More flash, fewer flashlights:

Back to basic police equipment

---

Published in Nedbank ISS Crime Index
Volume 5 2001
Number 6, November - December

A great deal of money is spent on state-of-the-art technology for the SAPS. At the same time police members, often those on foot patrol, lack equipment as basic as hand-held radios and handcuffs. Police performance could be greatly enhanced - at no major expense - if they were properly equipped.

Having arrived late to the global table, suffering from poor-cousin-shame and tech-envy, South Africa has been quick to buy the pitches of all manner of best-practice salesmen. This is especially true when the products are flashy and, despite substantial outlays, they promise to save us money in the long run. Oftentimes, the result is like putting remote control security gates on a tin roof shack.

The jury is still out on whether closed circuit television (CCTV) systems are the latest examples of our gullibility. While not coming out of the SAPS budget, the cost of CCTV represents donor money that could be diverted to less glamorous, but arguably more important, types of law enforcement hardware.

For example, the CCTV system in the Johannesburg Central Business District will have cost upwards of R10m by the time it is fully installed, and will cost more than R2m a year to operate. This money could buy between 2500 and 5000 new hand radios, which are in desperately short supply, and replace them at a rate of 500 to 1000 radios a year.

Whatever the virtue of high tech solutions, street police members lack some of the most basic equipment they need to do their jobs. While most members carry a side-arm, many are patrolling our streets, often on foot, without tools that are considered indispensable overseas. Even more frustrating, some of these items are available but are not used, for reasons discussed below. The 'missing equipment' includes, in order of importance and usefulness:

Each of these items will be discussed in turn.

Radios

Communications are not optional in police work – they are the core function of the job. Constant
communication is essential for two reasons: safety and accountability. A member without a radio is a very soft target, and without the ability to keep tabs on members via the airwaves, trouble is inevitable.

It takes a very foolhardy member indeed to enter a darkened building, looking for a dangerous suspect, without the ability to call on help if needed. This perfectly legitimate interest in personal security has a direct effect on member efficiency. Police management may feel compelled to keep members in large, unwieldy squads for mutual protection. Of course, this means using half a dozen or more members to do a job one or two could do, if they simply had a radio.

Police members, recognising the need for a ready lifeline, may feel compelled to remain in their vehicles where communications are available, further sacrificing productivity and negatively impacting community contact. This presumes, of course, that the vehicle itself has a working radio, which is not always the case.

However, having access to a radio cannot help a member if few of his or her colleagues are on air. There may be help around the corner, but it might as well be across town if other members cannot be contacted.

Of course, this lack of communication poses similar dangers to the public - members not on air cannot respond to calls for assistance. To be blunt, members who cannot be contacted when needed have very little use, except for the vague deterrent effect their presence as uniformed police creates.

This, of course, assumes that members are around to create a visible presence. Not only are incommunicado police of little use, they also pose a risk of corruption. When members are not required to communicate with supervisors throughout the shift, the temptation to avoid danger and play truant is great. It is also easier for members to become actively involved in criminal activity, such as soliciting bribes.

Presently, many police members rely on personal cell phones for communication, but these cannot replace the hand-held radio. Aside from the cost, cell phones are slow to dial and can only reach one recipient at a time. Cell phones are one-way devices - the dispatcher cannot dial each member in the case of an all-points-bulletin. They are also unwieldy for field tactics, like conducting building searches. Presently, many police members call 10111 when in trouble, just like any other citizen.

It may be that police management, who were on the streets under entirely different circumstances, do not recognise the need for radios in democratic policing. But the need to get out of the car and into the community is essential for effectiveness in today's world. Hand radios allow members and their supervisors to watch each other's backs.

Handcuffs

Handcuffs are an indispensable tool for control of a subject in custody, and are an inexpensive way of greatly enhancing safety for all concerned. Unfortunately even police who have them, under-utilise this key device.

This is perhaps due in part to the failure to adapt to changing standards on use of force. The amendment of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act will have a revolutionary effect on many aspects of police behaviour once promulgated. Police will no longer be allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect in the back, unless he presents a reasonable threat to the member or to the public.

Suspects who are not handcuffed are a danger to members, especially if they are not adequately searched before being taken into custody. If they attempt to resist or flee, greater force will be required to restrain them than if they were handcuffed. Conversely, use of force is difficult to justify against a handcuffed suspect. It is thus imperative that all members be issued with and learn to properly use handcuffs, for the protection of both the police and arrested suspects.

Non-lethal weapons

Also essential to reasonable use of force are non-lethal weapons. When the short baton was discontinued some time ago, nothing was immediately issued to replace it. While the 'tonfa' (baton with a short perpendicular extension) is being phased in, many members currently lack the equipment and training to protect themselves without resorting to their firearms.

While physically strong police members may confidently handle most suspects with their bare hands, smaller members may find themselves in situations where force is needed and physical strength alone will not suffice. These members must then resort to threat of deadly force, and possibly its utilisation, in situations that would not otherwise justify it.

A graded approach to use of force, where the response is proportional to the threat, requires a level of force between 'manhandling' and 'manslaughter', even for the big guys. The use of blunt weapons and chemical sprays is in everyone's interest.

Flashlight

Remarkable as it might sound, many street members go out on patrol every night without a decent flashlight. Regulation police flashlights, which are metal cased and about as long as a man's forearm, should be part of every member's basic equipment.

Aside from its obvious night-time function, a regulation flashlight provides a backup baton in situations where the tonfa is out of reach. It is also used to blind the driver when approaching a stopped vehicle, and should be used in many area searches, day or night.

Vest

Many police members refuse to wear vests, especially when on foot patrol (which is when they need them most). The standard item issued by the SAPS contains two removable ceramic plates to stop large calibre rounds, in addition to a Level 2 Kevlar vest, which will stop most popular rounds. The whole rig weighs about 10 kg, and can feel like a whole lot more after 12 hours of walking a beat.

The obvious alternative, which is not allowed under current regulations, is to remove the plates and try to avoid AK-47 rounds. In 1999, the most recent year for which figures are available, only one member was killed with an AK-47, compared to 12 in 1994.

Level 2 will stop a 9mm shell, and the great majority of member shootings occur with a 9mm or less. This suggestion is likely to evoke objections from those who know members who have been killed with heavy weapons, but the alternative is the status quo, in which many members do not wear body armour at all.

Backup gun

Since police are currently only allowed to carry their SAPS issued firearm, many criminals are aware that members have no backup once their side-arms are removed. Aside from creating some healthy insecurity among lawbreakers, allowing members to carry hidden backup weapons gives them an alternative when their main weapon jams or fires dry. There are also times when an ankle holster is more accessible than the hip, such as during a tussle.

Of course, these guns will be of little use if members are as careless with them as they are with their main side-arms. Every year many members are killed with their own guns, and much of this can be blamed on weak weapons retention practice. But these poor examples should not be used to deny competent members their right to a second line of defence, as long as this weapon is registered with the Service and ballistic records are kept.

Back to basics

While many are tired of hearing that 'resources and training' are the biggest barriers to SAPS functioning, it may relieve them to know that this does not involve anything outrageously complicated or expensive. Performance could be greatly enhanced if members were simply required to carry basic police equipment and to use it properly. Even members who are deemed 'functionally illiterate' or who cannot drive can perform some useful function if properly kitted out.

Ted Leggett
Institute for Security Studies
ted@iss.org.za