How to deal with the stresses and anxieties of working in law enforcement
Monday, January 30, 2012
By Stanley Popovich
Stress and anxiety are very common when you work in law enforcement. As a result, here is a list of techniques
that a person in law enforcement can use to help manage their daily stresses and anxieties.
Sometimes, we get stressed when everything happens all at once. When this happens, a person should
take a deep breath and try to find something to do for a few minutes to get their mind off of the problem. A
person could take a walk, listen to some music, read the newspaper or do an activity that will give them a
fresh perspective on things.
When facing a current or upcoming task at your job that overwhelms you with a lot of anxiety,
divide the task into a series of smaller steps and then complete each of the smaller tasks one at a time.
Completing these smaller tasks will make the stress more manageable and increases your chances of
success.
Challenge your negative thinking with positive statements and realistic thinking. When encountering
thoughts that make you fearful or depressed, challenge those thoughts by asking yourself questions that
will maintain objectivity and common sense.
Remember that no one can predict the future with one hundred percent certainty. Even if the thing that
you feared does happen there are circumstances and factors that you can’t predict which can be used to
your advantage. For instance, you are at your place of work and you miss the deadline for a project you
have been working on for the last few months. Everything you feared is coming true. Suddenly, your boss
comes to your office and tells you that the deadline is extended and that he forgot to tell you the day
before. This unknown factor changes everything.
In dealing with your anxieties at your job, learn to take it one day at a time. While the
consequences of a particular fear may seem real, there are usually other factors that cannot be
anticipated and can affect the results of any situation. Get all of the facts of the situation and use them to
your advantage. The more control you have over your stresses and anxieties, the better off you will be in
the long run.
Take advantage of the help that is available around you. If possible, talk to a professional who can help
you manage your fears and anxieties. They will be able to provide you with additional advice and insights
on how to deal with your current problem. By talking to a professional, a person will be helping
themselves in the long run because they will become better able to deal with their problems in the future.
Managing your fears and anxieties takes practice. The more you practice, the better you will become.
BIOGRAPHY:
Stan Popovich is the author of "A Layman's Guide to Managing Fear Using Psychology, Christianity and
Non Resistant Methods" - an easy to read book that presents a general overview of techniques that are
effective in managing persistent fears and anxieties. For additional information go to:
http://www.managingfear.com/
URGENT NOTICE: PPOA SENDS CEASE AND DESIST LETTER TO LASD REGARDING 2-YEAR CUSTODY ASSIGNMENT MANDATE
Monday, November 16, 2011
On November 9, 2011, PPOA became aware of a change in custody assignment requirements for sergeants and lieutenants. The mandate stated that "all sergeants and lieutenants assigned to Custody Operations and Correctional Services Divisions shall be assigned to their respective Division for a minimum of 24 months, per Sheriff Baca." This was a change from the mandatory 1-year requirement upon assignment to custody.
On November 11, 2011, PPOA sent a cease and desist letter to the Sheriff's Department for failing to meet and confer on this issue and for unilaterally making this change in practice. "This is a knee jerk reaction to the perceived problems in Custody initiated by the ACLU," stated PPOA President Brian Moriguchi. "The department conducted no study and has no empirical evidence to suggest that the tenure of the sergeants and lieutenants in custody is related to unnecessary uses of force. This new policy is a slap in the face to all sergeants and lieutenants and in defiance to the laws governing meet and confer requirements as set forth in the Meyers-Milias Brown Act." PPOA will demand that the department follow the law and that this policy be retracted immediately.
relocating inmates is not the answer
Monday, August 8, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
LA County should first consider re-opening their closed jail facilities before considering shipping prisoners out of the county. North Facility has been closed for several years and could house over 1000 inmates. Twin Towers and Men's Central Jail have portions of their jail closed as does CRDF and other jail facilities. If and when we reach full capacity, and only when we reach full capacity, should we consider shipping prisoners elsewhere. Otherwise, we would be doing the same as the state: making claims that prisoner location has anything to do with anything when in reality all they are looking at is the bottom dollar. Yes, the sole reason state inmates are being sent to county jail facilities is to save money for the state!
I hope the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff are not simply crunching the numbers to determine if it is "financially beneficial" to send these inmates elsewhere. Finding the cheapest place to house inmates doesn't benefit the inmates nor efforts at rehabilitation, it unnecessarily exports potential jobs in the Sheriff's Department and it doesn't do anything to advance the safety and protection of Californians. Shouldn't that be our primary goal? Have we simply lost focus on our duty to serve the citizens of this state/county?
