a system to notify all officers of the dates of such events as well as deadlines for application.

4. Officer deployment and the patrol zone structure should be reexamined, along with a review as to how incidents are monitored and distributed, to better allocate the caseload among field officers.

5. EnCon police should institute a protocol to obtain information from state and municipal police departments regarding police activity on DEP property, beginning with parks with high attendance, to fully understand the amount of enforcement activity occurring on DEP property.

6. EnCon officer work schedules should be better aligned with the occurrence of incidents.

7. Department of Environmental Protection management needs to explicitly determine the expected role and performance of the EnCon police and develop policy statements on the desired policing style and service philosophy of the division.

8. The EnCon police should develop a new strategic plan with explicit objectives and performance indicators for the division related to its mission. Performance measures should address expected levels of service in parks and for other organizations that depend on EnCon services, and its accomplishments related to its resource protection functions, as well as traditional process and output measures such as response times, length of time for case closure, and clearance rates for crime. Performance should be closely monitored against established plans and standards.

9. Explicit standards should be created in consultation with the 22 park management units, lake authorities, and other organizations that depend on EnCon police services regarding the expected level of service from EnCon.

10. The Department of Environmental Protection should explore expanding training requirements for park aides to include conflict management and methods for dealing with difficult people, especially in parks with high attendance.

11. The Department of Environmental Protection should develop a long-term plan, along with a commitment for funding in the next budget cycle, for the expected replacement of retiring officers. It should be phased-in to address anticipated shortages of sworn personnel and recognize the need for extended training of new officers.

12. The division should expand the opportunities for conservation officers to participate in the selection of equipment.

13. DEP should explore the potential benefits of the use of surveillance technology, especially for historically significant buildings and other vulnerable park buildings, and expand the use of mobile data technology to increase the safety and efficiency of officers in the field.

14. The department should plan for and phase in facility improvements that accommodate the unique needs of the EnCon police in a timely manner as funds are made available, in accordance with the recommendations provided by the 2002 independent facilities review to provide each district's headquarters with additional space and modern amenities.

15. The division shall ensure compliance with the chain of custody requirements recommended by accreditation standards such as CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.) or POSTC (Police Officer Standards and Training Council).

16. The division should revise the General Orders to include topics that are either missing or underdeveloped and establish a process for periodic review and update.

17. The division should also consider seeking accreditation from either POSTC or CALEA.

18. Supervisors should adhere to the report format presented in General Orders Chapter 4, Section 2, Appendix A for internal affairs investigations and administrative inquiries to ensure the accuracy and completeness of these files. Appendix A should be amended to include a description of the method of corrective action decided upon.

19. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and periodically update a standard operating procedures manual to include, but not be limited to call handling procedures on how emergency and non-emergency calls are handled and how calls are to be managed when there is no officer on duty. These protocols should be followed and well documented to increase the accountability of both officers and dispatch operators. The procedures manual should be available in an easy to use and easy to reference format.

20. EnCon should review, validate, and further refine the underlying incident and activity data codes along with the input criteria for its Computer Aided Dispatch system.

21. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a quality assurance program to ensure appropriate and defensible dispatch procedures are followed. The program should include a periodic review of recorded calls to ensure each dispatch operator asked the right questions, provided the correct answers, and followed protocol. DEP dispatch will need to retrain operators to address any deficiencies that are revealed.

22. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a clear, safe, and consistent strategy for handling calls that require medical assistance, such as transferring calls to emergency 9-1-1.

23. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and report annually performance measures related to dispatch functions and operations, including but not limited to dispatcher response times and accuracy standards.

24. Personnel representing the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center and the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police should meet at least annually to formally review the trends and findings revealed by dispatch documentation. Any changes in codes, policies, procedures, and deployment, and when those changes are to be implemented should be documented.

25. EnCon police should examine becoming a member of regional mutual aid agreements throughout the state, and enter into mutual aid agreements or memoranda of understanding with municipalities where it will be beneficial for both agencies to formally define their relationship and respective responsibilities in areas of mutual concern or in the event of an emergency situation.

26. EnCon should institute a practice of having captains meet with the relevant local chiefs of police before and after the summer season to discuss areas of mutual concern in areas with high attendance parks.

Introduction

State Environmental Conservation Police

In April 2006 the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to undertake a study of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon police). The focus of the study was to evaluate their performance in enforcing fish and game laws, state parks and forest rules, boating laws, and applicable criminal laws, and in conducting related functions.

There are a few themes that condition any discussion of the EnCon police, and they involve the unique characteristics of the EnCon law enforcement environment and the evolving and changing role of the division.

EnCon officers operate in a variety of work environments. The variations in inland and coastal geography can present very different demands on law enforcement in those areas. The seasonality of the work also poses challenges. Knowing the changing patterns of an area by season, the wildlife habitats, and such things as where a boat or vehicle can get access to a body of water or a piece of property are important to being an effective EnCon police officer.

Coverage areas can be large. The current area covered by an inland officer can be over 200 square miles. Marine officers are responsible for a patrol area that includes coastal towns out to the middle of Long Island Sound.

The work often requires special equipment, in addition to four-wheel drive patrol vehicles. EnCon officers use all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, as well as boats of various sizes to accommodate ponds, rivers, and the ocean. In cooperation with the Connecticut State Police, EnCon officers also engage in aerial surveillance of the shellfish industry, as well as of recreational vehicles trespassing on state property. Officers are at times required to switch modes of transportation to patrol or respond to incidents. Transfers from boats to vehicles or vehicles to boats (and boats sometimes have to be transported to a launch) can be time consuming.

