Federal Bureau of Investigation - Law Enforcement Bulletin SM...

1

11

Departments

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors’ opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

endorsement by the FBI for any policy,program, or service.

The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodicalis necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use

of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved by the director of theOffi ce of Management and Budget.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(ISSN-0014-5688) is published

monthly by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paidat Washington, D.C., and additionalmailing offi ces. Postmaster: Send

address changes to Editor, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,

Madison Building, Room 201,Quantico, VA 22135.

EditorJohn E. Ott

Associate EditorsCynthia L. Lewis

David W. MacWhaBunny S. Morris

Art DirectorDenise Bennett Smith

Assistant Art DirectorStephanie L. Lowe

Staff AssistantCynthia H. McWhirt

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law EnforcementCommunication Unit, Training and

Development Division.

Internet [email protected]

Cover Photo© brandXpictures

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy, Madison Building,Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.

September 2006Volume 75Number 9

25

Cognitive biases, probability errors,and organizational traps can causeinvestigations to go awry.

Field training administrators face manychallenges in their capacity as leadersof an important component that supportsthe overall mission of their agencies.

Offi cers are required to knock andannounce their entry before going intoa residence to execute a warrant.

Criminal InvestigativeFailures

By D. Kim Rossmo

Field Training Issuesfor AdministratorsBy Richard W. Beaver

Knock and AnnounceViolations

By Richard G. Schott

9 Technology UpdateLEO Roars into the Future

10 Leadership SpotlightEmotional Intelligence

18 Book ReviewHandbook on Firesetting in Children and Youth

20 Police PracticePolice Volunteers and Ethics

23 Crime DataIdentity Theft, 2004

24 ViCAP AlertUnidentifi ed Deceased Victim

September 2006 / 1

© Comstock Images

As one of the most com-monly depicted charac-ters in novels, fi lms, and

television shows, the police de-tective solves complex criminal investigations through deduc-tive skills, high-tech forensics, specialized computer programs, hard work, and luck. In these fi ctional accounts, good wins, evil loses, and justice triumphs. But, in the real world,

investigations do not always turn out that way. Sometimes, the case stays open, the criminal remains at large, and justice is denied.

Failures in the criminal investigative process can have serious consequences. Unsolved crimes, unsuccessful prosecu-tions, unpunished offenders, and wrongful convictions bring the criminal justice system into

disrepute. In addition, with the cost of some major investiga-tions climbing into the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars, wasted efforts can prove extremely expensive.

Most investigators, how-ever, are competent, dedicated professionals who want to solve their cases and arrest the right people. So, what causes a major crime investigation to fail or a

Criminal Investigative FailuresAvoiding the PitfallsBy D. KIM ROSSMO, Ph.D.

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

“

”

Research has shown that people can hold

only fi ve to nine items in their

conscious memories at one time.

Dr. Rossmo, a former detective inspector in charge of the Vancouver, BritishColumbia, Police Department’s Geographic Profi ling Section, is currently a research professor and director of the Center for Geospatial Intelligence and Investigation in the Department of Criminal Justice at Texas State University in San Marcos.

criminal prosecution to focus on an innocent person? The answer lies primarily in the subtle haz-ards or traps that can make the process go awry. Some of the brightest scientists, judges, and detectives have fallen victim to these pitfalls. No one is im-mune. Researchers in the fi elds of cognitive psychology, foren-sic statistics, intelligence analy-sis, law, and the philosophy of science, however, have suggested some possible expla-nations, often grouping them into the three areas of cogni-tive biases, probability errors, and organizational traps. Like cascading failures in airplane crashes, an unsuccessful inves-tigation often has more than one contributing cause.

To fully examine these pit-falls, the FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin presents this article in two parts. The fi rst covers cognitive biases that can lead to criminal investigative failures and some strategies that can combat their occurrence.

COGNITIVE BIASES

Perception and Memory Limitations

People do not objectively survey their worlds. Rather, their experiences and expecta-tions infl uence the decoding of sensory input (imperfect at best1). Individuals view the world through different lenses, a fi ltering process that creates mind-sets.2 Quick to form but resistant to change, mind-sets, while neither good nor bad, serve a purpose that under certain conditions can

become problematic. Because perception is based on both awareness and understanding, humans often perceive what they expect to, thereby making premature conclusions danger-ous. Communication becomes doubly subjective as it involves two people. What the speaker means, what that person says, what the listener hears, and how that individual interprets the communication may not be the same. Subjective words, such as tall, young, likely, and dan-gerous, have various meanings depending on the situation and the experiences of the speaker and the listener.

What individuals remem-ber depends upon what they believe.3 The brain does not objectively record data. In-stead, memories are subjective interpretations, rarely reinter-preted even when circumstances change. New information becomes assimilated with old, which has more infl uence on the new than vice versa. Be-cause people tend to remember positives and forget negatives, investigators may become ensnared in belief perseverance wherein they place more weight on evidence that supports their hypothesis than on clues that weaken it.4 Remaining impartial and open-minded is the best way to accurately assess new information.

Research has shown that people can hold only fi ve to

”“ Some of thebrightest scientists,

judges, anddetectives havefallen victim tothese pitfalls.

September 2006 / 3

nine items in their consciousmemories at one time.5 Informa-tion stored in long-term mem-ory can be diffi cult to recall,and investigators may easilyforget details irrelevant to theirinvestigative theory, particu-larly in a complex case. Even ifthe information later becomesimportant, it can remain lostbecause of a failure to developthe neural pathways necessaryfor retrieval.6

Intuition

Most cognitive functioningoccurs outside conscious aware-ness, including perception, in-formation processing, memory,and some methods of decisionmaking.7 Humans employ twotypes of decision making, theintuitive and the rational.8 Intu-ition falls between the automat-ic operations of perception andthe deliberate processes of rea-soning. Often misunderstood,intuition is not a paranormalability or a form of extrasensoryperception. Although it operatesat a below-consciousness level,intuition still is based on normalsensory input.9

Argentinean race car driverJuan Fangio had an interest-ing intuitive experience duringthe 1950 Monaco Grand Prix.10

Braking as he exited a tunnelinstead of maintaining speed foran upcoming straightaway, Fan-gio, unlike many other drivers,avoided a serious accident that

had occurred around the nextcorner. Why had he braked?After much thought, Fangiofi gured out what had happened.Spectators invariably watchedthe race cars roar out of thetunnel, alerted by the echoingthunder of their engines. On thesecond lap, however, they were

and learned slowly.11 Becauseof its implicit nature, intuitionis diffi cult to control or modify,can be infl uenced by emotion,and often is error prone. Typi-cally, intuition involves the useof heuristics (cognitive short-cuts). By contrast, reasoningis slow and effortful, vulner-able to interference, and easilydisrupted. But, it is fl exible andcontrollable and can overruleintuition.

Different situations requiredifferent types of judgment.12

With unreliable and incompletedata or under chaotic anduncertain conditions, intuitivedecision making is preferable.Such situations occur in streetpolicing or on the militarybattlefi eld. However, individu-als certainly do not intuitivelyfi ll out their income tax returns.Therefore, with reliable and ad-equate data and time for properanalysis, reasoning producesthe best results. Complex andrule-bound tasks, such as majorinvestigations or courtroomprosecutions, require carefulanalysis and sound logic.

Heuristics and Biases

Clear and rational thinkingdoes not come easily. Peoplesometimes exhibit limitedrationality in the face of life’scomplexities because the brainis not wired to deal effectivelywith uncertainty. Individ-uals, therefore, employ

looking the other way, watchingthe accident scene. Fangio hadfl eetingly observed a changein the color of the area of thestands in his peripheral vision.A normally light section frompeople=s faces had become darkfrom the hair on the back oftheir heads. Fangio, concentrat-ing on his driving, only noticedthis change at a below-con-sciousness level. But, at racingspeeds, change meant risk, andFangio automatically braked.Intuition helped him avoid theaccident and win the race.

Automatic and effortless, in-tuition also is fast and powerful


heuristics—rules of thumb that substitute simple questions for more complex ones—that typically operate at an intuitive level and work well most of the time.13 Under certain conditions, however, heuristics can lead to cognitive biases, mental errors resulting from simplifi ed infor-mation processing.14 Like opti-cal illusions, cognitive biases are consistent and predictable and can result in distorted judg-ments and faulty analyses. To add to the problem, research has shown a poor correlation be-tween confi dence and accuracy. Past a certain point, increased information leads to greater confi dence in the analyses but not necessarily greater accuracy.

Psychological researchers have identifi ed many heuristics and biases. Some of these can prove particularly problematic for criminal investigators.

Anchoring

The anchoring heuristic refers to the strong infl uence of the starting point or fi rst ap-proximation on the fi nal esti-mate.15 The prevailing situation and the information available at the time determine the fi rst ap-proximation. Limited or incor-rect data will skew the starting point, jeopardizing the path to a correct conclusion. Unfortu-nately, many murder cases fi rst appear to be something other than what they are.

