www.ncfop.org 2

Fraternal Order of Police

BlueNote Official Publication of the North Carolina State

Lodge

Inside This Issue

Chaplain’s Corner with NCFOP Chap-lain, Phil Wiggins. The “Taser Case” by Jeffrey P Gray Message from Presi-dent Hagler Can you guess who that is in the pic-ture?! TRIVIA! Grand Lodge Up-date by State Na-tional Trustee, Den-nis McCreary Study of Body Worn Cameras has Begun Legal Aid Plan Sus-tainability by Jeff Gray Lodge 2 Activities Messages from Vice President, John R. Byrd, Sr., and State Treasurer, Doris Kirby Notes and Sugges-tions from Editor in Chief, Terry Mangum Legal Aid Commit-tee Information

Index Directory 2 Lodge News 2 Local Lodge 7 Legal Aid 11

Volume 3, Issue 20 www.ncfop.org March/ April 2016

The Voice of Law Enforcement

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently ruled in three separate cases in-

volving the employment rights of North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs. The cases are

McLaughlin, et al. v. Bailey, Young v. Bailey and Lloyd v. Bailey. The facts in each

were substantially similar and arose out of the actions of the same Sheriff. The facts

indicated that Sheriff Bailey had sent letters to Deputies seeking political campaign

contributions for his reelection. In the Young case, the Plaintiff Deputy Sheriff was

terminated after she did not contribute money or volunteer for Sheriff Bailey’s re-elec-

tion campaign. The other cases were similar. Bailey filed summary judgment dismis-

sal motions before trial, where the Court has to accept Plaintiff’s facts as true; none of

the Plaintiffs prevailed.

These cases grew out of a longstanding problem where some Sheriffs seeking

re-election orchestrate election campaigns and actively solicit financial contributions

from their Deputies. In some instances their conduct amounts to coercion. These three

cases presented issues of monumental importance to the FOP. Most regretfully, our

State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs do not

enjoy any state constitutional employment rights as it relates to their political affiliation

or participation. These cases constitute a huge setback for all North Carolina law en-

forcement officers and public safety in North Carolina.

FOP has long advocated the position that although Sheriffs should be free to

select their senior team of advisors using any considerations they choose, including po-

litical, it is wrong to fire rank and file Deputies either based on their refusal to be co-

erced into making political contributions to their employer or based on their political

party registration.

FOP believes that the political affiliation and participation of Deputy Sheriffs

should be a matter of the Deputies’ own personal choices. Law enforcement officers

should be judged on their performance, not based on their political activities. Many

officers, and particularly Deputy Sheriffs, have had to serve in politicized law enforce-

ment environments, which is unhealthy and risky for all concerned, including the Sher-

iff.

In these cases, Sheriff Bailey, supported by the North Carolina Sheriffs Associ-

ation, took an extreme position before the Court: that Sheriffs should have complete

freedom to require any and all political loyalty from their Deputies. This position is

Continues on P. 2

truly dangerous and in fact is un-American. Regretfully, our Supreme Court accepted

it. Sheriffs do not need such enormous, raw power. History has taught us about the

damage to all from any one person who has total power. As the old saying goes, “Power

corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The sad result of these cases is that North Carolina Deputy Sheriffs have been

lowered to a status that is beneath second class citizenry. They can be required to

change their political registration, vote as dictated by the Sheriff, to pay any sum of

DEPUTY SHERIFFS MAY BE FIRED FOR

POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR THE FAILURE TO

MAKE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO

SHERIFFS FOR ELECTIONS By Terry Mangum (BlueNote Editor In Chief) and FOP Legal Counsel

North Carolina

Fraternal Order of Police

1500 Walnut Street Cary, NC 27511

(O) 800-628-8062 (F) 919-461-4958

Email NCFOP@nc.rr.com

Web Site www.ncfop.org

President

Randy Hagler rlhncfop@bellsouth.net

Immediate Past President

Terry Mangum terrymangum@frontier.com

Vice President

John Byrd jrbsenior@charter.net

Secretary

Mike Hawkins ncfopss@gmail.com

Treasurer

Doris Kirby Dorisk@centurylink.net

2nd Vice President

Robert Gaddy rgaddyjr@yahoo.com

Sergeant-At-Arms

Greg Brown Brown_bg@earthlink.net

Chaplain

Phil Wiggins pwiggins@summitrdu.com

National Trustee Dennis McCrary

dmccraryfop@aol.com

Chariperson of Trustees Phillip Ferguson

whydonturun@yahoo.com

Chaplain’s Corner By Phil Wiggins

The Bible says, [John 15:13] "Greater love hath

no man than this, that a man lay down his life for

his friends."

Over the past year we have seen many of our

law enforcement brothers and sisters murdered

while responding to false calls, some just sitting in

their patrol car. Just in the month of February

2016, within seven days we had seven officers

shot and seven murdered, and more followed.

Those brave men and women signed up to serve

and protect and to even lay down their lives for

strangers if necessary. They were inspired by their

sense of duty and their love for humanity, not con-

sidering race, rich or poor, nor religion while per-

forming their sworn duty to uphold law and order.

"They will never be forgotten."

May God give courage and strength to the fam-

ilies and friends of these officers, as they cope with

these great loses. May these events drive each of

us to our knees and cause us to pray to God in the

name of our Savior, Jesus The Christ. And we

should pray for our brothers and sisters presently

serving, that they remain strong and carry on in

this great profession to care for the poor, weak and

down trodden and to uphold justice with pride and

integrity.