Read: L.A. County May Pull Its Own Handoff When State Inmates Arrive
A Tale of two coasts:
Public safety Reduction does not equal budget deficit reduction
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
By PPOA
If you know anyone who believes that cutting law enforcement budgets and laying off cops is a sensible way to save money, buy them a plane ticket to Camden, New Jersey. Its 77,000 residents have the dubious distinction of living in New Jersey’s most crime-ridden city. In 2009, Camden’s residents suffered violent crimes at a rate more than five times the national average. To make matters worse, Camden has suffered from a mounting budget deficit. So, how did the city leaders decide to right the ship last year? They decided to lay off half (that’s right, HALF) of its police force in order to save cash. A total of 163 officers received pink slips in January 2011. You can see where this is going…
By March 2011, crimes stats for Camden revealed that aggravated assaults had more than TRIPLED when compared to the same period one year earlier. Shootings nearly doubled. Arsons, burglaries and rapes were all up, too.
Here’s the kicker: While Camden city officials managed to save $5.65 million by decimating its public safety budget, the International Business Times estimates that the city’s crime victims, families, residents, property owners and businesses face $12.1 billion in tangible and intangible costs of crime. The net loss for Camden attributable to police layoffs is $11.55 billion.
But that’s the east coast. Elected officials in California wouldn’t make those same mistakes, right? Let’s look at some recent figures related to public safety in our fine state:
Last month:The US Supreme Court ruled that California must remove 33,000 inmates from its prison rolls in the next two years.
Two weeks ago: Sacramento County supervisors approved a budget for the coming fiscal year that will cut law-enforcement spending by more than $30 million.
Last week: La Habra Heights City officials planned to cut up to $200,000 from the contract with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to balance next year's budget.
The last 48 hours: The City of Corona announced it will lay off 15 officers. The City of Merced declared it will cut 9. Meanwhile, the Costa Mesa police chief resigned abruptly & criticized city leaders for planning to lay off 12 officers. In addition, the City of San Jose expects to cut 100 officers despite police union members accepting a 10% pay/benefits reduction last week. Oh, and crime reports are up significantly for the latest week in 14 L.A. neighborhoods, according to an analysis of LAPD data by the L.A. Times’ Crime L.A. database.
It is extremely unsettling to read about the ever-increasing need for law enforcement in California while, at the same time, we are forced to defend ourselves from anti-public employee attacks that continue to diminish public safety throughout the state.
At this point, we don’t need to state the obvious and warn city and state officials about the deadly consequences we will face for cutting funding for law enforcement. The crime reports speak for themselves.
We simply express concern for what is shaping up to be an even more dangerous future. In the interest of safety, in the interest of common sense, we hope that budget controllers determine more intelligent methods to reduce deficits without reducing public safety.
Clearly, cuts to public safety are not the answer to budget deficits. In fact, cuts to public safety increase budget problems while putting the public at greater risk. California politicians should learn from Camden's failures and NOT make the same mistakes here.
June 29, 2011 Update: Attorney General Issues Statement on Loss of California Law Enforcement Capabilities
Also see: Official Press Release
President Obama Skips police week, hosts controversial rapper
Monday, May 16, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
It is deeply disturbing that President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama would honor Common at the White House, or any other person who vocalizes support for cop killers. This action, coupled with the President's noticeable absence at the 2011 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial ceremony and his unwarranted criticism of Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley for arresting Obama's friend, Henry Lewis Gates Jr, a black Harvard professor, sends a clear message to all law enforcement officers in the United States that our president has little regard for the work of police officers, including those who sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. We are very disappointed in President Obama's decision to praise those who support the killing of cops and for his indifference to law enforcement. We hope President Obama can look beyond his personal biases and show greater support for the men and women of law enforcement who risk their lives daily to protect the lives of others...including the President.