Tunnel Vision and Satisfi cing

Tunnel vision (or incremen-talism) develops from a nar-row focus on a limited range of alternatives. “It results in the [police] offi cer becoming so focused upon an individual or incident that no other person or incident registers in the offi cer’s thoughts. Thus, tunnel vision can result in the elimination of other suspects who should be investigated. Equally, events

2-year-old son was the only witness can illustrate these hazards.17 Detectives received a tip regarding a man who, for the next year, became their investi-gative focus. After a covert op-eration to obtain further incrimi-nating information, they fi nally arrested him. At the trial, the judge quickly threw out most of the prosecution’s evidence, calling the covert operation misconceived. The charges were withdrawn, and the man was released. One detective later commented, “Maybe the team got an idée fi xe. Maybe they got stuck thinking it had to be [him]. No one dared to challenge that thinking until it got to the judge. But, it’s a terrible mess.”18 Several years later, enhanced DNA from the victim’s clothing pointed toward a psychopath now detained in-defi nitely in a secure hospital.19

Availability

Availability refers to the ease by which previous ex-amples come to mind.20 People make judgments based only on what they remember, not on the totality of their experi-ences. They can recall recent and vivid events easily but fi nd disagreeable events diffi cult to remember. Individuals use the availability heuristic for deter-mining how common or likely something is. Limited experi-ence, therefore, can result

that could lead to other suspects are eliminated from the offi cer’s thinking.”16 Satisfi cing is the selection of the fi rst alterna-tive that appears good enough. These heuristics might work well for simple errands, such as buying a hammer, but they are ill suited to the task of solving complex investigations.

The murder of an attrac-tive 23-year-old female whose

© Comstock Images

”

“Under certainconditions, however,heuristics can leadto cognitive biases,

mental errorsresulting from

simplifi ed informationprocessing.

September 2006 / 5

in incorrect estimates oflikelihood. The availabilityheuristic proves particularlyproblematic in investigations ofrare crimes, such as child sexhomicides.

Framing

The presentation of infor-mation infl uences its interpre-tation. Called framing, thisimplies that information alwaysis understood within a context.21

An artifi cial or inappropriatecontext, however, can distortunderstanding. Dramatic exam-ples of framing often take placein the courtroom, where oppos-ing legal counsel present andargue variant positions on theparticular events in dispute.

Representativeness

People often estimate thelikelihood of an event by re-calling a comparable incidentand assuming the likelihoodof the two are similar. Thisrepresentativeness heuristic ispartly prompted by the urge tocategorize everything. Similar-ity in one aspect, however, doesnot imply similarity in others.For many years, Ted Bundy andhis crimes drove the public’simage of the typical serial killercase—sexual murders of wom-en committed by an intelligentand mobile white male. But,not all serial murders are sexdriven, and not all victims arefemale. Many serial murderersare nonwhite and below

average in intelligence, andmost commit their crimes with-in their home metropolitanarea.22

Cause and Effect Biases

Perceptions of cause andeffect are susceptible to severalmental biases. Crime linkagecould be undermined if an in-vestigator fails to differentiateinternal (psychological) from

the cost of the scope), could as-sassinate John F. Kennedy, thepresident of the most powerfulnation in the world. Instead, itremains more psychologicallycomfortable to believe in com-plicated conspiracy theories.

Illusory correlations canprove misleading on severallevels. Events may appearcorrelated when, in fact, theyare not. And, even if they areconnected, correlation does notalways equal causation. Therelationship may be spurious orcaused by an intervening event.For instance, in a series ofburglary rapes on the south sideof a city, police theorized thatthe offender stalked his victimsfrom a local superstore whereall of the women had shopped.However, this superstore, theonly one in the city, was solarge that most people livingin the area had gone there.Living on the south side, there-fore, infl uenced both shoppingand victimization patterns.There was no direct connectionbetween the two, and their rela-tionship was strictly spurious.As it turned out, the offenderfound his victims by prowlingresidential neighborhoods atnight, looking through windowsfor women living alone.

Biases in Evaluationof Evidence

Problems with physicalevidence usually result frommisinterpretation, not from the

external (situational) causesof behavior when examiningoffender modus operandi. Thelevel of force used by a rapist,for example, may be contin-gent on the degree of victimresistance.

The identity fallacy holdsthat big events must have bigcauses. Conspiracy theoriesoften are rooted in this belief.Many have found it diffi cultto accept that a loner like LeeHarvey Oswald, using a $21.45rifl e ($12.78 for the rifl e plus

52701x.indd 952701x.indd 9 8/9/2006 4:27:31 PM8/9/2006 4:27:31 PM

Strategies to Help Avoid Investigative Failures

Ensure managerial awareness of these problems through case study-based training.32

Encourage an atmosphere of open inquiry, ensuring investigative managers remain impartial and neutral.

If possible, defer reaching conclusions until suffi cient data has been collected.

Consider different perspectives and encourage cross-fertilization of ideas, thereby avoiding tunnel vision.

Organize brainstorming sessions and seek creativity, rather than consensus.

Ensure that investigative managers willingly accept objections, doubts, and criticisms from team members.


actual analysis. A police shoot-ing in Alexandria, Egypt, after the First World War provides an intriguing example that also illustrates the risk of ignoring context.23 During a foot pursuit, a police offi cer shot a robber who refused to halt (permis-sible under the law at the time). The criminal escaped but was later found dead. The offi cer stated he had fi red only once. During the postmortem ex-amination, however, the local doctor discovered two bullet wounds, one entering the front of the robber’s left thigh and still lodged in the leg muscle, and the other entering the back and exiting the abdomen. The doctor concluded, “He was shot twice.... First from the front at

rather long range, secondly in the back—probably after he had fallen on his face.”24 Based on these fi ndings, the offi cer was arrested and charged with murder. Fortunately, Sir Sydney Smith, the famous professor of forensic medicine, examined the robber’s clothing and consid-ered context—the infl uence of body position and posture. The offi cer had told the truth. The single shot had entered the robber’s back, penetrated his torso, exited his abdomen, and entered his front thigh, which was lifted high while he was running. Smith tested his theory by reconstructing the shooting using a dummy and the robber’s clothing and later confi rmed it by exhuming the subject’s body.

This represents a classic case of interpretation error involving physical evidence.

Confi rmation (or verifi ca-tion) bias constitutes a type of selective thinking whereby individuals notice or search for evidence that confi rms their theory while ignoring or refus-ing to look for contradicting information.25 Efforts to only verify and not falsify a hypoth-esis often fail. After all, a single item of refuting data (e.g., DNA exclusion) can outweigh a mass of evidence against a suspect. The components of confi rma-tion bias include failure to seek evidence (e.g., a suspect’s alibi) that would disprove the theory, failure to use such information if found, failure to consider alternative hypotheses, and failure to evaluate evidence diagnosticity.

Sometimes, data that ap-pears to support one theory (orsuspect) actually has little diag-nostic value because it also equally applies to other theories (or suspects). For example, during the trial of a man ac-cused of murdering a 9-year-old neighbor, the prosecutor suggested that his failure to attend the child’s funeral was evidence of consciousness of guilt.26 Defense counsel argued that his attendance could just as easily been adduced as indica-tive of guilt because detectives typically try to identify those who attend a murder victim’s

September 2006 / 7

”“Events may appear

correlated when,in fact,

they are not.

funeral in the hope that thekiller shows up.27 The man wasconvicted but later exoneratedthrough DNA testing. A publicinquiry found that the man’s“failure to attend the funeralor funeral home was worthlessevidence and ought not be havebeen admitted.... The leadingof this evidence demonstratedthat the prosecution sought tosqueeze every drop out of theinformation available to them,to support their case.”28 In otherwords, the evidence had nodiagnosticity.

Studies have shown vividinformation has more infl uencethan abstract data.29 Personal ac-counts carry more weight thanstatistical information, eventhough the latter is compiledfrom many personal accounts.The vividness of eyewitnessdescriptions often overwhelmsother information. For instance,authorities have pursued majorinvestigations based on graphicallegations from “victims”of organized satanic cultsand “eyewitnesses” seekingattention.

Investigators often fail toaccount for the absence of evi-dence, something that can provequite important under certaincircumstances. In Sir ArthurConan Doyle’s Silver Blaze, In-spector Gregory asks SherlockHolmes, “Is there any point towhich you would wish to drawmy attention?” Holmes replies,“To the curious incident of the

dog in the nighttime.” Gregorysays, “The dog did nothing inthe nighttime.” Holmes re-sponds, “That was the curiousincident.” Holmes meant thatthe dog would have barked at astranger. Because he did not, theculprit was likely a member ofthe household.

Finally, impressions remaineven after the initial evidencethey were based on is dis-counted.30 Often termed the“curse of knowledge,” this canlead to contrived theories that

theories make for interestingmystery novels but have limitedvalue in the real world.