The role of the conservation officer has changed over the years and has become more demanding and more complex. At one time, the fish and game role of the conservation officer was separate from that of providing public safety services in the parks. Even though those roles started to merge in 1992, the division still experiences some lingering challenges in resolving the tension between the roles.

An appreciation and knowledge of hunting, fishing, and trapping are the traditional reasons many are attracted to this occupation. While fish and game enforcement continues to be a focus of the job, law enforcement in park and recreational facilities often requires a different mix of skills. Drug and alcohol problems along with domestic disputes and other types of related social concerns can be found in the state's park system. Further, conservation officers have also been called upon to take a greater and specific role in providing security during terrorism threats.

Methodology. The program review committee and its staff relied on a number of information sources and a variety of research methods to complete this study. A number of governmental and professional studies and reports on topics related to conservation law enforcement and staffing were reviewed. This included in-depth staffing studies of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Camden County Park Police, and U.S. Park Police. A number of best practice guides were examined including those developed by the International Association of Police Chiefs as well as accreditation standards developed by Connecticut's Police Officer Standards and Training Council, and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

Numerous interviews were conducted with the command staff of the EnCon police as well as a number of its officers, other employees of the Department of Environmental Protection who interact with the EnCon Police, the Connecticut State Police, various municipal police departments, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Marine Fisheries Council, U.S. Coast Guard, and a number of organized stakeholders representing the fish and game community in Connecticut. A primary source of data for the study was obtained from the EnCon computer aided dispatch system, which stores a variety of data including the types of EnCon enforcement and patrol activity, individual officer activity, workload by time of day, and information about officer deployment. Certain concerns about the completeness of the data are more fully noted in Chapter V.

The committee also conducted two surveys. The division's 46 full-time conservation officers and sergeants were surveyed to obtain their opinions about various operational aspects of the division. Thirty-nine responses were received from the officers, for a response rate of 85 percent. The full survey results are located in Appendix A. The second survey was directed at DEP's 23 park supervisors to understand their views on how well the EnCon police were doing in providing law enforcement services in the state's parks and forests. Twenty responses were received from the park supervisors, for a response rate of 87 percent. The full survey results are located in Appendix B.

Report organization. This report has eight chapters and a number of appendices. The first chapter examines the law enforcement authority of the EnCon police. Chapters II and III present information on the selection and training of officers and historical budget trends. Chapter IV provides an overview of the organizational structure of the division and the current deployment of officers across the state. Chapter V analyzes incidents handled by the division, while Chapter VI examines the adequacy of overall conservation officer staffing. Chapter VII evaluates EnCon's equipment and facilities. Finally, Section VIII discusses a number of current management practices. Committee findings and proposed recommendations may be found in each chapter.

Agency Response

It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment on the recommendations prior to publication for the final report. Appendix I contains the response from the Department of Environmental Protection.

Chapter I

Overview

This chapter reviews the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police's mission and scope of statutory authority, and recommends certain changes. The major responsibilities are also described.

The law enforcement authority of conservation officers was primarily limited to hunting and fishing laws in 1971 when the modern day Department of Environmental Protection was created out of the merger of three separate commissions.¹ Despite periodic attempts to establish general statewide law enforcement jurisdiction, conservation officer enforcement authority has always been statutorily limited. Their law enforcement authority, though, has grown significantly reflecting their expanded responsibilities since 1971.

Purpose, Mission, and Authority

Purpose, mission, and goals. The EnCon police are certified police officers with specific duties and authority under state law. The Division of State Environmental Conservation Police is located in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation within the Department of Environmental Protection. The division's mission, as stated in its annual report, “is the protection of the public and our natural resources through the efficient and effective use of Division resources for education and public outreach, the prevention of crime and accidents, and the enforcement of laws and regulations.” The goals of the division are to:

• fairly and impartially enforce state and federal laws and regulations;

• enhance the protection of the public and our natural resources through cooperative crime prevention and awareness efforts with constituency groups and the public;

• promote a progressive work environment through training, career development, and equal opportunity for advancement;

• maintain the professionalism of officers and staff and promote public service;

• promote cooperation with other disciplines both inside and outside the division; and

• acquire and maintain technology and equipment to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.

Statutory law enforcement authority. EnCon police officers, referred to as conservation officers (COs) and special conservation officers (SCOs) in statute, are appointed by the commissioner of environmental protection. Conservation officers are the regular full-time sworn personnel of the division. Special conservation officers are seasonal employees who typically work from May through October and also must be certified police officers. Conservation officers and special conservation officers have somewhat different powers and duties as summarized in Table I-1 and described in more detail below.

• C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a) provides the primary enforcement authority of EnCon police officers. Subsection (a) outlines specific areas of the law that both COs and SCOs are allowed to enforce, including state laws relating to fish and game, parks and recreation, boating, motor vehicles, and certain criminal acts such as assault, bribery, and larceny. (The specific authority provided by C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) is detailed in Appendix C.)

• Conservation officers are permitted to arrest anyone, without a warrant, in any part of the state for the specific violations listed in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) on or off DEP property. Special conservation officers only have the authority to enforce C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) on DEP property.

• Conservation officers are also appointed “special policeman for state property” by the commissioner of public safety under the provisions of C.G.S. Section 29-18. This appointment effectively allows conservation officers (but not SCOs) to enforce all criminal laws on DEP property.

• In 1992, EnCon police powers were expanded to allow conservation officers, “incident to a lawful arrest” for the violations listed in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a), the ability to enforce criminal laws not specifically enumerated in Section 26-6(a), regardless of location. This means conservation officers may cite or arrest someone for any violation of the law as long as it is in conjunction with a violation listed in Section 26-6(a).