Read: POLICE Magazine: Obama Skips Police Week, Hosts Controversial Rapper
Update on pension threat
Thursday, May 5, 2011
By PPOA
Recently, a number of PPOA members have expressed concern about threats to public employee pensions in California. While these threats (legislative proposals and potential initiatives) are real, PPOA members need to exercise caution before allowing rumors or sensational headlines to affect decisions regarding retirement. In other words, these threats will change nothing tomorrow. Some of the anti-pension efforts are more valid than others but please keep in mind that the processes in place to effect change via legislation or ballots are lengthy, costly and complex. Word has somehow spread among some of our members that retiring this summer may preclude them from being affected by any immediate pension adjustments. First of all, PPOA would never recommend making a hasty decision to retire based on hearsay. Second, any potential changes to the LACERA retirement system would take considerable time (years, in all likelihood) to implement. Third, remember that LACERA has one of the most cost-efficient public employee pension plans in the state and, in fact, began implementing mindful measures some 30 years ago -- the very same measures that are only now being negotiated for many other retirement systems in California.
PPOA will continue to monitor all proposals that could potentially impact your pension and we will keep PPOA members informed should we hear of anything specifically targeting our retirement system. In the meantime, please do not make a rash decision that could adversely affect your well-earned retirement.
protect healthcare for all retirees
Friday, March 25, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
On March 22, 2011, the LA County Board of Supervisors, in closed session, voted to pursue changes to retiree healthcare in an effort to mitigate the rising cost of healthcare and to help with the county budget problems. They approved nine options to be negotiated with the unions: 8 options impact new hires only & 1 option impacts new hires AND active employees.
· For new hires, change LACERA Benchmark from the POA to the lowest cost HMO
· For new hires, require that retirees enroll into Medicare at age 65
· For new hires, reduce dependent coverage to 90% from 100%
· For new hires, change the county contribution from 4% per year to 3.33% per year
· For new hires, employees contribute .5% of salary towards retiree health
· For new hires, employees contribute 1.0% of salary towards retiree health
· For new hires, employees contribute 1.5% of salary towards retiree health
· For new hires, employees contribute 2.0% of salary towards retiree health
· Require all new hires AND active employees upon retirement to enroll into Medicare at age 65; the county will pay Part B premiums for all future retirees
NOTE: By forcing employees into Medicare at age 65, the county would save money on premiums; however, the employee will be much more limited in health care options
In each of the options, the savings to the county is very low to non-existent in the first few years; however, the savings becomes significant (up to hundreds of millions of dollars) over the course of 30 years. PPOA understands the rising cost of health care is problematic and is willing to negotiate with the county; however, we have an obligation to protect our current retirees, our active members as well as future members from drastic changes that will negatively impact our health care options. We have been faithful servants to the county and have suffered significant health problems as a result. The county must recognize the sacrifices made by our members and ensure that all of us have the best health care possible. We will keep you posted on the progress of these negotiations through Facebook (search PPOA on Facebook and "like" us) and the PPOA website: www.ppoa.com.
Pensions, Apples and Oranges
Monday, February 28, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
Although Los Angeles County is some 1,500 miles from the eye of the storm that is the drastic backlash against public employees, there are already signs that the political firestorm in Wisconsin is rearing its head locally. A knee-jerk reaction here in L.A. County would be both shameful and ironic, considering that we have one of the most cost-efficient public employee pension plans in California.
The few who may have been unaware of the nationwide effort to conveniently blame public employees for staggering budget shortfalls can thank Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker for bringing this political warfare front and center. Earlier this month, Governor Walker unveiled his plan to end collective bargaining in part to give local governments the authority to make unilateral adjustments to pensions and other benefits for most public employees. The plan also restricts new wage increases unless approved by a voter referendum and all contracts would be limited to one year. That’s pretty harsh for a state where public employees consistently make less than private sector counterparts (Keefe 2010). Several other states are following Walker's lead, including Ohio, Indiana and Missouri. This is all an effort by state legislators to deflect attention on their own ineptness and failures in properly managing their state's budgets. It is very simple. They overspent when the money was rolling in and they failed to prepare for when times got tough. Rather than admit to their irresponsible fiscal mismanagement, they are looking for a scapegoat - the public employees and their unions.
Here in Los Angeles County, we are not in denial that occasional abuses of the system exist. And we agree that they are abhorrent and must be stopped. In fact, it’s no surprise that the public is reacting with such anger to the scandal recently uncovered in the City of Bell. What happened in Bell is an anomaly. Most public employees earn an honest wage and an honest pension. But now the broad brush of anger is painting all of us who have elected to serve our communities as the villains "getting rich off of taxpayers." That is unfortunate and unfair.