CONCLUSION

“I’m not sure I agree withyou 100 percent on your policework, there, Lou.”31 Perhaps,real investigators can learn fromfi ctional ones who rarely jumpto conclusions. While often aplot device to help heightensuspense, the identity of theoffender becomes known onlyat the end of the story. Thisoffers the important lesson ofkeeping all options open. Afterall, the wrong mind-set anda limited organizational ap-proach undermines the potentialbenefi ts of advanced forensictechniques, comprehensivecriminal databases, and highlyskilled police personnel. By rec-ognizing cognitive biases andemploying strategies to countertheir infl uence, law enforcementagencies can take steps to avoidinvestigative failures.

Part two of this article willfocus on probability errors andorganizational traps. It also willoffer recommendations and ad-ditional strategies for avoidingthese hazards.

Endnotes

1 For interesting examples of change

blindness in visual perception, see J.K.

O’Regan and A. Noë, Experience Is Not

Something We Feel but Something We Do:

A Principled Way of Explaining Sensory

Phenomenology, with Change Blind-

ness and Other Empirical Consequences,

people cling to in the face ofno evidence to support them.Such convoluted ideas violateOccam’s razor, also known asthe “Principle of Parsimony.”It states that when more thanone possible explanation existsfor an event, it is best to choosethe simplest (i.e., the one withthe fewest assumptions) andto avoid making the situationmore complicated than neces-sary. Investigators should adoptOccam’s razor, an importantguiding principle in science,to their profession. Complex


Over the course of his 21-year policingcareer, the author worked assignmentsin organized crime intelligence, emer-gency response, patrol, and crime pre-vention. His interest in the subject ofcriminal investigative failures originatesfrom various unsolved major crimecases for which he has consulted. Cur-rently, he is working on a book on thetopic. He thanks those detectives whowillingly discussed what went wrong intheir investigations and dedicates thisarticle to them.

”“The vividness

of eyewitnessdescriptions oftenoverwhelms other

information.

paper presented at the Association for the

Scientifi c Study of Consciousness meeting,

Brussels, Belgium, June 2000; retrieved

on December 30, 2001, from http://nivea.

psycho.univ-paris5.fr/ASSChtml/Pach-

erie4.html.2 R.J. Heuer, Central Intelligence

Agency, Center for the Study of Intelli-

gence, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis

(Washington, DC, 1999).3 S. Begley, “People Believe a ‘Fact’

That Fits Their Views Even if It’s Clearly

False,” Science Journal, February 4, 2005,

sec. B, p. 1.4 Supra note 2; and D.L. Schacter, The

Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind

Forgets and Remembers (Boston, MA:

Houghton Miffl in, 2001).5 Supra note 4 (Schacter); and G.A.

Miller, “The Magical Number Seven,

Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our

Capacity for Processing Information,” The

Psychological Review 63 (1956): 81-97.6 Lateral thinking (“thinking outside

the box”) is one way to help prevent the

mental “rust” that can limit a person’s

mental abilities.7 Supra note 2.8 D. Kahneman, “A Perspective on

Judgment and Choice: Mapping Bounded

Rationality,” American Psychologist 58

(2003): 697-720.9 D. Myers, Intuition: Its Powers and

Perils (New Haven, CT: Yale University

Press, 2002).10 K. Ludvigsen, Juan Manuel Fangio:

Motor Racing’s Grand Master (Sparkford,

England: Haynes Publishing, 1999).11 Supra note 8.12 T.A. Stewart, “How to Think with

Your Gut,” Business 2.0, November 2002.13 D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tver-

sky, eds., Judgment Under Uncertainty:

Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press, 1982).14 A particular heuristic does not

actually have to be right most of the time

because if it promotes survival, it will be

passed on through natural selection; see

D.M. Risinger and J.L. Loop, “Three Card

Monte, Monty Hall, Modus Operandi and

‘Offender Profi ling’: Some Lessons of

Modern Cognitive Science for the Law

of Evidence,” Cardozo Law Review 24

(2002): 193-285. While a street offi cer=s

intuition sometimes may be wrong, it still

is unwise to ignore; see A.J. Pinizzotto,

E.F. Davis, and C.E. Miller III, “Offi cers=

Perceptual Shorthand: What Messages Are

Offenders Sending to Law Enforcement

Offi cers?” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

July 2000, 1-6; and “Intuitive Policing:

Emotional/Rational Decision Making in

Law Enforcement,” FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, February 2004, 1-6.

17 P. Britton, The Jigsaw Man (London,

England: Bantam Press, 1997).18 J. Sweeney, “Why the Police Hunters

Took Aim at Stagg,” The Observer, Sep-

tember 18, 1994, p. 21.19 R. Cowan, “DNA Points to Sex Killer

in 1992 Murder,” The Guardian, Novem-

ber 10, 2004.20 A. Tversky and D. Kahneman,

“Availability: A Heuristic for Judging

Frequency and Probability,” Cognitive

Psychology 5 (1973): 207-232.21 A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The

Framing of Decisions and the Psychology

of Choice,” Science 211 (1981): 453-458.22 D.K. Rossmo, Geographic Profi ling

(Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2000).23 S. Smith, Mostly Murder (New York,

NY: Dorset Press, 1959).24 Ibid., 62.25 P. Stelfox and K. Pease, “Cognition

and Detection: Reluctant Bedfellows?”

in Crime Science: New Approaches to

Preventing and Detecting Crime, eds. M.J.

Smith and N. Tilley (Cullompton, England:

Willan Publishing, 2005), 191-207.26 K. Makin, Redrum the Innocent

(Toronto, ON: Viking, 1992).27 F. Kaufman, Ontario Ministry of the

Attorney General, The Commission on

Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin:

Report (Toronto, ON, 1998).28 Ibid., 34.29 Supra note 2.30 Supra note 2.31 Chief of Police Marge Gunderson in

the 1996 fi lm Fargo.32 Supra note 16.

15 Small deviations in the starting posi-

tion can become large ones over time. In

Poe’s The Gold Bug, a code written on a

scrap of parchment contains directions to a

buried chest. To fi nd it, the searchers must

shoot a bullet through the left eye of a

skull nailed to a tree limb, then measure 50

feet out along a line from the trunk through

the point where the shot hit. They initially

dig in the wrong place because they drop

a gold beetle (substituted for the bullet)

through the skull=s right eye; this error

causes them to miss the chest by several

yards. The distance between the left and

right eye sockets is less than 3 inches, but

this short offset is magnifi ed more than 10

times when measured out 50 feet; see E.A.

Poe, The Complete Tales and Poems of

Edgar Allan Poe (New York, NY: Vintage

Books, 1975), 66-67.16 P. de C. Cory, The Inquiry Regard-

ing Thomas Sophonow (Winnipeg, MB:

Queen=s Printer, 2001), 37.

September 2006 / 9

Technology Update

Special Agent Koestner serves in the LEO OperationsUnit, Law Enforcement Services Development and LiaisonBranch, of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information ServicesDivision in Clarksburg, West Virginia.

sers asked for it, and LEO has delivered.Law Enforcement Online (LEO) willU

implement a new authentication method. Withan end-to-end encrypted tunnel, the SSL Sys-tem enables, controls, and secures the extendedenterprise with innovative identity-driven accessgateways.

The SSL System

To provide anytime, anywhere secure infor-mation sharing among law enforcement offi cials,LEO will migrate its users to a clientless virtualprivate network (VPN) solution. The existing VPNsolution requires V-ONE SmartPass or clientsoftware installed on end-users’ systems. Clientsoftware poses a number of issues for the end us-ers that ultimately prevents them from accessingthe network. As a remedy, LEO has created theSSL Solution to help those law enforcement enti-ties that have encountered diffi culties due to VPNSmartPass confl icts.

LEO—a global, virtual, and private networkprovided by the FBI to all levels of the law en-forcement, criminal justice, and public safetycommunities—is an anytime, anywhere system forsecure dissemination of sensitive but unclassifi ed(SBU) information.1 LEO provides its members afree, state-of-the-practice, secure, Internet-basedcommunications network. Accordingly, membersuse LEO to support investigative operations, sendnotifi cations and alerts, and remotely access awide variety of law enforcement and intelligencesystems and resources.

Continued enhancements to LEO improve thefunctionalities of the system’s tools and providethe most advanced services and applications toits members. LEO maintains a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week help desk to assist with membership needs.Such customer-oriented service, combined withstate-of-the-practice technologies, helps fulfi ll theFBI’s mission to provide immediate disseminationof SBU information across agency boundaries.

Membership Requirements

LEO is limited to persons duly employed bya law enforcement, criminal justice, or publicsafety organization and whose position requiressecure communication with other agencies.2 As aninformation-sharing forum, LEO encourages allmembers to contribute information in their areaof expertise. To request a membership applicationor obtain additional information, contact the LEOProgram Offi ce at 202-324-8833, 202-324-3364(fax), or leoprogramoffi [email protected].

Endnotes1 For additional information about LEO and the services it

offers, see Lesley G. Koestner, “Law Enforcement Online: Facing

the Challenges of Katrina,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

February 2006, 1-6.2 The LEO Program Offi ce must be notifi ed immediately upon

separation of a member from an agency.