• Both COs and SCOs are permitted to search any boat, ship, vehicle, various containers, or packages without a warrant but with probable cause for violations of fish and game laws anywhere within the boundaries of the state. In addition, conservation officers have fairly broad authority to go onto private property with probable cause to determine if hunting or fishing violations have occurred.

• In addition, conservation officers are appointed as Deputy Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and enforce federal fish and wildlife laws. Under recently passed state legislation, federal law enforcement officers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service may be appointed as SCOs and exercise such authority when working with a full-time DEP conservation officer.

The extent and limit of EnCon police authority may be demonstrated in an example. The enforcement of criminal narcotics laws are not specifically mentioned in C.G.S. Sec. 26-6(a). However, if a person was in possession of a narcotic on DEP property, a conservation officer would have the authority to arrest that person for the narcotics violation (per 29-18). If the person was off DEP property and was in the possession of a narcotic and was also in violation of a hunting law, a conservation officer could arrest that person for the narcotic violation and the hunting violation. If the person was off DEP property and only in possession of a narcotic, a conservation officer could detain that person, like any citizen under common law, but could not arrest that person. EnCon police would have to call either the local or state police to perform the arrest. (Special conservation officers could detain but would not have the authority to arrest the person in any of the above scenarios).

Evolution of Current Authority

EnCon law enforcement authority has evolved since 1971, primarily through the passage of three public acts—P.A. 74-245 in 1974, P.A. 81-227 in 1981, and P.A. 91-402 in 1991. Appendix C, in addition to providing the full text of C.G.S. Sec. 26-6, identifies the specific subject matter of the enumerated statutes cited in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) in some detail in Table C-1. The table organizes the enumerated statutes in the order in which they were added so the incremental growth in authority is apparent, beginning with the provisions in place in 1971. Discussed here are three key changes.

1974. Many of the expansions in 1974 were in belated recognition that due to the 1971 creation of DEP from three separate boards, DEP conservation officers now needed to enforce not only game and fish laws, but also laws and regulations covering “order, safety, and sanitation” at state parks and forests, and boating laws. Selected penal code violations were added also, including assaults, larcenies, and robberies, among others.

1981. The provisions added in 1981 were in large part to resolve a statutory interpretation question that arose in 1978². The House sponsor of the 1981 bill that became P.A. 81-227 said the bill “would provide DEP conservation officers with the authority to enforce certain specific sections of the General Statutes. This has been the practice in the past and until an Attorney General's opinion in 1978 which stated that a conservation officer per se does not have the power to enforce state laws other than those set forth in 26-6a. This bill would allow these officers to carry out their responsibilities.” (emphasis added) (House of Representatives Proceedings, Statement of Representative Theresa Bertinuson, May 5, 1981, p. 4212)

As Appendix C (Table C-1) shows, the 1981 additions include many motor vehicle violations, provisions to support the execution of search warrants, littering, and some gun-related laws. At the public hearing on the bill that was eventually enacted, a union representative supporting the bill said “although we feel that full law enforcement powers should be extended to our conservation officers…this bill does represent an acceptable compromise which shall enhance the ability of our conservation officers to effectively [en]force their obligations to the public…” ³

1991. P.A. 91-402 did not add any additional enumerated statutory provisions to 26-6(a), but provided another compromise response to continued calls for granting conservation officers full enforcement powers. Per P.A. 91-402, a sentence was added to subsection (b) of Section 26-6 (a) to provide: “Any full-time conservation officer shall, incident to a lawful arrest while enforcing such laws [the enumerated ones] in the performance of his duties in any part of the state, shall have the same powers with respect to criminal matters and the enforcement of the law relating thereto as policemen or constables have in their respective jurisdictions.” (emphasis added).

As explained by Rep. Douglas Mintz, Judiciary Committee member, as he introduced the bill that would become P.A. 91-402 for full House action:

…This piece of legislation is a compromise piece of legislation to give the conservation officers some expanded power, but what we don't want to do is set up a separate and complete state police department in the state of Connecticut. So while recognizing that the conservation officers do run into these situations where they're making lawful arrests, if there is no violation under their jurisdiction, they would have to bring in the state or local police to make that arrest. ⁴

Arguments for and against full enforcement powers. Since 1991, legislation has been re-introduced twice, unsuccessfully, to provide full-time conservation officers with full law enforcement powers: 1999 (SB 991) and 2000 (SB 35). Proponents have offered the following arguments:

• Conservation officers are required to get the same training as state and municipal police so they should have the same authority.

• Conservation officers already have full law enforcement authority to enforce all criminal laws in state parks because of their designation as special police under Section 29-18, so this is not really a new type of law enforcement for them.

• The lack of full authority creates unnecessary confusion.

Opponents, on the other hand, have countered with the following concerns:

• Some municipal police departments do not want conservation officers making arrests in their jurisdictions as they would be unfamiliar with local community policing policies. Also, despite the equivalent training, the conservation officers' experience is focused on environmental enforcement issues.

• There is no need to create what would be in effect another state police entity.

Interviews and Survey Results

Program review staff surveyed all conservation officers and sergeants, and interviewed the division's command staff regarding their law enforcement authority. (Full survey results are available in Appendix A). Most EnCon officers do not believe the enforcement authority granted to them is sufficient. Seventy-two percent of respondents thought their power was insufficient, given their areas of responsibility. Officers described various problems with the current delineation of powers, including: the belief that their current authority was at times confusing or problematic when a violation occurs off DEP property, the need to rely on other police departments or on occasion let violators go, and that their authority has not kept pace with the expansion of their duties. Forty-one percent expressed the need for full police powers.