A handful of legislative bills have been introduced in California with sights set on pension issues. Are they all warranted? Hardly. Is discussion of pension reform prudent? Yes. But pension reform should be left to local negotiations, not legislated. First of all, not all pension funds are the same throughout the state. It is improper to force changes to pension funds that are doing well to address the shortcomings of pension funds that are doing poorly. It is similar to punishing the masses for one person's improprieties. Deal with the problem pension funds individually and leave the "good ones" alone. In fact, through local negotiations, many problem pension funds are being restored to acceptable levels. That is how it should work. Many are now negotiating to a level similar to ours in Los Angeles County. That’s right, L.A. County was more prudent and more efficient than most of our counterparts over the last 10 years. It’s a shame that the State is now only beginning to discuss the mindful measures that the L.A. County Board of Supervisors and the Board of LACERA (LA County Employees Retirement Association) began implementing more than 30 years ago. In Los Angeles County, retirement formulas are far lower than other municipalities, but still reasonable. In Los Angeles County, the employee pays into his/her retirement and the bulk of the retirement fund is financed through the employee and investments, not through the taxpayers. We also have a multi-tiered retirement system that is adjusted as needed to meet the fiscal needs of the retirement fund to ensure its sustainability.
That is why the frantic layoffs, benefit rollbacks, furloughs and pay decreases imposed upon public employees by cash-strapped governments have, fortunately, not infected Los Angeles County to date. That's not to say it will never happen, but we have managed to avoid these drastic measures due to responsible governing of our county finances and effective management of our retirement fund. Contrary to what you may hear about public employees (cops in particular), we are not harvesting an illicit entitlement. We do, indeed, help pay for our own retirement and we do not collect Social Security benefits like the private sector. We retire earlier than most because the job demands it. It is a tough occupation and takes its toll on the individual police officer (which is why so many suffer from medical problems and injuries). More importantly, it also protects the safety of the public. Would you really want a 65 year old police officer responding to your aid in a life threatening situation?
Don't be fooled by the rhetoric by politicians and wealthy business owners. Politicians caused the budget crisis, not public employees. Pension funds may be the pot of gold that politicians are hoping to bail them out, but they certainly are not to blame for fiscal mismanagement by state and local government leaders. Please keep this in mind when politicians attempt to fan the anti-public employee firestorm here in our backyard.
Keefe, Jeffrey H. 2011. "Are Wisconsin Public Employees
Overcompensated?”, Economic Policy Institute,
Washington, D.C., February 10
PPOA President denounces 401(k)-style retirement system
Monday, February 28, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
The San Diego city officials are simply deflecting attention from their own mismanagement of city funds and blaming the ever-so-popular pensions for their budgetary woes. Pensions are not to blame for budgetary deficits of cities, counties and states. POLITICIANS ARE TO BLAME! Pensions have been in existence for many years and have functioned just fine. They are reviewed by actuaries to ensure their mathematical stability based on revenue and expenses and subject to adjustments to ensure their sustainability. Let’s put the blame where it belongs. The budget crisis was created by the crash of the stock market, economic collapse and the failure of government officials to plan responsibly. Some have fared better than others. Those who spent monies freely during the economic boom are now feeling the pain during tough economic times. Rather than face their fiscal “irresponsibility,” they are blaming pensions for all their problems.
As the article below points out, there are no immediate savings by going to a 401(k)-style retirement system. In fact, as shown in Alaska, it will actually cost the taxpayers more money. So why do politicians, like those in San Diego, want to attack pensions? It is simple. During tough economic times, government employees fare better than private sector. They have stable jobs and stable retirements while those in the private sector are struggling with layoffs and losses in their investments. Thus, politicians see it as an opportune time to attack public employee pensions and raid their pension funds. What they fail to recognize is that when times are good, private sector employees receive much larger raises than public employees, extravagant bonuses and lavish benefits. In a nutshell, public employees forego the benefits of a booming economy for the stability during economic downturns. Private sector employees reap greater rewards during economic prosperity, but take greater risks during tough economic times. Yes, these are tough economic times and public pensions are faring better right now. But let’s not forget that the private sector and their 401k’s will outpace public employee pensions when the pendulum swings the other way.
Let’s not lose sight of the real problem. The politicians, whether they be in San Diego or another city, overspent during the good times and failed to plan for the bad times we are in today. Now they are looking for a scapegoat. Don’t be fooled by their rhetoric. Hold them accountable and don’t let them put the blame on the working class.