LEO Roars into the FutureSmartPass SoftwareNo Longer RequiredBy Lesley G. Koestner

brandXpictures

52701x.indd 1352701x.indd 13 8/9/2006 4:23:14 PM8/9/2006 4:23:14 PM

L

Leadership Spotlight

“Emotions, like germs, are easily transmissible. The trick is passing and receiving the right ones.”

—Stacey Coino

Dr. Timothy Turner, a special agent in the LeadershipDevelopment Institute at the FBI Academy, preparedLeadership Spotlight.


The Need for Emotional Intelligence in Leadership

Police offi cers face challenges and stress-es every day that are unique to the law

enforcement community. Additionally, newhires within our law enforcement agencies aremore educated, diverse, and willing to chal-lenge authority. Effective leadership is needednow more than ever. However, leaders todaymust possess more thanskills and tactical ex-pertise and more thana strategic vision. Lawenforcement leaders re-quire a high level ofemotional intelligence(EI).

Leaders must de-velop healthy relation-ships and manage con-fl ict while achieving productive goals. Toaccomplish this mandate, leaders need emo-tional intelligence skills to build, maintain,and strengthen partnerships within and outsidetheir organizations. Research has found thattoo many law enforcement agencies select of-fi cers for leadership positions based on a phi-losophy of being in the right place at the righttime, rather than devoting the proper resourcesto identify and develop individuals who dem-onstrate leadership potential. The ability torecognize offi cers who have strong emotionalintelligence skills will help in the future iden-tifi cation, selection, and development of lawenforcement leaders.

R. H. Humphreys found that leader-ship is an emotional process where leadersdisplay emotions in an effort to stimulateemotions from others. Emotions and moodsimpact our thinking and even the decisionswe make and ultimately generate an attitudethat we display through behavior and habits.

Because emotions andmoods are so conta-gious, the prevailingattitude of an organiza-tion is usually a refl ec-tion of its leadership.

War ren Benn i sfound that emotionalintelligence was moreimportant for successthan any other asset, in-

cluding intelligence (IQ) or technical expertise.Daniel Goleman and Cary Cherness suggestedthat as much as 90 percent of a leader’s suc-cess is due to emotional intelligence, and theybelieved that the higher the position, the moreimportant emotional intelligence becomes.If emotional intelligence is the sine qua nonof leadership, as some scholars say, then lawenforcement agencies should begin promot-ing the development of emotional intelligencecompetencies through the effi cient delivery ofhigh-impact training and development.

52701x.indd 1452701x.indd 14 8/9/2006 4:41:25 PM8/9/2006 4:41:25 PM

If everybody is thinking alike,somebody isn’t thinking.1

—General George S. Patton

September 2006 / 11

Field training administra-tors would do well toheed General Patton’s

advice. After all, they must ful-fi ll many roles to ensure that thenewly appointed recruits in theiragencies receive the best coach-ing from the highest caliber lawenforcement offi cers available.These administrators face avariety of challenges, includingmaintaining the integrity of thefi eld training program, over-seeing their trainers, and

Field Training Issuesfor AdministratorsBy RICHARD W. BEAVER

selecting the appropriate per-sonnel to fi ll these positions.Such responsibilities require agreat deal of thought, fl exibility,and creativity for administratorsto effectively lead such a crucialcomponent of any law enforce-ment organization.

MAINTAINING PROGRAMINTEGRITY

Effective administratorshave many issues to considerwhen implementing or

© Mark C. Ide


“

”

Effective administratorshave many issuesto consider whenimplementing orrevising a fi eld

training program.

Administrative Lieutenant Beaver serves as the fi eld training administrator withthe Cleveland County, North Carolina, Sheriff’s Offi ce.

revising a fi eld training pro-gram. A strong, integral, andcohesive operation requires asolid foundation. When imple-menting a new program, it isworth the extra time and effortit takes to build a stable base. Ifan enterprise is put together tooquickly, it may have too manyholes that then will take a lotof time to fi ll. A strong founda-tion includes a well-designedfi eld training manual, writtenobjectives, standardized evalua-tion guidelines, motivated fi eldtraining offi cers, and leaderswilling to keep the programup-to-date and to never compro-mise its integrity. Such adminis-trators prove invaluable becausethe worst enemy of a strongfi eld training program is com-placency, a disease that will putevery area of the venture atrisk. It will eat away at thefoundation, making even thestrongest program too weak to

be effective. If the administra-tors become infected, everyonedown to the newest recruit alsowill succumb to the illness.

Most agencies have a train-ing program in place, but itmay need revising. This canpose a sometimes diffi cult, butnot impossible, task. It mayinvolve reassigning personnel,appointing line-level offi cers toa committee for brainstorming,or completely dissolving thepresent program, which maysound like a major undertakingbut may prove the best optionif existing problems continu-ally reoccur. While dealing withcurrent complications makesrevising the program a bit morediffi cult, the extent of these ob-stacles should determine whichoption will best suit the needs ofthe organization. Whichever onean agency chooses should allowthe administrator the greatestfl exibility in eliminating past

problems and addressing futureones before they arise.

Finally, to ensure the integ-rity of the program, administra-tors should periodically reviewtheir manuals regarding changesin law, procedures, and trainingissues. A fi eld training manualfunctions under the same prin-ciple as a standard operatingprocedure handbook: it needsconstant updating and revising.The fi eld manual is a workingdocument that administratorscannot neglect if it is to remainan effective instrument. Theyshould keep the words updateand eliminate fi rmly in mind,updating new issues and revis-ing those that need changingand eliminating outdated con-cerns or those no longer needed.

OVERSEEING FIELDTRAINING OFFICERS

Of all the roles fi eld train-ing administrators must fulfi ll,overseeing their fi eld trainingoffi cers (FTOs) ranks amongthe most important. Serving asan example of effective leader-ship and ensuring that recruitsreceive proper training canprove extremely challenging.

Train the Trainers

FTOs should attend an ac-credited fi eld training offi cercourse and fi rst-line supervi-sor school as soon as possible.Such instruction will give thema foundation to begin buildingon and a working knowledge of

September 2006 / 13

”

Serving as an exampleof effective leadership

and ensuring thatrecruits receive

proper training canprove extremely

challenging.

“

what to apply. Administratorswithin their agencies will giveFTOs direction on how to applythose acquired skills. This helpsFTOs understand what is ex-pected of them, which, in turn,helps them explain to recruitswhat they expect of these newoffi cers. A program will notsuccessfully function and thriveif FTOs are given a manual andtold to “go to it.” This leavesno room for growth and createsa breeding ground for negativeissues to infect the initiative.Without proper directives andadequate knowledge of them,FTOs will not train recruitsuniformly. While each FTO candevelop an individual style ofteaching, all must adhere to theprogram’s guidelines, whichwill help eliminate variances intraining.

Encourage Ideas

Administrators and FTOsneed to operate from the sameguidelines, but different ideasare part of what makes theinfrastructure of the trainingprogram work. Administratorsshould solicit new ideas fromFTOs. After all, they are in thefi eld and administrators usu-ally are not. FTOs have fi rst-hand knowledge of issues andcircumstances that arise in thefi eld. Administrators should lis-ten to new ideas and encourageFTOs to get involved in fi ndingsolutions. Such actions helpboost morale by giving FTOs a

sense of accomplishment and afeeling of making a difference.This, in turn, sets an examplefor them to follow for futureleadership roles and opportuni-ties. Moreover, it will makethe program stronger, enhanceits reliability and integrity, andfoster a cooperative style ofleadership.

Meet Regularly

Administrators should meetwith their FTOs on a regularbasis to discuss ideas, problems,and other issues appropriate forinclusion in an open environ-ment. Open meetings provide anopportunity to identify trainerswho sincerely want the opera-tion to excel by the attitude theydisplay toward the recruits andthe program. But, these venuesdo not offer an appropriate envi-ronment to discuss personnelissues concerning individualtrainees. Instead, administratorsshould address these concerns

with FTOs privately to avoidthe possibility of biasing othertrainers’ opinions of recruits be-fore they have the opportunityto prove themselves or correcttheir performance.

Trust the FTOs

Some managers and linesupervisors have a hard timedelegating. Once they havegiven FTOs an assignment,administrators must allow themto do the job. Finding the cor-rect way to operate can helpavoid crossing the fi ne linebetween staying on top of issuesand micromanaging. Whileseveral factors come into play,the most important is the styleof leadership.

If administrators place toomany constraints on them,FTOs never will learn to leadand develop managerial skills,thereby causing undue mo-rale problems. Administratorsshould lead, guide, and directFTOs but, at the same time,allow them to fl ourish in de-veloping their own leadershipstyles. They should train FTOsto recognize a potential hurdleor problem, analyze why it isthere, and fi nd a solution by us-ing their common sense, style,ingenuity, and skills. This caninstill a sense of confi dence andaccomplishment when FTOssuccessfully handle a real-lifesituation by themselves. It alsotells them that the administratortrusts their decisions.