In response to their limited authority, EnCon officers say they have either called another police agency to handle an arrest or selected a different violation to make an arrest themselves. Seventy-seven percent of officers say they have had to call another law enforcement agency in the last year to effect an arrest. Seventy-six percent said they have had to select a different violation to make an arrest because they did not have the appropriate authority, though only about half said they had done that in the last year.

A review of the incidents in the department's computer-aided dispatch system reveals that EnCon officers turned cases over to either the state or the local police 15 times in the last six years because of limits to their statutory authority. The Connecticut State Police data system was unable to readily confirm how many times DEP cases were turned over to them.

Narcotics and certain motor vehicle violations. Conservation officers have indicated the police powers that they believe are most lacking are the ability to enforce narcotics laws on private property and certain motor vehicle violations. As described above, EnCon officers have the authority to enforce narcotics violations on property owned or controlled by DEP and can enforce narcotics violations in conjunction with some other violation in Section 26-6 (a) anywhere else in the state, including private property. Thus, while officers have the training and experience to perform this type of arrest anywhere within their statewide jurisdiction, and are often on private property because of their hunting and fishing enforcement responsibilities, they are barred from drug law enforcement unless there is also a Section 26-6 (a) violation.

Officers reported to PRI staff that sometimes they try to find a violation of Section 26-6 (a) by looking for some minor violation, like littering, to trigger an arrest for narcotics. Many believe calling another police department can be inefficient because that means for some period of time personnel from two departments, who are all trained to make this type of arrest, are being used where one department's officers should suffice. On average, the EnCon police handle about 140 narcotics cases per year. It could not be immediately determined how many have been enforced in conjunction with a Section 26-6 (a) violation.

In terms of motor vehicle violations, the EnCon police have the ability to enforce most of the motor vehicle violations covered under Title 14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, such as speeding and reckless driving. The major exceptions are related to traffic signal violations contained in Chapter 249 of the General Statues, such as not stopping at a stop sign, a red light, or for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

Although EnCon already has had significant motor vehicle enforcement authority since 1981, the division recognizes that its primary mission is to enforce the laws related to fish, game, and boating on a statewide basis and provide full police services on department property. Thus division policy limits the officer's motor vehicle enforcement activity. The policy states conservation officers “shall not actively patrol for the purposes of enforcing motor vehicle laws and regulations on public property outside of department owned or controlled property.” Nonetheless, there are situations where officers witness stop sign and red light violations that represent an obvious safety concern but do not have the ability to enforce the law. Some parks are bisected by highways and some parks are situated near major intersections or roads, such as Hammonasset Beach State Park near Route 1, where these types of violations may be found.

Technical Issues Re: Enumerated Provisions

A review of the history of the enumerated provisions of Section 26-6(a) shows the challenge of keeping a proscribed list up to date. Here are some examples.

• In 1971, C.G.S. Sections 53a-115, 53a-116, and 53a-117 were added to 26-6(a), covering criminal mischief in the first, second, and third degrees respectively. In 1983, the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree was enacted and codified at C.G.S. 53a-117a. While it would seem logical that the new crime should also be included under EnCon jurisdiction, it was not until 2005 that 26-6(a) was amended to include it.

• In contrast, in 1974, a range of assault crimes were added to EnCon jurisdiction via 26-6, namely C.G.S. Sections 53a-59 to 53a-64 inclusive. Since 1974, nine different variations of assault crimes have been enacted, and codified within the range between 53a-59 and 53a-64. For example, 53a-59a is the crime enacted in 1977 of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant or mentally person in the first degree. Because of how the crime was codified, within the existing range, it automatically came under EnCon jurisdiction per 26-6 without an explicit amendment to do so.

• A gap that remains relates to the crime of larceny. In 1974, larceny in the first through fourth degrees were added to 26-6(a) (C.G.S. Sections 53a-122 to 53a-125). In 1982, the crimes of larceny in the fifth and sixth degree were created (C.G.S. Sections 125a-125b), but have not been added to 26-6(a).

• Another gap relates to negligent hunting, a specific crime established in 2000 (P.A. 00-142). This provision, enacted after the shooting death of a conservation officer by a hunter in 1998 and codified in 53a-217e, is not currently listed in 26-6(a). Indeed, the negligent hunting statute reference to conservation officers having enforcement authority is fairly indirect. (C.G.S. Sec. 53a-217e(h)(2): “Such property shall be confiscated at the time of arrest by a police officer or conservation officer.”)

• Also in 2000, hunting under the influence of alcohol or drugs was made a specific crime (C.G.S. Sec. 53-206d(b)(2)). While that statute specifically states DEP enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for that crime, it is not currently listed in 26-6 (a).

Recommendation:

1. The authority of EnCon police should be modified to allow conservation officers to enforce narcotics violations, traffic signal violations, and larceny in the fifth and sixth degree off of DEP owned and controlled property, without having the violation enforced in conjunction with a breach of the laws enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a). In addition, the crimes of negligent hunting and hunting under the influence should be explicitly enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a).

These suggested changes are consistent with the historical and gradual evolution of EnCon law enforcement authority. This recommendation will allow for a more efficient use of police resources and maintains the majority of the limitations on EnCon's police authority, while addressing concerns for greater public safety.