2 Corinthians 4:8-9 "We are hard-pressed on

every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but

not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck

down, but not destroyed.

Isaiah 26:3 "You will keep him in perfect

peace, whose mind is stayed on you, because he

trusts in you."

God Bless,

Phil Wiggins

N.C. State FOP Chaplain

Lodge News

www.ncfop.org 2

Deputy Sherriffs…

Continued from P. 1

truly dangerous and in

fact is un-American.

Regretfully, our Su-

preme Court accepted

it. Sheriffs do not

need such enormous,

raw power. History

has taught us about

the damage to all from

any one person who

has total power. As

the old saying goes,

“Power corrupts and

absolute power cor-

rupts absolutely.”

The sad result

of these cases is that

North Carolina Dep-

uty Sheriffs have been

lowered to a status

that is beneath second

class citizenry. They

can be required to

change their political

registration, vote as

dictated by the Sher-

iff, to pay any sum of

campaign contribu-

tions and to change

their beliefs - all in the

name of remaining

employed. This is

wrong.

What is the FOP’s Legislative

Agent doing writing about an appel-

late court case? Simple. It’s an im-

portant case for working officers and

with the recent retirement of long-

time FOP State Lodge General

Counsel, Rich Hattendorf, I decided

to step up to the plate to make the

membership aware of this much

talked about case.

On January 11, 2016, the Fourth

Circuit issued a published opinion re-

garding the civil case Estate of

Ronald Armstrong v. Village of Pine-

hurst. (For the full opinion, go to

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opin-

ions/published/151191.p.pdf.) The

estate of Ronald H. Armstrong ap-

pealed the federal district court’s or-

der granting summary judgment to

various Appellees, the Village of

Pinehurst, North Carolina, Lieuten-

ant Jerry McDonald, Sergeant Tina

Sheppard, and Officer Arthur Gat-

ling, Jr. The Fourth Circuit affirmed

the grant of summary judgment in

Appellees’ favor, holding that the of-

ficers and municipality were entitled

to qualified immunity in this case.

But before doing so, the Court took

the somewhat unusual step of dis-

cussing at length, and establishing

criteria for, the deployment of a taser

in certain circumstances.

The facts showed that in April

2011, Ronald H. Armstrong, who

suffered from bipolar and paranoid

schizophrenia, had been off of his

prescribed medication for five days

and exhibiting strange behavior. His

sister convinced Armstrong to ac-

company her to Moore Regional

Hospital in Pinehurst, North Caro-

lina. Armstrong willingly went to

the hospital and checked in, but dur-

ing the course of evaluation he be-

came frightened and fled the emer-

gency department. The examining

doctor determined Armstrong to be a

danger to himself and issued invol-

untary commitment papers to compel

his return.

Lieutenant McDonald, Sergeant

Sheppard, and Officer Gatling re-

sponded to the dispatch and when

they arrived at Armstrong’s location,

engaged in conversation with Arm-

strong because the commitment or-

der had not yet been finalized. As

soon as the officers learned that the

commitment papers were complete,

they surrounded and advanced to-

ward him. Armstrong reacted by sit-

ting down and wrapping himself

around a stop sign post. The officers

attempted to remove Armstrong

from the post.

After about thirty seconds of at-

tempting to get him to release the

post, one of the officers set his taser

on the lowest mode and tased Arm-

strong five separate times over a pe-

riod of approximately two minutes.

The officers then removed Arm-

strong from the post and laid him

face down on the ground. During the

struggle, Armstrong complained that

he was being choked, however, no

witness saw the police apply any

chokeholds. Because of Armstrong’s

continued resistance, the officers

handcuffed him and shackled his legs

and left him face down in the grass

for a brief period. When the officers

flipped Armstrong over, they saw

that his skin had turned a bluish color

and he did not appear to be breathing.

Two of the officers administered

CPR and the other radioed dispatch

to send EMS. Armstrong was pro-

nounced dead shortly after arriving

back inside the hospital.

Armstrong’s estate sued each of-

ficer and their employer, the Village

of Pinehurst, alleging that the offic-

ers used excessive force. The district

court granted summary judgment in

favor of the officers and municipal-

ity, reasoning that “[i]t is highly

doubtful that the evidence estab-

lishes a constitutional violation at all,

but assuming it does, the defendants

are entitled to qualified immunity.”

The estate (Appellant) appealed.

The Fourth Circuit began its

“qualified immunity analysis” by

pointing out that this analysis in-

volves two inquires: (1) whether the

plaintiff has established the violation

of a constitutional right, and (2)

whether that right was clearly estab-

lished at the time of the alleged vio-

lation. Appellant’s case would sur-

vive summary judgment only if the

Fourth Circuit answered both ques-

tions in the affirmative.

Turning to the first inquiry, the

Fourth Circuit held that the officers’

conduct violated Armstrong’s Fourth

Amendment right. Using the “objec-

tive reasonableness” standard as well

as the factors enunciated in Graham

v. Connor the Fourth Circuit held

that the level of force the officers

chose to use was not objectively rea-

sonable because the officers were

merely confronted with a situation

involving a few exigencies and that

these justified only a limited degree

of force. Tasing Armstrong exceeded

this permissible, limited degree of

force. The Fourth Circuit stated,

“[i]mmediately tasing a non-crimi-

nal, mentally ill individual, who sec-

onds before had been conversational,

was not a proportional response.”