Administrators should accompany FTOs in the fi eld periodically to assist with train-ing issues. This demonstrates that they have an active interest in the FTOs, the recruits, and the program. Participating in different types of training sce-narios, including vehicle stops, building searches, and arrest procedures, gives administrators the chance to see fi rsthand how FTOs are developing as leaders and how the program is being taught and administered.

Enforce Accountability

To keep the integrity, reli-ability, and the foundation of a program strong, administrators must hold FTOs accountable for what and how they teach and for completing all necessary documentation. The training process involves a great deal of

a lawsuit a few years later, the court could subpoena the training records. If the admin-istrator or FTO cannot discern what the reports say due to incomplete or poorly written notes, serious consequences could result. Complete, accu-rate, and proper records should remain a primary concern of all administrators and FTOs because adhering to properly written guidelines on docu-mentation, accountability, and promotional standards forms the support beams for the founda-tion and the walls of an effec-tive fi eld training program.

SELECTINGAPPROPRIATE PERSONNEL

Placing the right people in the right places will help pre-serve the integrity of the pro-gram. This sounds elementary but can prove invaluable. For example, appropriate personnel will greatly reduce the risk of liability issues in the areas of inadequate or improper train-ing. Administrators should look for offi cers who have a genu-ine concern about these. Such employees try to stay abreast of training issues and legal deci-sions that will affect training. Administrators well versed in these areas are fully aware of the consequences that can arise.

Administrators should consider many qualities when choosing suitable training

paperwork. When not prop-erly completed, it can cause signifi cant problems later. Administrators should ensure that FTOs properly document performance on all reports, evaluations, and written and oral tests, as well as completing the appropriate records relative to problem areas, strengths and weaknesses, and other training concerns. Administrators should not overload FTOs with paper-work but, rather, ensure that documentation and checklists exist for each area of training.

In addition, administrators should make sure that perfor-mance progress reviews are clearly written. While the FTO who compiled the notes may understand them, others who follow may not, which can lead to confusion. Moreover, if an offi cer becomes involved in

© Mark C. Ide

September 2006 / 15

offi cers. Self-motivated, profes-sional employees who have apositive attitude toward theiragency usually make the bestfi eld trainers. To help otheradministrators select qualitypersonnel, the author offers hisPEARL model. This acronymstands for professionalism, eth-ics, adaptability, recruitment,and leadership. Agencies alsocan apply the method to othertypes of promotional processes.

Professionalism

Professionalism constitutesthe fi rst trait in the PEARLmodel. Applying it to lawenforcement standards, profes-sionalism can be summed up asconsistency and profi ciency inattitude, character, appearance,and actions. Offi cers live andwork on different levels. Thosewho apply the higher standardsand work ethics to their careersrepresent the ideal fi eld trainersfor a law enforcement agency.

Candidates should havea proven track record of pro-fi ciency in job performance.Operating with minimal super-vision, making ethically sounddecisions, keeping a positiveattitude, and solving problemsappropriately comprise the mostoutstanding traits of profession-alism. In addition, when offi cerspresent themselves profes-sionally, they create a credibleimage that people notice im-mediately. These offi cers knowthat they do not have a second

chance to make a fi rst impres-sion. Offi cers possessing thesecharacteristics give recruitssolid role models to emulate.Other qualities that demonstrateprofessionalism include hon-esty, trustworthiness, creativity,and fairness.

Ethics

Ethics, the second attributein the PEARL model, playa part in every aspect of lawenforcement. Candidates’ work,personal, and off-duty ethics

to new and diverse ideas whilestaying focused on the task athand are crucial aspects to lookfor in choosing the right person.

Agencies spend a consider-able amount of time trainingnew recruits. Many offi cersdo not like having an FTO inthe patrol vehicle for hours ata time, especially when thetrainer has to constantly watch,talk, train, and monitor whatthe recruit does at all times. So,FTOs must be able to reconcilepotentially confl icting situa-tions. They also must have theability to adapt to continue thetraining started by another FTObecause most programs run inphases. Moreover, an FTO ableto adapt to new directives andorders and teach them to oth-ers with minimal coaching canprove priceless to a programadministrator.

Recruitment

The fourth component in thePEARL model is recruitment. Apromotional process for a newor an existing fi eld training pro-gram makes the procedure fairand integral and ensures thatthe agency chooses the best ofthe best while following properwritten guidelines. The choicescan have no appearance of be-ing prejudiced or biased in anyway. There always will be somewho are unhappy that they werenot chosen. But, by followingethical and written guidelinesin the promotional process, the

should carry a lot of weight inthe promotional process. Thosewho consistently make morallycorrect decisions in every areaof their lives can become posi-tive infl uences on their fellowoffi cers and on those under theirtutelage.

Adaptability

The third characteristic, theability to adapt, can prove in-valuable for an FTO. The abilityto adapt to new people with dif-ferent types of personalities and

“”

Placing the rightpeople in the right

places will helppreserve the integrity

of the program.


• Send FTOs to accredited training

• Solicit new ideas from FTOs

• Meet regularly with FTOs

• Allow FTOs to do their job

• Hold FTOs accountable

Tips for Field Training Administrators

agency can easily defend and justify its choices should the need arise.

For fairness and selection of the best candidate, administra-tors should use a standardized application process. When a position becomes available, it should be posted with a list of qualifi cations and a sign-up sheet for those interested. Can-didates should submit a letter of interest to the administrator by a certain date. This will help preserve the integrity of the process by eliminating the “buddy system.” After the posting, a background should be done on each can-didate. Some major issues to consider include—

• past work history, per-formance, self-initiated activities, and education;

• the ability to associate and communicate well with others; and

• disciplinary actions within a specifi ed time frame and the nature of each, as well as substantiated or exonerated citizen complaints.

Oral Interview Board

No magic number exists for how many people should sit on an oral interview board. The members can vary from line-level to command-staff person-nel. Usually, offi cers above the rank of captain do not

participate because, at most agencies, they make the fi nal decision. Using personnel from within the organization, along with some from other depart-ments, helps to preserve the integrity of the process. This gives an outside, unbiased opinion from those not readily familiar with the candidate.

Members of the board should have a standardized list of questions that they ask all of the applicants. This will help

ensure the fairness of the oral interviews. Liability issues can arise when candidates do not receive the same questions and opportunities to answer. Video-taping the interviews for future reference can prove helpful, especially if the scoring is very close or the board needs to de-fend its choices.

The oral interview board will observe each candidate’s appearance, command presence, verbal skills, personality traits, and nonverbal gestures, as well

as acquire a general knowledge of the interests of the applicant. This gives the board an idea of the candidate’s demeanor that will surface while training a new recruit. Board members should include ethically based questions. These portions of the videotaped interviews will show a candidate’s nonverbal gestures and demeanor when making an “on-the-spot” decision based on morals.

Each member of the board should have an evaluation sheet, customized to fi t the agency’s needs, to grade the candidates. Departments can approach the grading in a number of ways. The best is to keep it as simple as pos-sible, such as a number sys-tem that members can easily total. The evaluation sheet should include a comments section for members to record strengths and weak-nesses, as well as likes and

dislikes, about each candidate.

Written Test

The recruitment process should include a written, job-specifi c test tailored to the agency’s individual needs and requirements. It should contain questions that relate to state law, search and seizure, elements of crimes, report writing, and liability issues, as well as ones that cover specifi c topics from its fi eld training and standard operating procedures manuals.

52701x.indd 2052701x.indd 20 8/9/2006 4:41:50 PM8/9/2006 4:41:50 PM

September 2006 / 17

”

For fairnessand selection of

the best candidate,administrators should

use a standardizedapplication process.

“

After the written tests havebeen graded, the board shouldmeet again to compile thescores and evaluations fromthe oral and written screening.Then, the board should choosethe top few candidates and sub-mit the results to the commandstaff or agency head for fi nalapproval.

Leadership

The fi nal aspect of thePEARL model involves deter-mining the leadership qualitiesthat a candidate possesses. Ad-ministrators should ask them-selves two questions.

1) Does this candidate havea vision for the future needsof the agency?

2) Will this candidate be in-strumental in implementingthe changes that will betterthe organization?

A true leader has a visionand the desire to try and imple-ment new ideas that will helpthe training program grow andfunction effi ciently. Admin-istrators usually can separateemployees who have self-cen-tered motives. Most agencieshave employees who tend tonaturally attract others. Thesepeople seem to have an innateability to inspire, an invalu-able trait for an FTO. They canmotivate others to see a visionand to assist in implementing itand the necessary changes forthe betterment of the organiza-tion. This type of leader earns,

not expects because of rank orposition, the respect of others.

Multitasking and self-moti-vation represent two more im-portant characteristics for FTOsto possess. Due to the amountof duties and the nature of theirresponsibilities, FTOs should beable to function while jugglingseveral tasks without losingtrack of any. They never shouldhave to be reminded of whatto do or how to accomplish anassignment.

administrator or commandstaff concerning training andpersonnel issues.

CONCLUSION

Field training administratorsface many challenges in theircapacity as leaders of an impor-tant component that supportsthe overall mission of theiragencies. Maintaining the in-tegrity of the training program,overseeing the offi cers whocoach recruits, and choosingthe best employees for that rolecan be a heavy burden but alsoa rewarding experience. Seeingrecruits fresh from the academygain real-life knowledge fromhighly motivated trainerscan make these challengesworthwhile.

