Monthly Law Journal Article: Ballistic Vests – Various Legal Issues, 2010 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.

      The U.S. Justice Department has reached settlements for a total of over $61 million against ten companies that manufactured allegedly defective Zylon bulletproof vests. In the latest settlement against two now bankrupt Point Blank companies, located in Pompano Beach, Florida and Jacksboro, Tennessee, the government agreed to accept $1 million to resolve claims that the companies made defective vests with knowledge that the Zylon degraded rapidly over time and therefore was not suitable for ballistic use. Point Blank vests were purchased by the U.S. government, as well as by state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Many purchases by state, local, and tribal agencies were partially funded by the U.S. Department of Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. At least four other lawsuits are currently pending against other manufacturers of allegedly defective bulletproof vests. Justice Department press release (November 7, 2011).
     IACP adopts a resolution supporting the mandatory wearing of body armor for all police patrol activities. Resolution EC.01.a11 (Apr. 8, 2011).
     Federal Labor Relations Authority affirms arbitration award that determined that the Border Patrol failed to bargain with the union over the implementation of changes to body armor requirements. D.H.S. Customs and Border Protection and AFGE Natl. Border Patrol Council, #0-AR-4494, 65 FLRA No. 23, 65 FLEA 88 (2010).
    Divided California appellate panel overturns the conviction of a ex-felon who was wearing a ten-pound fragmentation flak jacket, with handgun impedance capability. The majority reasoned that the definition of body armor was imprecise and impermissibly vague. The dissenting judge wrote that "the clear legislative intent behind Penal Code section 12370 was to stop the threat of violent felons who are able to thwart police officers by wearing body armor, potentially injuring or killing innocent officers or civilians in the process." Peo. v. Saleem, #B204646, 2009 Cal. App. Lexis 2011 (2nd Dist.).
     Arbitrator holds that management could establish clothing requirementsfor detective rank and require officers to wear soft body armor without bargaining. Ossining (Town of) and Ossining Police Assn., NY-PERB Case #A99-195, 114 LA (BNA) 1761, 39 (1895) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 122 (Henner, 2000). [29]
     Appellate panel exonerates ballistic vest manufacturer. No duty to warn users of limited protection in areas where panels adjoined in an unconcealed manner. Sanders v. Amer. Body Armor & Eqpmt., 652 So.2d 883 (Fla.App. 1995). [1996 FP 25-6]
     Federal appeals court upholds F.L.R.A. ruling requiring mgmt. to bargain with the union before adopting a new policy that body armor must be worn under an officer's shirt. U.S. I.N.S. v. F.L.R.A., 12 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 1993). [1994 FP 99]
     Arbitrator rules that the Chief of Police may formulate “reasonable rules and regulations” governing the wearing of protective soft body armor. City of Pontiac and Mich. Assn. of Police/PPOA (Walt, 1980), cited in a second grievance, #23-89 89MY-215, FMCS #90/1702 at 96 LA (BNA) 284 (Roumell, 1990). {N/R}
     Duty to bargain: a union “safety” proposal specifying equipment to be maintained in police patrol vehicles was mandatorily negotiable, respecting: (1) armored vest; (2) helmet with detachable face shield; (3) head restraints; (4) lap and shoulder belts; (5) flares; (6) cable cutters; (7) fire extinguishers; and (8) clip board. Management did not have to bargain over the types of guns, other weapons, and quantities of ammunition to be provided. Twp. of So. Brunswick and P.B.A. L-166, NJ-PERC #86-115 (1986), 12 NJPER (LRP) 17,138 [Lexis]. {N/R}
     Arbitration impasse panel rules that a police union proposal to make the wearing of body armor optional was a permissive, non-mandatory subject of bargaining. Dist. of Col. Office of Lab. Rltns. & Coll. Brg. and FOP, PERB Case #85-I-06, 84 LA (BNA) 713 (Rothschild, 1985). {N/R}
     Appeals court affirms termination of an on-duty police officer who loaded his firearm with blanks at a training session, then fired a round at another officer who was not wearing a ballistic vest. In his defense, he claimed he was trying to demonstrate the importance of using safety equipment. Schmitt v. City of Rialto, 164 Cal.App.3d 494 (1985). {N/R}
     Arbitrator upholds a policy directing uniformed police personnel to wear protective vest at all times while on duty (with certain exceptions). City of Fort Dodge and UFCW L-P31, Grievance #84-GA-55, 82 LA (BNA) 581 (Roberts, 1984). {N/R}