For this reason, the Court opined that

the officers were not entitled to sum-

mary judgment on the question of

whether they violated the Constitu-

tion because, viewing the record in

the light more favorable to Appel-

lant, the officers used excessive force

in violation of the Fourth Amend-

ment. In so doing, the Fourth Circuit

answered the first question of its

“qualified immunity analysis” in the

affirmative.

Turning to the second inquiry, the

Fourth Circuit held that Armstrong’s

specific Fourth Amendment right

was not “clearly established” at the

time of the officers’ alleged violation

Continued on P. 4

www.ncfop.org 3

The “Taser Case:”

Fourth Circuit Recognizes Qualified Immunity But Establishes Standard for Taser Use By Jeffrey P. Gray - Legislative Agent

The “Taser Case”… Continued from P. 3

so they were entitled to qualified im-

munity. The Fourth Circuit thereby

affirmed the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to the officers

and municipality although it found

their conduct amounted to excessive

force.

In my experience, a Court making

a determination of a constitutional

violation where it does not also strike

down the conduct is a bit unusual.

Typically, courts are silent on consti-

tutional issues when they can rule on

other grounds.

By way of explanation, and using

Fourth Circuit precedent, the Court

stated that qualified immunity

shields government officials from li-

ability for civil damages, provided

that their conduct does not violate

“clearly established” statutory or

constitutional rights within the

knowledge of a reasonable person.

The inquiry into whether a constitu-

tional right is “clearly established”

required that the Fourth Circuit first

define the precise right into which it

was inquiring. After defining that

right, the Court had to determine

whether that right was clearly estab-

lished at the time the officers acted.

A right satisfies this standard when it

is “sufficiently clear that every rea-

sonable official would have under-

stood that what he is doing violates

that right.” Therefore, if the constitu-

tional right was “clearly established”

at the time the officers acted, the of-

ficers were not entitled to qualified

immunity.

In this case the constitutional

right according to the Court was

Armstrong’s right not to be sub-

jected to tasing while offering

stationary and non-violent re-

sistance to a lawful seizure. (The

application of this point from

this case is going to be troubling

for law enforcement officers and

agencies in the future. Policies

and procedures will have to be

re-thought.)

Once the Fourth Circuit

turned to the second question as

to whether this constitutional

right not to be tased was “clearly

established,” after much discus-

sion of cases from throughout

the nation, it held that the de-

fined constitutional right was not

so settled at the time that the of-

ficers acted such that every rea-

sonable official would have un-

derstood that tasing Armstrong

was unconstitutional. The Fourth

Circuit’s analysis of cases from

other circuits in relation to tasing

and excessive force showed the

issue was unsettled at the time

the officers tased Armstrong;

thus, not every reasonable of-

ficer would have understood tas-

ing was unconstitutional in this

situation. The Court therefore

concluded that Armstrong’s

right not to be tased while offer-

ing stationary and non-violent

resistant to a lawful seizure was

not “clearly established” on the

date he was seized, so the Fourth

Circuit held that the officers

were entitled to qualified im-

munity.

But the further caveat to this

case is the fact that the Court has

essentially said, “Henceforth and

forever more, law enforcement is

on notice: It is excessive force to

tase a stationary, non-resistive

suspect when few or no exigen-

cies exist.”

www.ncfop.org 4

Message From

The President

By Randy Hagler

Greetings Brothers and Sisters

and welcome to the March/April

2016 issue of the official publication

of the North Carolina Fraternal Or-

der of Police. The BlueNote is pub-

lished to keep our membership in-

formed regarding important issues

going on around the state. Our hope

is you will share the information

with other members as well as law

enforcement officers that for some

reason are not members of the FOP

so that we may all be better in-

formed.

In one of the most important rul-

ings in recent history, the North Car-

olina Supreme Court upheld a lower

court ruling regarding the termina-

tion of a 20-year law enforcement

veteran by a sheriff. In essence the

ruling enhanced the authority of

Sheriffs to terminate an employee for

any reason, including political rea-

sons. In this case the employee

opted not to contribute to the Sher-

iff’s re-election financial request.

The decision the North Carolina Su-

preme Court determined that em-

ployees of a county sheriff, including

deputies, are directly employed by

the sheriff and not by the county nor

a county department. Sheriff’s em-

ployees are not “county employees”

as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-

99 and are not entitled to the protec-

tions of that statute. This conclusion

cleared the way for the court to de-

termine deputies could be terminated

for almost any reason, particularly

those that have risen to leadership

positions and are considered “policy

makers” for the Sheriff’s Office.

Continued on P. 5

North Carolina Fraternal Order of

Police viewed this case as extremely

important to our membership and

filed an Amicus Brief in support of

the deputy in this case.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

issued an opinion on a North Caro-

www.ncfop.org 5

President Hagler… Continued from P. 4

North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police viewed this case as extremely important to our membership and filed

an Amicus Brief in support of the deputy in this case.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on a North Carolina Taser deployment case that occurred

in the Village of Pinehurst in April 2011. The court’s opinion has had a ripple effect across the country and has

many law enforcement agencies reconsidering Taser use. The National Fraternal Order of Police has taken a

strong stand in this case and is prepared to assist where possible. There is another more detailed article in this

newsletter written by our Legislative Agent, Jeff Gray, concerning this issue and I encourage everyone to read

it. This ruling has the potential to severely change the way Tasers are deployed across the country and certainly

make our members’ jobs more difficult and dangerous.

Across the country we have seen increased numbers of our Brothers and Sisters being killed in the line of duty.