For help in selecting fi eldtraining offi cers, administra-tors can use the PEARL model.While not a fail-safe methodbecause of human behavioralfactors that can arise for a vari-ety of reasons, it can become auseful tool in implementing orrevising a strong and integralfi eld training program. Adher-ing to standards and guidelines,without compromising, canhelp agencies, administrators,and offi cers maintain the in-tegrity of the law enforcementprofession.

Endnotes

1 http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/

if_everybody-s_thinking_alike-somebody_

isn-t/12218.html

One last important issueconcerning leadership involvesthe ability to effectively com-municate. Because a compre-hensive training manual coversa great deal of information,FTOs must communicate wellto help recruits learn. Also,when FTOs need to conductcounseling sessions for poorperformance, they must makerecruits understand what theydid wrong and offer them waysto improve. Furthermore,FTOs must effectively com-municate ideas to the program

Book Review


Handbook on Firesetting in Childrenand Youth, edited by David Kolko, AcademicPress, San Diego, California, 2002.

The Handbook on Firesetting in Childrenand Youth represents an outstanding collabora-tion among the world’s top experts on childrenand fi re. It is so well-written that readers mightforget that this work is for professionals inlaw enforcement, fi refi ghting, education, andsocial work to enhance their abilities to detect,interdict, and treat juvenile fi resetters.

Children playing with matches and lighterstake a much greater toll on American lives thanhurricanes and tornadoes combined. Accord-ing to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, arsonranks as the leading crime for juvenile arrests.This behavior, the one common point of refer-ence for most adult serial arsonists, often ismisunderstood and typically overlooked, asituation that many of the contributing authorsattribute to a general lack of awareness in theirown fi elds and among the public at large. Thisbook provides an important fi rst step in chang-ing that status.

This multidisciplinary book contains 17chapters, including historical and developmen-tal perspectives on children and fi re; researchand studies on the problem; fundamentalsof fi re investigation; tips and techniques forinterviewing juveniles, assessing fi resettingbehavior, and taking a fi resetting history; clini-cal assessment, safety education, and skillstraining; cognitive-behavioral interventions;and juvenile justice. No matter where alongthe continuum of professions that intersect thisproblem readers may lie, they will fi nd sub-stantive material in this book that they can putto use immediately to enhance their abilitiesto respond to incidents of child or adolescentfi resetting.

The most salient lesson of the book is thatfi replay, a multidisciplinary problem, requiresteamwork to address. Neither law enforcementnor fi refi ghting professionals working alonepossess the ability to interrupt the progressionof juvenile fi resetters. Firefi ghters can dousethe fl ames and police can arrest the offenders,but a high degree of escalating recidivism oc-curs that requires the intervention of other dis-ciplines to stop. Therefore, educators, socialworkers, and mental health experts must jointhese public safety professionals to understandthe bigger picture and work together to ad-dress it. According to research, most childrenthink the difference between a “good” fi re anda “bad” one is merely the size of the fl ame.Young children do not understand that a candlefl ame can become a fi ve-alarm blaze in justa few minutes. Professionals who deal withthese children must have the tools to assesswhether a child burned down the family homedue to mere experimentation with matches orbecause of serious underlying problems. Forinstance, when children intentionally start fi reson their beds, this might indicate the presenceof abuse.

More than just an academic treatise,the handbook contains copious appendiceswhere readers will fi nd examples of interviewprotocols, screening and assessment instru-ments, checklists for parents and caregivers,directories of recommended resources forintervention, outlines for training and programdevelopment, and even materials for mountinga public awareness campaign about this issueand its impact on communities. Contributingauthors use research, program statistics, anddecades of experience working directly withfi resetting youth to shatter long-held myths,such as the one alleging that fi resetters also

52701x.indd 2252701x.indd 22 8/9/2006 4:47:08 PM8/9/2006 4:47:08 PM

September 2006 / 19

Subscribe Now

are bedwetters and exhibit cruelty to animalsalongside their interest in fi re. The addition ofthis kind of material, along with summaries ofthe most signifi cant related research, descrip-tions of the best practices for all of the affi li-ated disciplines, and chapters that capture thecurrent state of the fi eld, make this a book thatthe practitioner will rely on for years to come.

The handbook has received solid praisefrom the fi re research and education commu-nities and has become a textbook in collegeand graduate-level criminal justice courses.

This is an important book for fi re profession-als, arson investigators, and those who workwith children and fi re, as well as anyone se-rious about staying current on the emergingtopic of juvenile fi resetting.

Reviewed byMichael Yon

Project DirectorKids in Danger Project of the

Massachusetts Coalition forJuvenile Firesetter Programs

Westport Point, Massachusetts


Police Practice

oday, the public has become more activelyinvolved with their local law enforcementT

agencies. With staffi ng shortages, departmentshave welcomed the extra resource that volun-teers offer as a partial solution to some of theirneeds.1 But, the increase in citizens volunteeringwith law enforcement agencies has added to theissues raised concerning those individuals whoexercise authority and their ethical standards.How do law enforcement volunteers fi t into thisdiscussion?

The Clearwater, Florida, Police Departmenthas had a successful volunteer program for severalyears and can offer some answers that may assistother agencies. Starting with about 12 steady vol-unteers nearly 10 years ago, the department nowhas 84 dedicated individuals who have proventheir worth in countless ways. They have assistedcitizens in potentially life-threatening situations,observed and reported crimes in progress that re-sulted in arrests, and assisted offi cers with manytasks. Based on the national average hourly valueof a volunteer’s time of $17.19 in 2003,2 the de-partment calculated that the 14,426 hours theirvolunteers contributed equated to $247,991. Whilethis represents a remarkable demonstration ofcommunity support, it also illustrates the need forconsistent oversight, comprehensive training, andwell-developed guidelines that can help volunteersthrive in the law enforcement environment.

Advantages of a Volunteer Program

From an administrator’s point of view, the useof volunteers offsets expenses without loweringthe accomplishments of the agency. Volunteers donot replace sworn offi cers or any paid positions;instead, they enhance the quality of service that theorganization can provide to its community.

Police Volunteers and EthicsBy Carol Schmidt, M.S.

Agencies use volunteers in numerous ways,from administrative tasks to assisting offi cers onthe street. Administrative volunteers can help withdata entry, fi ling, supply distribution, and manyother offi ce duties. Patrol volunteers can augmentsworn offi cers in nonhazardous situations, such asparking enforcement, ordinance violations, traffi ccontrol, and special events.

From their viewpoint, volunteers gain a highsense of purpose by helping to keep their commu-nity safe and contributing to the agency’s mission.They come to the law enforcement arena withdifferent agendas and various backgrounds. Theirreasons include looking toward a career in law en-forcement, improving their promotional potentialin their civilian jobs by volunteering, socializingwith like-minded individuals, and giving back totheir community. What they all have in commonis a very high regard for law enforcement. Manyother organizations need volunteers, but thesecitizens want to be involved in law enforcement.They also possess a variety of skills that they haveacquired throughout their lives. Given adequatetraining, a friendly work environment, and a strongsense of belonging, volunteers can become ex-tremely loyal and help the agency achieve its goalsand objectives. To this end, they should refl ect theorganization’s high professional standards.

Ethics and the Volunteer

Because volunteers can range in age from 18 to90, they bring many different experiences, beliefs,and standards to the agency. Those with little lifeexperience may not have a mature sense of ethics,whereas retired volunteers may have well-devel-oped morals. This highlights the need for straight-forward guidelines and a code of ethics adheredto by all personnel in the agency. Moreover, thedepartment’s culture will exemplify the ethicalstandards for volunteers.

Of course, law enforcement members havelearned through advanced education and train-ing what is necessary to be involved in the

Code of Ethics of the Clearwater Police Department

• As a law enforcement offi cer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property, to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the consti-tutional rights of all men to liberty, equality, and justice.

• I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and offi cial life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my depart-ment. Whatever I see or hear of a confi dential nature or that is confi ded to me in my offi cial capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the perfor-mance of my duty.

• I will never act offi ciously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friend-ships to infl uence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless pros-ecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

• I recognize the badge of my offi ce as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession, law enforcement.

September 2006 / 21

profession. They hold themselves to a higher stand-ard of ethics than do most others in society. Vol-unteers have not had the same training, but their exposure to departmental personnel will infl uence how they conduct themselves. And, their training should bring them to the high caliber of ethics held by the agency.

Each department has a similar code of ethics for its members, and the same should hold true for volunteers. Differences in the performance of an offi cer compared with that of a volunteer will exist, but the rest of the code, such as accountability and responsibility, will apply. For example, volunteers must understand the importance of confi dentiality and integrity. The public has the right to security and privacy; therefore, volunteers must remember

to never improperly divulge information. In addi-tion, they must behave in a manner that does not discredit the agency. As with offi cers, volunteers also should pursue the never-ending process of personal and professional development. This does not mean that they must sacrifi ce refl exivity as individuals. Their own personal ethics also will guide them.