Further Description of Major Responsibilities

Historically, EnCon police officers were called “Game Wardens,” but the role of these officers has changed over time. The current State Environmental Conservation Police can trace their origins to the first ten men appointed as “Special Game Protectors” by the Commission of Fisheries and Game, which was established by the General Assembly in 1895. Under the authority of the commission, the game protectors were assigned to enforce fish and game laws anywhere within the state.

In 1971, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was established combining under its jurisdiction all the operations of the State Board of Fisheries and Game, and the Boating, and the State Park and Forest Commissions, which were all eliminated. At this time, DEP created two separate law enforcement positions with separate chains of command: (1) the Conservation Officer; and (2) the Environmental Protection Law Enforcement Officer (state parks). In 1994, these two positions and their accompanying responsibilities were consolidated into one, the Conservation Enforcement Officer position. The park superintendents, who were also certified police officers in addition to performing park management responsibilities, retained their law enforcement role (until recently due to a 2005 change).

The title the department uses to refer to this position was changed in 2004 from Conservation Enforcement Officer to State Environmental Conservation Police Officer (emphasis added) in response to the evolution of the position and its expanding responsibilities. Their major responsibilities are summarized below. More detailed information on activities is presented in Chapter V.

Fish and game enforcement. The principle areas of enforcement under this category include hunting, recreational and commercial fishing, trapping, and shellfishing. The enforcement of laws related to fish and game help to ensure the sustainability of the state's fish and game populations by preventing the excessive or illegal harvesting of various species. In the case of shellfish regulation, vigilant enforcement also assists in preventing public health concerns related to contaminated shellfish and in preserving a multimillion dollar industry in Connecticut.

EnCon police also enforce federal fisheries laws by participating in an operation plan called the Joint Enforcement Agreement with the federal National Marine Fisheries Services. The agreement calls for consistent officer presence at landing ports along the Connecticut shoreline, commercial seafood dealers, and on the water to monitor transactions and fishing activity. The officers enforce trip and possession limits, gear requirements, permits, logbooks, and compliance with established standards for the Northeast multispecies/groundfish, scallop fisheries, and mid-Atlantic possession limits.

The division also enforces the hunting and fishing license program administered by DEP. Under state law, hunters and fishermen who are arrested or issued an infraction for violations have their licenses suspended upon conviction. Typically, the license suspensions are for one year, although under certain serious or repeat circumstances, a license may be suspended for additional years or even indefinitely. Table I-2 provides some selected statistics related to fish and game as well as boating enforcement. (Chapter V contains more detailed analysis of EnCon police activities over time).

Boating enforcement. Activities related to boating enforcement include: lake, river, and coastal patrols; inspections for compliance with safety and equipment requirements; boat accident investigations; search and rescue missions; and checks for boating under the influence (BUI). All of the navigable waters in Connecticut, Long Island Sound, and other bodies of water where recreational boating can occur fall under the responsibility of the EnCon police. The division also has a specialized boating accident investigation unit called the Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit (BARU). Ten officers and a supervisory sergeant have received special training in boating accident reconstruction. The unit is used in cases that involve death or serious physical injury.

Public safety in state parks and forests. As the principle police agency within the state's 137 parks and forests, the division is responsible for patrolling these areas to deter criminal activity and provide for the safety of the public. EnCon police enforce laws regarding all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles on state-owned property and on frozen bodies of water. EnCon police officers also respond to missing person incidents, such as lost hikers, and the recovery of drowning victims, in state parks and forests. The division is also responsible for patrolling the land owned and leased by the White Memorial Foundation, which is mostly located in the northwestern part of the state. Various recreational activities are allowed on the White Memorial properties. Table I-3 provides some selected statistics related to parks and forests. Figure I-1, on the following page, is a map of the park locations in Connecticut. The shaded areas represent the geographic territory EnCon police are responsible for patrolling.

Wildlife management. The EnCon police are responsible for responding to reports of sick, injured, or nuisance wildlife with the goal of relocating the animal to a more suitable habitat in the state. Licensed wildlife rehabilitators assist in this goal by caring for injured animals until they can return to the wild. Connecticut has experienced an increasing black bear and moose population. There were 1,788 reports of bear sightings and nuisance calls in 2005. Connecticut also has 57 wildlife management areas and 21 federal management plans to encourage the propagation of certain species of fish and wildlife. Each area has different regulatory requirements that must be monitored and enforced by the division. EnCon officers also assist in the stocking of Connecticut's lakes and streams during fishing season.

Homeland security. Since September 11, 2001, whenever the federal homeland security threat level is raised to a certain point, EnCon police officers conduct security patrols in the waters off the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis. Other EnCon police homeland security responsibilities and protective measures vary depending on the nature of the threat. EnCon police have provided escort services to cross-sound ferries, patrolled public watersheds, and conducted waterborne security patrols of major harbor areas. EnCon police also augment the Coast Guard in performing its duties when called upon.

Public outreach. Public education is an integral part of the job of being an EnCon police officer. While there are numerous informal opportunities to educate the public about protection of the state's natural resources during the course of a normal day, the officers also appear at agricultural fairs, schools, fish and game clubs, and various business and civic organizations. In 2005, the EnCon police reached over 15,000 people through 114 public outreach programs.

Lake authority patrol supervision. Lake authorities are entities created by two or more towns that engage in various lake management activities on behalf of member towns, through the use of lake patrolmen. These authorities may work with the commissioner of environmental protection to enforce boating laws. Although the lake patrolmen are employees of the lake authorities or the municipalities, the DEP commissioner is the only legal authority empowered to appoint lake patrolmen to enforce any boating laws. Two lake authorities (Candlewood Lake and Lake Housatonic) employ lake patrolmen. Candlewood Lake employs about 30 lake patrolmen and Lake Housatonic employs about six.