In fact, in one seven day period this year we saw eight officers killed while attempting to do their job. In my

local area we had four incidents in just over two weeks that required officers to use deadly force to prevent

death or serious injury. One of these incidents was a shooting where one suspect charged out of his house firing

at eight officers attempting to serve a murder warrant. The suspect was shot multiple times by officers returning

fire but not before one officer was shot in the ankle. Thankfully all eight officers were FOP members and our

State Lodge Legal Aid Plan provided legal aid for all of them.

National FOP President Canterbury recently wrote a letter to President Obama explaining the attack on our

nation’s police officers is at an epidemic proportion and our elected officials must take immediate action. Pres-

ident Canterbury and the National FOP has for more than a year urged Congress to expand the Federal hate

crime legislation to include law enforcement officers. Under current law, persons who deliberately victimize

another person because of the race, color, creed, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability are

subject to greater penalties. Our officers are being targeted simply because of the uniforms they wear and

should have the U.S. Department of Justice behind them seeking greater penalties for those committing these

senseless acts of violence which will hopefully make it safer for officers everywhere.

We have our State Lodge Spring Board Meeting coming up on April 8-10. The meeting will be held in Bur-

lington at the Ramada Burlington Hotel and Conference Center. Any FOP member is welcome and encouraged

to attend the meeting. The Board of Directors Meeting will he held on Saturday beginning at 8:30am. Some

of the topics to be covered are:

Adopting 2016-2017 Budget

Discussion regarding a replacement for State Lodge Counsel Rich Hattendorf

FOP Officer of the Year Award presentation

Legislative Update

Reports from Committee Chairs

o Constitution and By-Laws

o Legal Aid

o Legislative

o Membership and Recruitment

o Web site

NC FOP Foundation Report

Newsletter Update

National FOP Update

Update of our upcoming State Conference in Asheville in August

Stay safe.

Randy Hagler President

rlhncfop@bellsouth.net

Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

As your State Treasurer some

of my responsibilities are, but not

limited to, making sure the

NCFOP funds are secure and that

we are profiting

from our invest-

ments. Five years

ago the NCFOP Ex-

ecutive Board de-

cided to withdraw a

portion of money

from the Death

Benefit, Legal Aid,

and Labor savings

accounts and pur-

chase CDs for each

account. At the

time of the purchase of these CDs

the interest rate was 2.6% which

was an unbelievable rate. How-

ever, now at the end of the five

years these rates are no longer

available and we will not be re-

ceiving nearly as much. BB&T

where we have our CDs is only

offering a .50% interest rate. As

it stands now, I will be withdraw-

ing and placing the money from

these CDs in their individual

checking accounts that will be

drawing an interest rate until we

decide what will be the best op-

tion. Please understand that I will

search for the best alternative that

will be safe, secure and profitable

for the North Carolina Fraternal

Order of Police.

As State Treasurer it is very

important that our financial re-

sponsibilities are paid in a timely

fashion. This is not only a credit

rating issue but it shows our cred-

itors that the North Carolina Fra-

ternal Order of Police is honest

and trustworthy. Two of the bills

which are sent directly to the State

Office for payment are the Legal

Aid bills and Death Benefit pay-

ment requests. When Office Man-

ager Jean Novellino receives

these she sends the

bills to me for pay-

ment. These bills are

paid without de-

lay. Most of these in

voices for payment are

sent directly to me by

email after being ap-

proved by President

Hagler. The turna-

round time is usually

less than three days.

While the Death Bene-

fit check may not pay for the en-

tire funeral expenses, it will defi-

nitely help the

family who may be struggling to

pay other necessity bills. I am

asking all Lodge Secretaries and

Lodge Treasurers to attempt to

keep your membership rosters

current. Recently we had a re-

quest for a Death Benefit payment

after a year or more of the mem-

ber's death. When a faithful

member fails to pay his or her

dues someone, preferably an ex-

ecutive board officer, should be

assigned to contact the member

and attempt to find out if there is

a problem. I know we are all

busy. But I would like for you to

stop and think. If this was your

family in need of assistance I am

certain that your hope would

be that the North Carolina Frater-

nal Order of Police would do eve-

rything possible to assist.

If I can ever be of assistance,

please do not hesitate to contact

me.

Important Information from the State Treasurer

By Doris Kirby

www.ncfop.org 6

Doris Kirby

State Treasurer Dorisk@centurylink.net

Grand Lodge Update By Dennis McCrary - NC National Trustee

Most members are certainly aware

that there was a data breach on the

Grand Lodge website. The infor-

mation that was compromised was

names, some addresses and phone

numbers. The Grand Lodge has

shared some information with the

Board of Directors about the per-

sons responsible but has asked

that it be kept confidential as crim-

inal investigations are ongoing. I

will share more facts with mem-

bers as the investigations are com-

pleted and decisions made. Hope-

fully, by the time you read this the

new computer system for the

Grand Lodge will be operational

and we will have much greater ca-

pabilities and security than with

our old system.

The Grand Lodge Board of Di-

rectors is meeting on March 11-12

in San Diego. Certainly the data

breach will be one of the more sig-

nificant issues that we discuss.

There will also be a report on what

exactly happened with the election

that was held at the National Con-

ference this past August. I looked

forward to these discussions and

will report back to our members at

the Spring Board meeting in Bur-

lington.

Members should have seen

several letters from President Can-

terbury during the last several

weeks that dealt with a variety of

issues. One was to the NFL ex-

pressing our outrage at the anti-

police symbolism and language of

a certain entertainer during the Su-

per Bowl halftime show. Another

was demanding again that assaults

on law enforcement officers be

added to hate crime legislation

that has been passed to cover other

groups. We have been pressing for

this for some time but the recent

increase of officers being as-

saulted and killed has required Continued on P. 7

that we press even harder to get

this done.