Should police, firefighters get 401(k)s? - Signon San Diego
By Craig Gustafson
Should San Diego’s police officers and firefighters receive guaranteed lifetime pensions or a 401(k)match?
That question could go before city voters next year if Councilman Carl DeMaio is successful with a signature-gathering drive for a ballot measure that would effectively close the pension system to new hires and force them to accept a 401(k) instead. The proposal goes a step further than a measure championed by Mayor Jerry Sanders and Councilman Kevin Faulconer that would establish 401(k)s for most new hires but leave pensions for public-safety workers in place.
The competing measures, both of which could appear on the June 2012 ballot, are sure to create a titanic political battle and reaffirm San Diego’s status as one of the flash points for the national debate over public employee pensions. While other public agencies have just started to grapple with massive pension costs (see: Wisconsin), San Diego has been wrestling with the issue for nearly a decade after several dubious financial decisions by past city leaders.
Now the city could decide whether to join the select few public agencies that have ended pensions for police officers and firefighters.
“We believe that this is going to be a national movement and San Diego will benefit by being one of the first cities,” DeMaio said. “I believe taxpayers are going to say that city employees should receive a retirement that is no better and no worse than the rest of us actually footing the bill.”
A switch to a 401(k)-style plan for all new hires would do nothing to reduce the $6.5 billion in pension benefits the city already owes its retirees and current employees. But it would shift the financial risk of potential investment losses from taxpayers to the employees. The city would pay a fixed annual cost as a contribution match into worker’s accounts rather than the status quo which calls for the city to pay an ever-increasing amount — currently about $230 million annually — into its pension fund to pay off a $2.1 billion deficit.
Labor leaders representing police officers and firefighters say they understand the city’s financial woes but worry about what will happen if San Diego is the only public agency in the state to make the switch. The city could spend endless taxpayer money to hire and train public-safety workers only to see them continually leave for better benefits elsewhere.
“I think (DeMaio) puts the city of San Diego behind an eight ball that I think is unrecoverable because no other law enforcement in the state of California has 401(k)s for their public safety,” said Brian Marvel, president of the Police Officers Association. “Make sure his name is on that initiative so 10 years from now people can know exactly who was responsible for creating the department they have at that time. His name will be synonymous for making a first-rate department a third-rate department.”
The city has already seen what happens when it tweaks police pay and benefits as 840 officers have left the department over the past five years following two separate changes, according to the police union. That represents about 45 percent of the department’s current total of 1,849 sworn officers.
Frank De Clercq, head of San Diego’s firefighters union, said the city would simply become a training ground for other agencies because few firefighters would work here more than a few years. The resulting lack of experience locally would have devastating effects, he said.
“It’s a bad move altogether,” De Clercq said of a 401(k) switch. “If the citizens want that it’d be unfortunate because I believe it’s something they’ll regret in the end because it will have a drastic effect on public safety and serving and protecting the citizens here.”
There’s no doubt that pensions for police officers and firefighters are costly endeavors. San Diego’s current and retired public-safety workers — a combined group of about 5,450 individuals — are owed $3.1 billion in benefits, according to the latest actuarial evaluation. They receive more generous benefits than other employees and can retire at a younger age, both major factors that drive up costs.
DeMaio said the city can’t get serious about addressing its financial problems unless it also addresses the benefits for police and fire.
“Police and fire unions will insist that they should somehow be exempt from these reforms,” he said. “But a pension system that is not sustainable for a desk clerk does not somehow magically become sustainable for another classification of employee regardless of how much we value the work done.”
Only a handful of other public agencies have switched to 401(k)s for public safety workers so there’s not much history for San Diego officials to reflect on. The states of Alaska and Michigan switched all of their workers years ago. Officials in New Haven, Connecticut, forced the change on police officers in 2009.
There’s also a question about how much, if any, savings result from the switch. One independent study of Alaska’s change showed the state’s costs increased by 3 percent annually.
Faulconer and Sanders adamantly oppose 401(k)s for public safety and plan to exclude those workers from their proposed ballot measure. They said it will include other cost-saving measures besides a 401(k) switch and save significant taxpayer money annually. They released a joint statement indicating their skepticism over DeMaio’s proposed ballot measure.
“Too often, voters approve a legally-flawed measure that is ultimately overturned by the courts,” they said. “Our measure will be legally defensible. Our plan ensures that we will continue to be able to recruit the very best police officers and firefighters, which the people of San Diego expect and deserve.”