These patrol units are supervised by an EnCon sergeant and each lake patrolman must complete a 60-hour training course that includes instruction in boating laws, boating under the influence enforcement, vessel boarding procedures, officer safety, and first aid. Lake patrolmen may be authorized to carry a firearm by the commissioner after completion of a firearms safety course. By practice, it is the lake authorities that request that their officers carry a firearm. Currently, only Candlewood Lake patrolmen carry firearms.

Recent legislation allows the commissioner to appoint any lake patrolman as a special conservation officer (SCO). These SCOs are not considered state employees and must be certified police officers. If a lake patrolman becomes an SCO, he or she must obtain the permission of the municipalities in which the lake patrolman serves to carry a firearm.

Amount of time spent per activity. Figure I-2 illustrates the amount of time EnCon officers collectively spent on specific activities in 2005. This information is based on the patrol history maintained in the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system in the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center. The system captures information about every incident and the current status of the officers on duty. In addition, each officer is required to call the dispatcher when beginning a new activity and the dispatcher records a daily log of each officer's activities in the computer system.

The figure shows the primary focus of the division's time is split between park and forest (30 percent) and boating activities (27 percent). This is followed by hunting and fishing activities (18 percent), of which commercial fishing takes up most of the time (13 percent). It is important to note the cyclical and seasonal nature of the work performed by the EnCon police. Boating concerns will dominate the summer months, for example, while hunting and fishing activities will be the focal point in the spring and fall.

Chapter II

Selection, Training, and Certification Requirements

This chapter provides descriptive information about the division's selection, training, and certification requirements for EnCon officers and makes recommendations related to re-certification training. While EnCon police receive the same basic training and fulfill the same certification requirements as other law enforcement organizations in the state, their areas of expertise are specialized and different from traditional police work and require additional training as described below. Despite the division's additional training requirements and EnCon officers consistently exceeding the amount of training required by the Police Officers Standards and Training Council, the program review survey of sergeants and conservation officers revealed that a significant number of officers request additional training.

Selection

In order to be considered for the position of EnCon police officer, a person must first meet all selection standards for appointment such as age and citizenship, and then pass a screening process that includes:

• a background investigation;

• interviews;

• a comprehensive medical examination including controlled substance screening;

• a physical fitness assessment;

• a psychological test; and

• a polygraph test.

Once through the screening process, a person can be hired as a probationary trainee, and go through one of the two main training processes, depending on the person's background and prior experience. The first, and traditional, avenue shown on the left-hand side of Figure II-1 requires four years of prior experience in the field of wildlife conservation, fish culture, commercial shellfishing, commercial fishing, farm management, forestry or law enforcement. This experience may be substituted by a bachelor's degree in a related field with at least fifteen semester hours in natural resource management, recreation management, biological sciences, agriculture or law enforcement.

The second avenue, shown on the right-hand side of Figure II-1 and available since 2005, allows a person who does not meet the previously mentioned standards with an opportunity to obtain the needed experience while working for the division. This method is based on a new job series created in 2005 to diversify the pool of candidates.

Figure II-1: Paths to Become an EnCon Police Officer

POSTC training requirements. Upon becoming trainees, DEP probationary trainees attend entrance-level training at the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC) facility in Meriden. The program schedule is five days a week for 21 to 22 weeks depending on the number of candidates attending. POSTC is authorized to have a maximum of 50 candidates per class with a total of two classes – the extra week is sometimes necessary to accommodate driver and firearms training. There are six main subjects included in the curriculum: Introduction to Law Enforcement; Police and the Law; Practical Police Skills; Human Relations; Criminal Investigation; and Patrol Procedures. There are a number of courses required within each subject amounting to a total of 650 hours of training. Of the 44 states that mandate a minimum number of hours for law enforcement basic training, Connecticut ranks fifth highest in required number of hours.⁵

After graduating from the academy, POSTC requires all probationary trainees to complete a minimum of 400 hours (10 weeks) of field training at their departments. The POSTC model for field training time is divided into progressive stages of trainee observation, participation, and performance. The DEP field training schedule operationalizes the POSTC model in four phases.

Phase I: Working with a primary Field Training Officer (FTO), the probationary officer is expected to perform 25 percent of the workload.

Phase II: The probationary officer is rotated to a second FTO and is expected to perform 50 percent of the workload.

Phase III: The probationary officer is rotated to a third FTO and is expected to perform 75 percent of the workload.

Phase IV: The probationary officer returns to the primary FTO and is expected to perform 100 percent of the workload.

The FTOs (EnCon police who have received training on how to train probationary candidates in the field) are responsible for completing daily observation reports and biweekly evaluation reports for the district or FTO Supervisor on a biweekly basis during this period.