I now serve as the chairman of

the Grand Lodge Disaster Assis-

tance Committee that is in place to

Local Lodge News

Grand Lodge Update… Continued from P. 6

that we press even harder to get

this done.

I now serve as the chairman

of the Grand Lodge Disaster

Assistance Committee that is in

place to help our members who

may suffer destruction of their

homes. This committee re-

views applications for assis-

tance from FOP members that

are displaced from their homes

by some type of natural or man-

made disaster. Most of you

know that recent storms and

floods in parts of the country

have had a devastating effect

on many persons’ lives. Please

consider donating to the Grand

Lodge Foundation and ear-

marking the funds for Disaster

Assistance. The donation will

be tax deductible and, even

though the amount is only

$500, it goes out quickly to

help the member that was dis-

placed with immediate ex-

penses. Since Hurricane

Katrina the fund has paid out

over 1.2 million dollars!

I look forward to seeing

many of you at the board meet-

ing in Burlington and will share

information from the San Di-

ego meeting. I do appreciate

serving as your National Trus-

tee and please let me know if

there is anything I can do for

you or your lodge.

Dennis McCrary National Trustee

dmccraryfop@aol.com

www.ncfop.org 7

Durham County Lodge 2 Activities

By Terry Mangum – Lodge 2 State Trustee

Durham County Lodge 2 continued to be active during the months of

January and February. On January 29 Durham County Lodge 2 took the

recruit class of the Durham Police Department Academy to lunch prior

to their graduation which we do for every recruit class. Providing infor-

mation about the Fraternal Order of Police and answering questions from

the recruits during these lunches has proven to be an excellent recruit-

ment tool for our Lodge. You should experiment with doing this to see

if it would be beneficial for your Lodge in recruiting new members.

On February 2 Durham County Lodge 2 again sponsored the refresh-

ments for the Durham Police Department Academy Graduation cere-

mony reception. Lodge 2 has been sponsoring the graduation receptions

for a number of years.

Durham County Lodge 2 had a new local fundraiser on February 10 -

12 with Jersey Mike’s. They provided Lodge 2 with cards to pass out to

our members. The card entitled the holder to a free sub for a $3.00 do-

nation and 100% of these donations were then given to Durham County

Lodge 2. This was a very successful three-day fundraiser for our Lodge.

Durham County Lodge 2 would like to recognize and thank Jersey

Mike’s for their generous support in offering to do this for our Lodge.

Also during February, a select number of Lodge 2 Executive Board

members met with City Manager Bonfield to discuss issues of concern

for our Durham Police Department members. This meeting was well

received and will hopefully be the beginning of an improved line of com-

munication between Lodge 2’s membership and the City Manager.

Lastly, Durham County Lodge 2 hosted our 11th Annual Public Safety

Appreciation Day on February 21 in a private area of the Carolina Ale

House. This event is annually scheduled to take place in conjunction

with the Daytona 500. This appreciation event provides the attendees

with the opportunity to share good food, hospitality, fellowship, family,

and grand Daytona racing. This year’s Appreciation Day was again well

attended and enjoyed by all.

John R. Byrd Sr. Vice President

jrbsenior@charter.net

www.ncfop.org 8

Brothers and Sisters,

I hope everyone is experiencing a Safe and prosperous New Year so

far. Speaking of prosperous the CD’S that the state lodge has in place ma-

ture in March. If we leave them where they are the interest we are receiving

on them will drop drastically. The Chicago Police Officers Credit Union

(endorsed by the Grand Lodge) has the best interest rates of anybody in the

country. If anyone has any other suggestions of how better to handle these

monies please bring them to the Spring Board Meeting in Burlington.

I hope everyone is seriously considering the legal aid option we dis-

cussed at the Fall Board Meeting in Jacksonville. I have Mike Yon from

the National Legal Aid Plan coming to our Spring Board Meeting in Bur-

lington to once again answer any and all questions about the National Plan.

Please consult with your lodge members as I have encouraged you to do

for a little over the last year and be ready to make a recommendation. I

have a proposal to put forth as far as the Legal Aid Option. I think we

should opt into the national plan at $64 a member with our next per diem

assessments in 2016. We keep the money we currently have in our legal

aid account and the money in our reserve account (investment) to continue

to fund Administrative Cases as need be. We keep our Legal Aid Commit-

tee in tact to review Administrative Cases only. That being said our yearly

assessment for Legal Aid will only have to go from $24 to $64. Please give

this proposal some serious and well thought out discussion and considera-

tion among your fellow lodge members.

At our E-Board meeting in Newton on February the 6th we got to meet

Rich’s recommendation for his replacement Norris Adams II. Norris was a

very professional and pleasing individual to talk too. Norris has a good di-

versity of experience in areas other than criminal law that would benefit

our membership very much. Norris is a partner in a practice that has a

wealth of experience and different areas of expertise that he can draw from

to benefit the membership. I asked him a couple of specific questions that

had been addressed to me from the membership when I was Legal Aid

Chairman. They were: Are you open to traveling the state to defend mem-

bers anywhere when necessary? His answer was yes. Are you open to de-

veloping a statewide lawyer inventory of FOP friendly lawyers and devel-

oping a relationship with those lawyers on behalf of the FOP? His answer

was again yes. There are more issues that were discussed but Norris will

be at the Spring Meeting to answer your questions himself, after which he

will be brought up for a vote. I strongly encourage that you endorse Norris

A. Adams II as our new FOP State Lodge Attorney.

I hope everyone is continually thinking about ways to increase member-

ship and develop new fundraisers. I hope to see you all at the Spring Board

Meeting in Burlington April 8th - 10th. Take care and be safe

As always I am here to serve you. You can call me anytime at 336-504-

8173 or email me at jrbsenior@charter.net if I can be of assistance to you

or your lodge in anyway.