Volunteers and the Agency

All members of the agency must deal con-sistently with volunteers. If favoritism occurs, animosity will develop among the volunteers and lessen the integrity of the organization in their eyes. Everyone should be governed by the same set of rules. Sometimes, rules have to bend, but, if


“

”

Each departmenthas a similar code

of ethics for itsmembers, and thesame should hold

true for volunteers.

they break, it will refl ect on all of those connectedwith the agency.

It is important to know as much about the vol-unteer as possible to make sure that the person’sethics meet the agency’s standards. During theprocessing of new volunteers, the department canobtain information from criminal histories, back-ground checks, and interviews that will supply aninitial idea of their ethical practices. During train-ing, the agency should stress its moral standards,values, and ethics. As new volunteers associatewith other volunteers and em-ployees, the department can de-termine if their ethics will blendwith those of the agency.

Volunteers do not have thesame constant contact with thelaw enforcement organizationthat offi cers have, so what theysee and hear on one occasionmay infl uence their perceptionsof offi cers and the way theyrespond to the agency’s ethicalstandards. As volunteers havemore contact with the membersof the department, they willcome to understand how the organization operates.This process may take a little longer than with paidemployees because volunteers may have less fre-quent exposure to agency personnel.

Volunteers in Action

Once trained and issued a uniform, identifi -cation card, equipment, and vehicle, volunteersbegin their foray into the community representingthe agency. Sometimes, this leads volunteers tothink that they have more authority than they do.Therefore, the department should monitor newvolunteers for signs of their venturing beyond theguidelines. Examples would include stopping avehicle for speeding or trying to move trespassers,rather than notifying offi cers of the situation. Suchactions could compromise a volunteer’s safety,

a primary factor, but they also could generatecomplaints. Volunteers can curb such behavior byworking in pairs and remembering that they serveas the “eyes and ears” of the agency.

Sometimes, volunteers do not realize that theiractions could pose an ethical consideration. Forexample, they might show political preferences bywearing campaign buttons or conduct personal er-rands while patrolling. Being in uniform and stop-ping to buy alcohol on the way home, for instance,would not refl ect well on the volunteer program or

the agency. Although they mayhave done this many times whileemployed with other businesses,they must realize that they weara uniform and represent the po-lice department.

Volunteers must understandthat they cannot use their posi-tions for personal gain. Theyare expected to adhere to cer-tain recognized principles andpractices in the conduct of theirpublic lives. They should knowthat their private lives also willbe affected as they become

part of the law enforcement family and the publicsees them in uniform. Volunteers also should notaccept gratuities, including food and beverages.3

Sometimes, these temptations result from the in-teraction between society and the law enforcementcommunity and not the individual volunteer. Spe-cifi c, written guidelines can assist them in makingdecisions about their actions and in conductingthemselves appropriately.

The law enforcement culture also should as-sume some of the responsibility for creating theenvironment that will either encourage or discour-age ethical values. As they do law enforcement of-fi cers, citizens will scrutinize volunteers’ actions,whether done in public or private. Volunteers mustunderstand that they cannot abuse the authority ofthe uniform but have to display the highest degree

Offi cer Schmidt is in charge of the volunteer program ofthe Clearwater, Florida, Police Department.

September 2006 / 23

Crime Data

Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) revealed that in 2004, 3.6

million households, representing 3 percent of those in the United States, discovered that at least

one member had been the victim of identity theft (unauthorized use or attempted use of existing

credit cards or other accounts, such as checking, or misuse of personal information to obtain new

accounts or loans or to commit other crimes) during the previous 6 months. The households most

likely to experience this crime earned $75,000 or more per year, were headed by persons aged 18

to 24, and were located in urban or suburban areas. These fi ndings represent 6-month prevalence

estimates and are drawn from interviews conducted from July to December 2004 for the NCVS.

Other highlights included the following: credit card theft was the most common type of identity

theft; 3 in 10 households experiencing any type of identity theft discovered it by noticing missing

money or unfamiliar charges on an account—almost 1 in 4 were contacted by a credit bureau;

and estimated losses resulting from identity theft totaled about $3.2 billion.

Identity Theft, 2004

of honesty, loyalty, and integrity to the agency andthe community that they represent. It is paramountfor all volunteers to realize that the program is onlyas effective as the individual performing the task.Instilling a sense of team spirit can help maintainthe ethical standards of the agency whether volun-teers work alone or in groups.

Conclusion

Law enforcement agencies should ensure thatall members, paid employees or volunteers, areaware of the attitudes and actions expected ofthem. With this knowledge, all personnel will havea clear perspective of their responsibilities accord-ing to the ethical standards of their organizations.

The Clearwater, Florida, Police Depart-ment has had a successful volunteer program fornearly 10 years. By expecting the same exacting

standards from its volunteers that it does from itspaid personnel, the department has maintainedthe integrity of the profession while welcomingthe support of these dedicated citizens who haveenhanced the level of service it provides to thecommunity it serves.

Endnotes1 For additional information, see the Volunteers in Police Ser-

vice (VIPS) Web site, http://www.policevolunteers.org.2 http://www.independentsector.org3 For additional information, see Mike White, “The Problem

with Gratuities,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 2002,

20-23; Mike Corley, “Gratuities: There Is No Free Lunch,” FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 2005, 10-13.

52701x.indd 2752701x.indd 27 8/9/2006 4:42:35 PM8/9/2006 4:42:35 PM


ViCAP Alert

walking along the 1400 block of State Highway 5in Melissa (Collin County), Texas. The victim waswearing dark-colored clothing, and she was walk-ing along an unlit portion of the highway when sheattempted to cross the road in front of an oncom-ing vehicle. The victim was struck and killed bythe passing vehicle. No charges have been fi ledagainst the driver of the vehicle; however, thiswhite female victim remains unidentifi ed.

Victim Examination

An examination of the victim rendered thefollowing information. She was a white female,approximately 40 to 60 years old, 5 feet 3 inchesto 5 feet 5 inches tall, 155 to 170 pounds, withshort salt-and-pepper gray hair and light blue eyes.

The victim was missing all of her upper teeth, aswell as a single lower tooth (tooth #24). Thereis no evidence that the victim wore dentures, in-dicating that she may have been homeless or atransient. The victim’s fourth toes were shortenedand webbed. No scars or tattoos were identifi ed onthe body.

The victim was wearing blue jeans, white ten-nis shoes, and a dark-colored jacket and sweaterover a blue T-shirt, which had the inscription “Jef-ferson Missouri 2001 Final Four State Champion-ship, Columbia, Missouri.” The inscription refersto a basketball tournament. The victim’s NCICnumber is U300005558.

Alert to Law Enforcement

Law enforcement agencies should bring thisinformation to the attention of all missing personsand crime analysis units. A dental chart is avail-able, and the victim’s DNA will be registered withthe FBI Laboratory, National Missing PersonsDNA Database. Any agency with a missing personcase that may match this unidentifi ed victim maycontact Sergeant Kyle Babcock of the Melissa,Texas, Police Department at 972-838-2033 [email protected] or Crime AnalystLesley Buckles of the FBI’s Violent CriminalApprehension Program (ViCAP) at 703-632-4179or [email protected].

Unidentifi edDeceased Victim

n January 11, 2004, at approximately11:30 p.m., this victim was last seenO

September 2006 / 25

Legal Digest

On August 27, 1998, at 3:35 p.m., approxi-mately seven Detroit

police offi cers executed a search warrant for narcotics and weapons at the home of Booker T. Hudson, Jr. Although the offi cers shouted “police, search warrant” upon their arrival, they waited only 3 to 5 seconds before entering. When asked why they did not wait longer before entering, an offi cer testi- fi ed that he was concerned for the offi cers’ safety, noting that he had been shot at numerous times when executing similar warrants. Upon entering the home, the offi cers found Hud-son sitting in a living room chair; at least fi ve other men and women were found running throughout the house. During the ensuing search, the offi cers located and seized cocaine, a loaded revolver, and cash. They discovered some of the evi-dence on the chair whereHudson had been seated or close to it. He subsequently was

charged with possession of less than 50 grams of cocaine with intent to deliver1 and possession of a fi rearm during the com-mission of a felony.2 The trial court held that the failure to

comply with the knock and an-nounce requirement caused the evidence discovered during the search to be suppressed. When the decision to suppress the evidence was overruled by the

Knock and AnnounceViolationsNo “Cause” to SuppressBy RICHARD G. SCHOTT, J.D.

© Mark C. Ide

52701x.indd 2952701x.indd 29 8/9/2006 4:43:11 PM8/9/2006 4:43:11 PM


“

”

Part of thereasonableness

inquiry is todetermine whetherthe execution itself

of a particularsearch wasreasonable.