DEP field training requirements. In addition to all POSTC requirements, DEP probationary trainees must also complete specialized training to prepare them to perform the wide variety of functions unique to their position. The additional training required by DEP extends the field training program for their trainees by four weeks. DEP topics include but are not limited to:

• Department Orientation

• Aquatic Nuisance Plants and Prevention

• Radio Use/Communications

• Commercial/Recreational Shellfishing

• Fish ID

• Small Game Hunting

• Rabies

• Deer Hunting

• Federal Wildlife Law

• Sportsmen's/Commercial Licenses and Tags

• Waterfowl Species ID and Hunting

• Wildlife Species ID

• Commercial/Recreational Marine Fishing

• Commercial Lobster Fishing

• All-terrain Vehicle (ATV) Patrol

• Hunting Related Shootings

• Archery Hunting

• Park and Forest Regulations

• Boating Laws and Regulations (including Boating Under the Influence)

• ATV, Snowmobile and Boating Operation

• Tranquilizer Use

Agency police officer status. Upon completion of POSTC entrance-level training requirements and the field training, the trainee is promoted to the position of Agency Police Officer (APO). APOs can work independently on DEP property but are required to work alongside a full-time EnCon officer when off DEP grounds. As shown on the left-hand side of Figure II-1, an APO with prior experience advances to the position of EnCon Police Officer after completing specialized DEP field training requirements. APOs without prior experience, represented on the right-hand side of the figure, will advance to the EnCon police officer status after obtaining experience equivalent to the traditional qualifications.

Training and Recertification

Certification expires three years after the date issued. Since 1982, EnCon police officers, like all other police officers in Connecticut, are required to maintain their certification status by completing review training. POSTC is the agency responsible for adopting and enforcing the professional standards for the certification and recertification of Connecticut's police officers.

Of the 32 states that mandate review training for recertification, Connecticut ranks ninth or within the top 28 percent for the number of hours required.⁶ Connecticut police officers are required to complete a minimum of 60 hours of review training every three years to renew their certification.⁷ Twenty-eight of the total required hours are specifically mandated. Specific areas are:

• Firearms with 3 hours required annually (9 hours)

• Rape Crisis (2 hours)

• Domestic Violence (2 hours)

• Human Relations (3 hours)

• Handling Juveniles (1 hour)

• Police and Law (7 hours)

• Patrol Procedures (2 hours)

• Gang Violence (1 hour)

• Bias Crimes (1 hour)

The remaining 32 hours are fulfilled by electives. Division command staff report that EnCon police officers consistently exceed the required number of hours for recertification. Over the 2003 to 2006 cycle, EnCon police officers (including seasonal officers) averaged 80 hours of review training. Excluding seasonal officers, EnCon police officers averaged 100 hours of review training over this time period.

However, according to the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, most police departments exceed these requirements. Through the survey of sergeants and conservation officers, program review staff assessed officer opinion about training. A significant number of the officers surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with both the amount and type of training they currently receive to perform their job. Results from the survey indicate that 39 percent of the respondents were either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the amount of training they receive to do their job; 38 percent reported being either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the type of training they receive. When asked “what type of training is needed” the officers suggested a variety of training, including:

• Firearms (50 percent)

• Legal/DMV/Policy and Procedure Updates (39 percent)

• Boating (28 percent)

• Wildlife Identification and Fish & Game (17 percent)

• Increase Review Training (11 percent)

• Investigative Techniques (6 percent)

• Outdoorsmen Knowledge for New Hires (6 percent)

• Critical Incident (6 percent)

• Search and Rescue (6 percent)

While only 6 percent of the respondents specifically requested training in investigative techniques in the comments section of the survey, when asked directly whether they agree or disagree with the statement “I have been provided with appropriate training to conduct investigations,” 36 percent disagreed, indicating a need for additional training in this area. Approximately 20 percent of the respondents also expressed the view that the division needs more specialized units. The examples provided included a special investigative unit and a canine unit.

The division has one administrative sergeant dedicated to training. The sergeant is responsible for notifying, scheduling, and tracking all POSTC mandated training for the officers in the division. Training not required by POSTC or “elective training” is not researched or recorded by the sergeant; however, it is advertised on the POSTC website and sometimes in flyers sent to the district offices.

Interviews with staff at all levels within the division revealed that the division lacks a systematic approach for offering and/or notifying officers of upcoming elective training opportunities. Finding and applying for desired training is considered the responsibility of the individual officer. More actively addressing the needs of the officers will enhance the performance of the division as a unit.

Recommendations:

2. The division should regularly assess the training needs of its personnel to ensure the training they receive allows them to perform their duties with confidence in the field.

3. The administrative sergeant located at the Central Headquarters in Hartford should be responsible for finding appropriate elective training events and implementing a system to notify all officers of the dates of such events as well as deadlines for application.

Chapter III

Budget

This chapter presents the budget and revenue trends over time for the division. The trends indicate that:

• there appears to be an emphasis on reducing the division's impact on the state's General Fund;

• currently 52 percent of the division's expenses and 36 percent of the officer positions are supported by fees, the federal government, and special funding; and

• revenue generated by DEP law enforcement activity has decreased by approximately $100,000 since FY 2001.

Operating Budget

Sources of funding. Funding for the division comes from four main sources: the state General Fund, fees (the Environmental Conservation Fund and the State Boating Fund), the federal government (Coast Guard and Homeland Security) and special funding⁸ (i.e., Joint Enforcement Agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Nuclear Safety Emergency Response Fund, and White Memorial trust fund). Figure III-1 shows the percentage each of these sources contributed to the FY 2006 operating budget of $6.1 million, the most recently completed state fiscal year.

The state General Fund provided for nearly half of the budget ($3 million). The majority of these funds were earmarked for personnel and fixed expenses. Thirty-four percent or $2 million of the budget came from fees collected from state parks, hunting and fishing licenses, and boating registrations. Fee-based, federal and special funds contributed to salaries and benefits, other expenses, and also provide for equipment.

Trends. Figure III-2 presents the operating budget for the division in both actual and constant dollars for the past seven years. The constant budget (when adjusted for inflation) appears to remain fairly steady over this period except in FY 04 and FY 05 when the budget decreased by approximately $500,000. The reduction in funding reflects the impact of the decrease in personnel costs caused by early retirements (12 officers) and layoffs (9 officers) that occurred in FY 03. While the division was able to rehire those lost from layoffs in a matter of months, recovering from the impact of early retirements is taking more time.