Information from your Vice

President By John R. Byrd Sr.

Person County FOP 74 2016 Awards Banquet

Pictured left to right – Officer Of The Year - Deputy Jimmy Wilborn of the Person County

Sheriff’s Office, Distinguished Service Award - Cpl. Ryne Ford of the Roxboro Police Depart-ment, Distinguished Service Award - Master Trooper Lacy Morris of the NC Highway Pa-

trol and Lodge President John R. Byrd Sr.

Person County FOP Lodge 74

2016-2017 Officers Pictured left to right – Dustin Harris Lodge

Trustee, Heath Gill Sgt. at Arms, Installing

Officer State 2nd Vice President Bobby Gaddy,

John R. Byrd Sr. President/Secretary, Adam

Norris Lodge Trustee, and Chuck Gentry Vice

President/ State Trustee. Not present are

Robert Young Treasurer, Mark Massey 2nd

Vice President, and David Ramsey Chaplain.

In 2015, three separate bills

were filed in the General Assembly

mandating, in one way or another,

body-worn cameras for law en-

forcement officers. These bills - -

HB713, “Body and Dash Cam Re-

cordings,” HB 537, “Protect Law

Enforcement and Community Re-

lationships,” and HB 395, “Body

and Dashboard Cameras/Law En-

forcement” - - were introduced in

the midst of a number of highly

publicized police shootings nation-

ally where officers’ conduct was

questioned by members of the pub-

lic. I began gathering information

on the topic, which was a some-

what new concept at the time, and

talked with the Bill Sponsors about

their concerns, the issues they were

hoping to resolve, and the specifics

of their particular bill. As police

chiefs, Sheriffs and the heads of

other law enforcement agencies be-

gan weighing in, the enormity of

the issue became apparent. And in

fact, the initial cost of the equip-

ment became the least concern of

the discussions. Questions regard-

ing privacy (both the public and of-

ficers’), storage and retention of the

video, the Public Records Act, and

use in criminal violations and civil

actions became overwhelming.

These issues were not going to be

resolved in a single legislative ses-

sion.

In stepped Representative John

Faircloth, a former Chief of Police

in Highpoint, NC, who wisely in-

troduced a bill, HB 811, to study

the issue, then report back to the

General Assembly in the “short

session.” While so-called “study

bills” are often used to put contro-

versial bills on a back-burner in the

hope that the issue will die down,

Representative Faircloth’s bill was

intended to truly be a needed study.

And it has begun.

On Wednesday, February 10th

the Joint Justice and Public Safety

Subcommittee on Body-Worn

Cameras met for the first time. The

room was packed with interested

parties; far more than the Subcom-

mittee chairs anticipated.

Co-chaired by Representative

Faircloth and Representative Allen

McNeil, a retired deputy Sheriff,

the first meeting was intended to

give the Subcommittee members an

overview of the issue, the myriad of

problems raised by this proposal,

and a brief overview from munici-

palities and counties that have vol-

untarily implemented the use of

body-worn cameras. The Subcom-

mittee heard presentations from the

Hickory and Charlotte-Mecklen-

burg police departments, the Gov-

ernor’s Crime Commission regard-

ing the status of its grants program,

and Sheriff Charles McDonald of

Henderson County and Sheriff Van

Duncan of Buncombe County.

Aside from the complications

raised by the right-to-privacy and

public record aspects of such video

recordings, it quickly became evi-

dent that the cost of the storage and

retention might well be the greatest

obstacle. Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s

speaker, Maj. Stephen Walker, told

the Subcommittee that cloud stor-

age can cost $1.65 per gigabyte per

month per officer, which he de-

scribed as being “extremely expen-

sive.”

Currently, there are no laws

governing when an officer should

turn the camera on or off, how long

agencies should retain the film

footage, how the footage should be

stored, and who - - and when - -

should be allowed to view it. (Note:

the law governing dashboard cam-

era footage is very specific, and ap-

plies only to these in-car cameras.)

Departments that have imple-

mented body-worn cameras have

been able to find some guidance

from some national groups that are

attempting to develop standards,

but have generally had to develop

their programs from scratch. The

policies and procedures, from

deployment to retention, vary

widely from agency to agency.

Sheriff Duncan did note one

positive, measurable difference for

officers and the public. He said in

Buncombe County complaints

have declined by about 70 percent

since his debut of a body-worn

camera program approximately a

year ago.

Representative Faircloth ob-

served that initially, last year, the

idea was leaning heavily on the

State setting standards. He contin-

ued by saying, however, that most

likely the State may set some over-

all requirements but leave the func-

tioning rules and procedures up to

the local government. He specu-

lated that one of the above bills al-

ready in play in the legislature may

be used as a vehicle to implement

such requirements.

This was the first of three

planned meetings, and I will con-

tinue to actively monitor and par-

ticipate in these meetings.

www.ncfop.org 9

STUDY OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS HAS BEGUN By Jeff Gray, Legislative Agent

www.ncfop.org 10

Information and Suggestions from

Editor In Chief By Terry Mangum

I hope you enjoyed the January/March issue of the Blue-

Note. Our Editor, Jessica Miller, continues to produce an ex-

cellent newsletter for our members. We have an interactive

section in each issue of the BlueNote so don’t forget to par-

ticipate in our BlueNote TRIVIA. Wanda Baity of Lodge 8

participated in the January/February TRIVIA contest and

won.