Few specific details have been released about either ballot measure — such as how much taxpayers would contribute to the 401(k)s — as proponents have only made broad statements in public speeches. One thing is clear: Neither Sanders nor DeMaio plan to seek City Council approval to put their plan on the ballot because of labor’s strong influence with that panel. Each said they’ll launch a signature drive to force their plan on the ballot.
Depending on how the initiatives are proposed, they would need to collect signatures from 10 percent or 15 percent — 62,057 or 93,085 — of the city’s registered voters to trigger an election.
Shooting Hoax: A big no no!
Friday, January 28, 2011
By PPOA President Brian Moriguchi
The news of an officer being shot is disturbing to all police officers as we all realize "it could have been any one of us." The news of an officer lying about being shot is equally disturbing. Police officers put their lives on the line everyday and when an officer lies about being shot, it is an embarrassment to the entire profession and decreases our credibility in the public's eye. This job is tough enough and the alleged actions of this officer tarnish the badge we wear so proudly. We are grateful that Officer Stenroos survived his injuries; however, we are deeply disappointed (if the allegations against him are found to be true) in his decision to lie about the incident and to inconvenience so many people: the students, the community, as well as his fellow police officers. We ask that the public understand that this decision was made by a single police officer and is not reflective of the credibility and integrity of the vast majority of police officers who perform their duties with honor and honesty and with respect for the power entrusted to them by the public they serve.
By THOMAS WATKINS (Associated Press)
LOS ANGELES – A school police officer who triggered a massive manhunt by saying he had been shot in his bulletproof vest was regarded as a pariah Friday by authorities who deemed the shooting a hoax.
"A lot of people were inconvenienced that day, particularly given the fact that we now find out it was based on a fabrication," Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck said. "I am extremely sorry about that."
The Jan. 19 incident had the hallmarks of a brazen attack on law enforcement, when Los Angeles Unified School District police Officer Jeff Stenroos claimed he had been shot by a man with a gray ponytail who had been breaking into cars.
Hundreds of officers were dispatched to scour cars and yards as part of a massive dragnet.
Turns out, police said, there never was a gunman.
Stenroos was arrested Thursday on suspicion of filing a false police report and released on $20,000 bail shortly before midnight. The allegation is a felony. A message left at a telephone listing for Jeff Stenroos was not immediately returned.
School district Superintendent Ramon Cortines said he had directed the school police chief and the district's lawyer to immediately relieve Stenroos of duty and begin the process of dismissing him.
It was unclear what actually happened to Stenroos. Police initially said he had been treated for bruising to his chest caused by a bullet striking his vest, but Beck backed away from that possibility.
"There's evidence there was a round expended," Beck said. "Where and when that happened is subject to speculation."
Beck said a shell casing from a 9-mm round was found near the scene, but Stenroos's service weapon was a .45-caliber handgun. The chief did not discuss the discrepancy.
A law enforcement official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak about the case, said Stenroos was mishandling a firearm when he was shot.
School police Chief Steven Zipperman said he was shocked and dismayed by the case. Paul Weber, president of the union representing Los Angeles Police Department officers, said he was disgusted to hear that Stenroos was suspected of filing a false report.
TV helicopters followed the motorcade the escorted the ambulance that carried Stenroos and showed him being wheeled into a hospital. A passerby who had found Stenroos on the ground was hailed as a hero after he used the officer's radio to call for help, and police marveled at how lucky Stenroos was to have been saved by his vest.
The manhunt cost an estimated $500,000, Beck said, and countless residents and workers were delayed for hours as they tried to move around the neighborhood.
Students were kept in classrooms without access to food or bathrooms, prompting anger and frustration from parents. Some students had to urinate in trash cans.
Police initially said Stenroos reported being shot in the chest by a man who appeared to be breaking into cars near a high school.
Beck, however, said investigators soon grew suspicious.
"My detectives are a very skeptical lot," Beck said. "There were some inconsistencies ... that emerged early on."
The City Council voted unanimously Friday to sue Stenroos to recover the cost of the manhunt.
Asked if there had been previous instances of police faking attacks, Beck referred to a 1984 case in which Officer Jimmy Pearson diffused a bomb-like device he'd found on a bus carrying the Turkish Olympic team.
He later pleaded guilty to planting the device and staging his rescue in hopes of attracting praise from his supervisors.