Guidelines vary on when to issue alerts
By JON ADLER
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle
July 18, 2009, 4:45PM
When it comes to finding missing or abducted children, worried parents and law enforcement officers rely for the most part on fingerprints and the voluntary Amber Alert system. While these may assist in the recovery of a child, there is a lot more that can and needs to be done to better protect our children.
Each year between 800,000 and 1.3 million children are reported missing. Further, more than 58,000 children are abducted each year. And, in abductions involving a violent crime, statistics show that 99 percent of violent crimes occur within the first four hours that the child is missing.
In many communities, the local police or sheriff offer parents the opportunity to have their children fingerprinted. Additionally, all states have some version of the Amber Alert system, an early warning system to help find abducted children. While these are important tools, we can and must do better. Recalling a few high-profile cases illustrates the issues.
Take the 2006 case of 14-year old Elizabeth Shoaf from Lugoff, S.C. Elizabeth was missing for 10 days, yet no Amber Alert was issued. It was only when Elizabeth got hold of her kidnapper's cell phone and sent a text message to her mother's cell phone that U.S. marshals were called in to help locate and safely rescue her.
In California, 8-year-old Sandra Cantu wasn't as lucky. She disappeared this past March and her body was found 10 days later inside a suitcase left in a drainage ditch. Her family had contacted police, but no Amber Alert was sent out. The police, while not issuing an Amber Alert, still conducted a search, informed other law enforcement offices in California, and spoke to the media.
In Texas, when an 11-year-old girl supposedly ran away with her 23-year-old boyfriend, child advocates in Texas questioned why state law enforcement officials refused to issue a statewide Amber alert given the child's age and given that local police in Tyler had issued an alert. The state argued the girl had not technically been abducted. While the girl may not have fit the narrow definition of “abducted” by a stranger, this kind of incident should be part of any Amber Alert system
In not one of these cases would having fingerprints on file helped in rescuing the abducted child. Sadly, the only use for fingerprints in these circumstances is to help identify the body — not much comfort to distraught parents.
Additionally, a close examination of how states interpret and implement the voluntary Amber Alert system reveals some serious problems and inconsistencies.
In the cases cited above, like so many others, national and state guidelines for issuing an Amber Alert require evidence that a child has been taken a certain distance away. Further, many states are reluctant to issue an alert in cases where abduction by a stranger and physical coercion are not evident. The decision is left to local and state officials to make the call. The search for Elizabeth was conducted by family, friends and neighbors. The search for Sandra was conducted by the police but without issuing an Amber Alert. In the Texas case, local law enforcement issued an Amber Alert while the state refused.
The guidelines for Amber Alerts set by the Department of Justice are just that — guidelines, not requirements. South Carolina's process for initiating an Amber Alert differs in some ways from California's. In both states, the law enforcement agency has to believe the child was abducted. In South Carolina, unlike California, the law enforcement agencies have to exclude all other possibilities for a child's disappearance. Both states require the child to be 17 years old or younger or if older have a proven physical or mental disability. Unlike South Carolina and California, New Jersey says there must have been a short enough delay between the time the child was last seen and the time the child was reported missing to believe an Amber Alert will help locate the child. Some states won't issue an Amber Alert unless there is a vehicle description. Other states will.
The differences in state application of the federal guideline can result in one state issuing an Amber Alert while a neighboring state doesn't. In such a situation, a child predator can cross state lines knowing he/she is less likely to be pursued in the state with a more lax set of rules. This is unacceptable, and we need all states to implement a zero tolerance system for pursuing child predators.
Mark Klaas, whose 13-year-old daughter Polly was kidnapped and killed, has said, “The Amber Alert system, as it was conceived by the federal government, is an ill-conceived idea that was based on bureaucracy and not quickly disseminated information.” He's right.
So what's the solution? We need a national system with a single set of rules that are consistently applied in every state. When issuing Amber alerts, state law enforcement agencies should be using modern technology — cell phones, the Internet and GPS to maximize the rapid dissemination of vital information. The time has come for Congress to legislate a better system for protecting our children from possible abduction.
Adler is executive director of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Subscribe