This issue of the BlueNote contains some very important

information and some current court decisions which should

be of interest to all law enforcement officers across our State

of North Carolina. Please read and share this BlueNote issue

with your fellow law enforcement officers who are either not

members of the FOP or who are members and have not pro-

vided their email address in order to receive their own copy

of the BlueNote.

We continue to need your contributions to the BlueNote.

As I have suggested before, a simple way for each Lodge to

contribute to the BlueNote is to assign one individual to pre-

pare articles for the BlueNote telling us about your Lodge ac-

tivities. All of our Lodges have activities, elections, commu-

nity events, etc., throughout the year. This will also provide

a member with the opportunity to do something for the Local

Lodge and become more involved. I am always available to

assist anyone with writing an article so now is the time to get

started. The submission deadline for the May/June issue

is April 15, 2016. Please e-mail your articles and photos to my e-mail ad-

dress TerryMangum@frontier.com by the due date. If you

submit photographs, please select one or two of your best so

that I do not have to make a selection. With photos, if possi-

ble, send the names of the individuals in the picture.

I would ask all readers to send me your comments and

any suggestions for improvement relating to your BlueNote

publication. This is your publication so help us make it better

by contributing articles, photographs, and suggestions for im-

provement.

As always, I am here to serve you and our membership. If

I may be of assistance to you, or if you have any questions or

concerns, please contact me.

Article Submission Deadlines for 2016: May/June issue: Due by April 15, 2016

July/August issue: Due by June 17, 2016

September/October issue: Due by August 19, 2016

November/December issue: Due by October 21, 2016

TRIVIA We have a winner!!!

Wanda Baity of Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Lodge 8

is the winner of the January/February BlueNote TRIVIA

contest. She correctly identified Brenda Laskowski and

Dennis McCrary as the two individuals in the contest pho-

tograph. Her prize will be awarded at the Spring Board of

Directors meeting in Burlington on April 9.

So to recap, the correct TRIVIA answer for the photo-

graph from the January/February issue of the BlueNote is

Brenda Laskowski and Dennis McCrary. Thank you to

everyone who submitted answers to the Trivia question.

Don’t give up. Keep submitting your answers and maybe

you too can be a TRIVIA winner like Wanda Baity.

*******************

Now here is your chance to compete in an-

other exciting round of TRIVIA.

Put on your thinking caps. Can you identify the in-

dividual in this photograph? Hint: This is not a van-

dal nor an angry man preparing to throw a brick at

someone.

If you can identify the individual, send an email to

terrymangum@frontier.com with your answer. The

answer will be posted in the May/June 2016 issue of

the BlueNote along with the name of the first indi-

vidual submitting the correct answer.

The most basic definition of pro-

gram sustainability is “a paradigm

where program income exceeds pro-

gram expenses and available data indi-

cates that this trend will continue for

the foreseeable future.” In addition, if

your “program” is meeting its goals

and achieving or exceeding expected

results your program is sustainable. So

where does our North Carolina Frater-

nal Order of Police Legal Aid Plan

(program) stand? As for results we do

well; as far as plan sustainability, with

increased scrutiny of law

enforcement comes in-

creased potential for liti-

gation, and what seems to

be an ever increasing level

of violent attacks on law

enforcement increases our

exposure by way of repre-

sentation of our mem-

bers in use of force in-

cidents.

Our plan is very carefully managed

and each case is well vetted to ensure

that the best interests of our Order and

the individual member are carefully

considered. We often win and regu-

larly recover at least some funds. If due

diligence, dedication, and hard work

limited our exposure our Legal Aid

Plan would be sustainable in perpetu-

ity. We get a lot for what we pay into

our self- funded Legal Aid Plan, like

laying the equivalent of an across town

bus fare on the counter of the Cadillac

dealership and driving away in a new

Coupe De Ville.

To ensure continued outstanding

representation of our Brothers and Sis-

ters it is high time that we consider

having our Legal Aid Plan underwrit-

ten by a National or international un-derwriter. It may be as simple as adopt-

ing one of the legal aid options cur-

rently offered by the Grand Lodge. So

there is daylight at the end of this tun-

nel, but it’s going to hurt. Yes, it’s go-

ing to hurt to the tune of one decent

meal out, or three cans of dip, or a fifth

of whiskey or case of beer, or any of

100 things that we mindlessly pur-

chase at least once a month throughout

the year never blinking an eye. For the

cost of few such things we purchase

monthly, and can likely do without, we

can secure underwriting to provide the

legal aid our members count

on with peace of mind that our

plan will remain solvent.

I realize that any increase in

cost is a concern to all our

members and that retirees pay

into our Legal Aid Plan too.

But, please keep in mind that

supporting our Legal Aid Plan

is a lot like paying for public

education; we may not have

children enrolled in school, or

perhaps our neighbor has several chil-

dren while we have one, but we fund

education for the common good, not on

a per use basis.

We owe it to our Brothers and Sis-

ters, our families, and our communities

to fund our Legal Aid Plan at a sustain-

able level so that we have protection

and peace of mind in the darkest hours

when the world appears to be spinning

out of control. I intend to bring this

matter to the floor at the 2016 Spring

Board Meeting to be held April 8-10 in

Burlington.

