That's the problem: attempting to prevent important new technology (actually-secure encryption) from being used is not a substitute for updated training that provides "typical leo" with digital forensics skills that are increasingly needed.
Susan Landau's 2016 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding Apple's encryption on the San Bernardino shooter's iphone:
>> "Instead of embracing the communications and device security we so badly need for securing US public and private data, law enforcement continues to press hard to undermine security in the misguided desire to preserve simple, but outdated, investigative techniques."
>> "We need 21st century techniques to secure the data that 21st century enemies—organized crime and nation-state attackers—seek to steal and exploit. Twentieth century approaches that provide law enforcement with the ability to investigate but also simplify exploitations and attacks are not in our national security interest. Instead of laws and regulation that weaken our protections, we should enable law enforcement to develop 21st century capabilities for conducting investigations."
>> "Developing such capabilities will involve deep changed for the Bureau, which remains agent-based, not technology-based."
I think, she was referring to classic investigative measures using modern tools and infrastructure.
Digital forensics is way outside typical leo training and believe it or not you can make a lot more money in the private sector with IT training.
Local, state and federal case loads get backlogged behind, leaving the highest priority cases to get staffed.