Expenditures. The operating budget is broken down into salaries and benefits, equipment, and other expenses -- of which approximately 85 percent are fixed costs (i.e., leased vehicles, uniform dry cleaning, phones, gas, beepers, etc.). Figure III-3 below demonstrates the trend in what portion of expenses went toward each of these categories between FY 00 and FY 06.

On average, the division spent 85 percent of its funding on salaries and benefits. Although not shown in the figure, an average of 8 percent of total salary costs (not including benefits) was spent on overtime – with the lowest at 6 percent in FY 03 and the highest at 9 percent in FY 05. In FY 06, 30 percent of the overtime was supported by a combination of federal, private, and fee-based funding. The need for overtime slightly increased in 2006 due to the shortage of staff in the DEP Emergency Dispatch unit. Five EnCon police officers, who have previous dispatch training, worked overtime to help cover the extra shifts. From May 26 to July 6, 2006, they covered four to five shifts per week for a total of 26 shifts (208 hours).

Starting in FY 06, 93 percent of other expenses are supported by fee-based funding sources. This is due to recent legislation that decreased the General Fund share of the operating budget by $1.7 million and replaced this funding with the total revenue collected from fees. The percent of the budget committed to other expenses has grown in recent years due to increases in communications equipment, the cost of vehicles and gas, and new legislative requirements (i.e., rabies and hepatitis B vaccinations, CPR certifications, various trainings including training that is provided to lake patrolmen, etc.). Since 2000, 55 percent of equipment expenditures have been supported by federal and special funds. Spending on equipment significantly increased in FY 06 (91 percent). This is due to the recent purchase of two new boats. (The increase in spending on equipment in FY 06 as a percent of division spending is shown in Figure III-3.)

Revenue

Money generated from DEP enforcement activities is deposited into the General Fund. The Judicial Branch's Central Infractions Bureau compiled a report for the committee on the amount of revenue derived from the tickets and fines or payable infractions produced by the EnCon officers from FY 00 to FY 06. The amount of money collected from misdemeanors and violations that are brought to court was provided by judicial caseload statisticians.

The program review committee's analysis of the revenue generated by DEP law enforcement indicates that a decrease in enforcement activity has had a negative impact on the department's contribution to the state's General Fund. The Judicial Branch's Central Infractions Bureau reports that the number of tickets and fines or payable infractions produced by EnCon officers has decreased from 3,782 in FY 01 to 1,895 in FY 06. Consequently, revenue derived from these infractions has also decreased over this same time period by approximately $100,000 (see Figure III-4).

Also shown in the figure above is the amount of money collected from misdemeanors and violations that are brought to court. Such non-ticket revenue decreased more than half during this time, from $44,682 in FY 01 to $20,706 in FY 06. The figure also shows a significant revenue decrease in FY 03 when the division lost 21 officers due to early retirements and layoffs.

Chapter IV

Organization and Structure

This chapter describes the organization and structure of the Division of Environmental Conservation Police, outlining the major functions performed at each level. This chapter also provides an overview of how personnel are deployed, the trends in various types of incidents and enforcements actions compared to the deployment of officers, and recent changes impacting the division's areas of responsibility.

Major Roles and Functions

The organizational structure of the Division of Environmental Conservation Police, as of May 2006, is illustrated in Figure IV-1. Total full–time staffing is 50 officers and three trainees. The division consists of three districts (East, West, and Marine) and the headquarters staff. The staff for each district consists of a captain, two to three sergeants, and a combination of conservation police officers, agency police officers, and trainees. Headquarters for the division command staff is located in Hartford. The major functions performed at each level of law enforcement personnel are summarized below.

Headquarters staff. The headquarters staff includes the director with the rank of colonel, a captain, two sergeants, a secretary, and a clerk. The office establishes the policy and direction for the division, oversees planning, the budget, and organizational development, tracks the dispositions of cases and the outcomes of investigations, oversees training, coordinates public education and outreach, researches grants, and procures new equipment. As the organization chart illustrates, the colonel reports to the bureau chief for outdoor recreation and the chain of command continues up through the deputy commissioner for natural resources and outdoor recreation to the commissioner.

Captains. The captains are the operational commanders of the division. In the field, they are responsible for evaluating the sergeants, deploying officers in their district, identifying problem areas, and developing and implementing “enforcement initiatives” to address those problem areas. Administratively, they are responsible for maintaining the budget for their district, approving overtime, ensuring proper maintenance of equipment, reviewing reports, and maintaining evidence and court records.

Sergeants. Typically, the sergeants are the direct supervisors of four to seven field officers. They conduct officer performance evaluations and assess the condition of each officer's equipment on a monthly basis. They oversee special teams such as the Tranquilizer team and the Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit. Administrative duties include approving mileage and timesheets and reviewing reports for submission to the captains. Covering as much territory as 1.5 counties each, sergeants also work as liaisons to the communities as well as to state and local police. There is also a sergeant in the Western district assigned as the direct supervisor of all lake authority patrolmen.

Figure IV-1: Organization Chart (As of May 2006)

Conservation officers. Conservation officers are responsible for patrolling assigned areas and enforcing various laws and regulations involving fish, shellfish, wildlife, parks, forests, boats, off-road vehicles, and the use of DEP-owned or controlled properties. The full range of criminal laws is also enforced on DEP-owned property by conservation officers. As discus