Please consider this matter care-

fully and share your thoughts with

your State Trustee so that a meaningful

discussion can occur at the Spring

Board Meeting.

www.ncfop.org 11

Phillip Ferguson Chairman of Trustees whydonturun@yahoo.com

Legal Aid

Legal Aid Plan Sustainability By Phillip Ferguson

LEGAL AID COMMITTEE

INFORMATION By Terry Mangum, Chairman

Your Legal Aid Committee mem-

bers are Kelli Jones (Lodge 76),

Chuck Kimble (Lodge 59), Tom

Lance (Lodge 16), Mark Michalec

(Lodge 9), Kenneth Whitehead

(Lodge 82) and Lynn Wilson

(Lodge 1). As Chairman, I would

like to recognize and personally

thank the Committee members for

their service to their Committee,

the membership, and the State

Lodge. I would also like to extend

our sincere appreciation to State

Office Manager Jean Novellino for

her invaluable assistance to our

Committee and the membership

throughout the entire legal aid pro-

cess.

As I am certain all of you know,

our longtime friend and State

Counsel Rich Hattendorf has re-

tired. Rich was an invaluable part

of the success of our Legal Aid

Committee and will be greatly

missed. I wish Rich all of the best

in his retirement and thank him for

all of the many years he provided

his legal service and advice to the

North Carolina State Lodge. Now

that Rich has retired to Haywood

County Lodge 16 country, hope-

fully Lodge 16 will host us again

for another State Board of Direc-

tors meeting. Again, my best to my

dear friend Rich in his retirement.

To improve and streamline the le-

gal aid application process, I would

once again like to provide you with

some general information which

will make the process better for Continued on P. 12

everyone involved, both the apply-

ing members and the Committee.

I urge all Lodge officers to share

and review the following infor-

mation with their membership.

Legal Aid Committee… Continued from P. 11

everyone involved, both the applying

members and the Committee.

I urge all Lodge officers to share

and review the following infor-

mation with their membership.

It is imperative that the Local Lodge

submits the applicant’s legal aid re-

quest in a timely manner. Once it is

received from the member and re-

viewed by the Local Lodge President

and/or Secretary, the Local Lodge

should email the application and

agreement to the State Office and

then mail a hard copy to the State Of-

fice. When the emailed application

and agreement are received in the

State Office it is date stamped and

immediately sent to the Legal Aid

Committee for review. And a deter-

mination on whether or not to pro-

vide legal aid is made in a timely

manner and a letter is sent to the ap-

plying member with the Commit-

tee’s determination.

A second issue concerns the scope of

the approved legal aid. When a legal

aid request is approved for a specific

action, and the results of the ap-

proved venue is unsuccessful and the

member wishes to proceed further,

then a new legal aid agreement and

legal aid application must be com-

pleted and submitted in the same

manner as the original application. I

try to be very specific on what the ap-

proved legal aid covers in the letter

that is sent to the applicant and the

applicant’s selected attorney. Again,

as has been stated many times, an ap-

proved legal aid request is for a spe-

cific hearing, appeal, etc., and is not

carte blanc legal coverage from here

to the Supreme Court.

Another issue is the membership pro-

cess. Individuals who apply for

membership in a Local Lodge must

be voted on by the membership at a

regular monthly membership meet-

ing and reflected in the meeting

minutes. Once the individual is

voted on and approved for member-

ship by the membership of the Local

Lodge, their per capita and other as-

sessments (legal aid, death benefit,

etc.) should be sent to the State Of-

fice. As has been stated many times

by many people, individuals are not

members nor entitled to any State

Lodge benefits until such time as all

of their payments

(money) are received in

the State Office.

When completing the

application it is ex-

tremely important that

sufficient information

is provided so the Com-

mittee does not have to

request additional facts.

Under the section of the

Legal Aid Application

which asks for the reason legal aid is

being requested, please provide a

synopsis of the facts and the exact

reason(s) for the request. The Com-

mittee needs the facts surrounding

the request and exactly what the re-

quest is for. Each box in the “Reason

for Legal Aid” section has a blank

line where the applicant can list the

specific venue which will be pur-

sued. For example, if it is for a

Grievance Hearing, then type Griev-

ance Hearing and who the hearing

will be heard by on the blank line.

By providing this information at the

time the application is submitted, the

application can be handled quickly

without the delay of phone calls and

e-mails to get the needed infor-

mation.

Please note that if additional infor-

mation is requested, it is the appli-

cant’s responsibility to provide this

information in a timely manner. The

legal aid request application will be

closed and not considered due to fail-

ing to provide the additional re-

quested information.

When involved in a Critical Incident,

the legal aid agreement and legal aid

application should be completed

within the next few days. I would

ask the Local Lodges to assist the

State Lodge with this de-

tail. When the Lodge au-

thorizes the use of an at-

torney in a Critical Inci-

dent for the member, the

Lodge should make sure

the member completes

the agreement and appli-

cation in a timely man-

ner. The legal aid agree-

ment must be signed and

sealed by the Lodge Secre-

tary so this Lodge follow-up

should be a simple task.

Finally, the applicants should be cer-

tain that the contact information they

list on the Legal Aid Application is

correct – both their email address and

their telephone numbers. When fol-

low-up is needed, we must have ac-

curate contact information.

If you have any questions concerning

the legal aid process, please do not

hesitate to contact me at terry-

mangum@frontier.com or 919-452-

7679. This simple contact with me

with your questions could save us all

time and effort with the legal aid pro-

cess.

Terry Mangum Immediate Past

President terrymangum@frontier.com

www.ncfop.org 12