Special Agent Schott is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

Michigan Court of Appeals (andthe Michigan Supreme Courtlet that decision stand), Hudsonwas convicted of possession ofless than 25 grams of cocaineand acquitted of the fi rearmcharge. When the MichiganCourt of Appeals denied theappeal of his conviction (andthe Michigan Supreme Courtagain left that decision intact),Hudson appealed the decisionto allow the evidence to be usedagainst him to the U.S. SupremeCourt.3 The Court agreed tohear the case and to rule onwhether suppression of the evi-dence is the appropriate remedyfor knock and announce viola-tions that precede the executionof valid search warrants. Thisarticle outlines the evolution ofthe knock and announce re-quirement of the Fourth Amend-ment, discusses the principles ofthe exclusionary rule and

inevitable discovery, andanalyzes the Supreme Court’sdecision in Hudson v. Michigan4

in light of the aforementioneddoctrines.

FOURTH AMENDMENTPRINCIPLES

Reasonableness and theKnock and AnnounceRequirement

The Fourth Amendment tothe Constitution provides peoplethe right “to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers, andeffects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures.”5 Part ofthe reasonableness inquiry is todetermine whether the execu-tion itself of a particular searchwas reasonable. The executionof a search warrant typicallybegins with law enforcementoffi cers making entry into thelocation to be searched. To be

deemed reasonable, offi cers arerequired to knock and announceprior to their entry unless thereis a reason to dispense withthis requirement. The SupremeCourt has recognized that fail-ing to knock and announce (andlacking a valid reason not to)amounts to an unreasonablesearch and, thus, an uncon-stitutional one.6 In Wilson v.Arkansas,7 however, the Su-preme Court made clear thatthe knock and announce con-stitutional requirement is notabsolute but, rather, that “coun-tervailing law enforcementinterests” could make knockingand announcing unnecessary.8

Cited as legitimate reasons todispense with knocking andannouncing were if the search-ing offi cers would be facing “athreat of physical violence”;having “reason to believe thatevidence would likely be de-stroyed if advance notice weregiven”; or when advance notice“would enable [a] prisoner toescape.”9 This last potentialexception points out that theknock and announce require-ment applies to all entries—whether the purpose once insideis to search the location or toarrest someone.

The underlying rationale forthe requirement to give noticeprior to making entry makesthis across-the-board applica-tion logical. The requirement isdesigned to maintain the sanc-tity of a person’s home. The

September 2006 / 27

”

Protecting thesanctity of a person’s

home was thejustifi cation for thecommon law knock

and announce rule....

“

sanctity of the home should besafeguarded regardless ofwhether it is a person or anobject to be seized that is thereason for law enforcement’sentry.

Protecting the sanctity of aperson’s home was the justifi ca-tion for the common law knockand announce rule that was in-corporated into the reasonable-ness inquiry of Fourth Amend-ment analysis. As the earlycases recognized, entry wasgoing to be made. Knockingand announcing prior to entrymerely provided the owner withthe chance to comply beforedamage was done to his dwell-ing. In his Wilson10 opinion for aunanimous Supreme Court, Jus-tice Clarence Thomas borrowedat length from a 1603 Englishcourt case.

“Comon law courts longhave held that ‘when theKing is party, the sheriff(if the doors be not open)may break the party’shouse, either to arrest himor to do other executionof the K[ing]’s process, ifotherwise he cannot enter.But before he breaks it, heought to signify the causeof his coming, and to makerequest to open doors..., forthe law without a default inthe owner abhors the de-struction or breaking of anyhouse (which is for the habi-tation and safety of man)by which great damage and

inconvenience might ensueto the party, when no defaultis in him; for perhaps he didnot know of the process, ofwhich, if he had notice, itis to be presumed that hewould obey it.’”11

The opinion goes on to stressthat no precise language isrequired during the announce-ment/demand to comply, merelylanguage that communicates tothe owner that the offi cer is act-ing under proper authority.12

request for a so-called no-knockwarrant for drugs. Althoughthere was confl icting testimonyas to whether the offi cers identi-fi ed themselves before enteringthe search location, the statesupreme court assumed as factthat the offi cers did not knockand announce. The Wiscon-sin Supreme Court found thisassumption to be irrelevant asit affi rmed a state-recognizedblanket exception to the knockand announce requirement fordrug search warrants not af-fected by Wilson.14 The U.S.Supreme Court struck down thenotion that blanket exceptionsto the constitutional knock andannounce rule exist. It did so,however, while affi rming thestate supreme court decisionthat the no-knock entry in thisparticular situation was war-ranted. The Court instructedthat each situation has to beexamined independently, with-out generalizations attached tocertain categories of evidence.Justice John Paul Stevens,writing for a unanimous Court,expressed that “in each case, itis the duty of a court confrontedwith the question to determinewhether the facts and circum-stances of the particular entryjustifi ed dispensing with theknock-and-announce require-ment.”15 Justice Stevens furtherarticulated that “to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police musthave a reasonable suspicion thatknocking and announcing their

The recognition in Wilsonthat sometimes entry would bepermitted without fi rst knock-ing and announcing did notcontemplate that there areany blanket exceptions to theknock-fi rst requirement. Just 2years after Wilson, the SupremeCourt struck down the notionthat a category of such “blanketexceptions” exists. Ironically,at issue in Richards v. Wiscon-sin13 was the unannounced entryof law enforcement followinga magistrate’s denial of their

52701x.indd 3152701x.indd 31 8/9/2006 4:43:46 PM8/9/2006 4:43:46 PM


”

…time must be givento allow the propertyowner to maintain itssanctity by complyingwith law enforcement’s

demand and invitinga peaceful entry.

“

presence, under the particularcircumstances, would be dan-gerous or futile or that it wouldinhibit the effective investiga-tion of the crime by, for exam-ple, allowing the destruction ofevidence.”16 Based on this rea-soning, it is interesting to notethat while the issuing magistratewas not satisfi ed in advancethat the offi cers had articulatedjustifi cation for dispensing withknocking and announcing, andthus for receiving a no-knockwarrant, the justifi cation didexist at the time of the warrant’sexecution. While a number ofstates authorize no-knock war-rants, the Court’s holding inthe Richards case demonstratesthat “a magistrate’s decision tonot authorize a no-knock entryshould not be interpreted asremoving the offi cers’ authorityto exercise independent judg-ment concerning the wisdom ofa no-knock entry at the time thewarrant is being executed.”17

By the same token, because thereasonableness of the offi cers’decision must be evaluated as ofthe time they make entry, otherstates have ruled that a magis-trate has no authority to abro-gate the knock and announcerequirement and, thus, do notallow for no-knock warrants.18

Reasonableness and the Delay

Because the beginningpremise is that law enforcementoffi cers must knock and an-nounce before making entry to

search or arrest, the next issueto address is what is requiredafter knocking and announc-ing. Stated differently, how longare they then required to waitbefore making entry? Becausethe sanctity of the home is at thefoundation of the knock and an-nounce requirement, it stands toreason that time must be givento allow the property owner tomaintain its sanctity by com-plying with law enforcement’sdemand and inviting a peacefulentry.

the circumstances20 dictated theappropriate length of delay, nota rigid four-part test espousedby the appellate court. Notingthat the evidence subject toseizure by virtue of the warrantin Banks was easily disposablecocaine, as opposed to a piano,the 15- to 20-second delay wasreasonable, while a similardelay would not suffi ce in allcases.21

Because it found no con-stitutional violation in theexecution of the search warrantin Banks, the Supreme Courtdid not rule on the appropriateremedy had there been a viola-tion of the knock and announcerequirement. The Ninth CircuitCourt of Appeals, on the otherhand, had ruled earlier thatsuppression was appropriatebecause of the violation, eventhough a valid warrant hadbeen obtained.22 The appropri-ate remedy for a knock andannounce violation was unclearuntil recently when the SupremeCourt addressed the issue inHudson v. Michigan.23

SHOULD FAILURE TOKNOCK AND ANNOUNCECAUSE SUPPRESSION?

The Exclusionary Rule

The exclusionary rule wascreated by the Supreme Court in1914 as the appropriate remedywhen a search violative of theFourth Amendment producedphysical evidence sought to be

The Supreme Court hasrecently addressed this issue inUnited States v. Banks,19 whenit considered whether a 15- to20-second delay before makingentry, after knocking and an-nouncing, satisfi ed the FourthAmendment’s reasonablenessrequirement. In reversing theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals,the Court determined that ananalysis based on the totality of

September 2006 / 29

© Mark C. Ide

introduced against the victim of the unconstitutional search. In Weeks v. United States,24

the Supreme Court confronted the issue when a U.S. marshal entered the home of Fremont Weeks without a warrant or any other legal basis and seized physical evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment violation made the evidence inadmissible in the resulting criminal case against Weeks because “[i]f letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evi-dence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the 4th Amendment, declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures, is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution.”25 The Weeksdecision made clear that the newly created exclusionary rule only applied to evidence unconstitutionally obtained by federal government agents, not to evidence unconstitutionally obtained by state government actors.26

The exclusionary rule was made applicable to state and local law enforcement offi cers when the Supreme Court de-cided Mapp v. Ohio27 in 1961.Until then, state courts deter-mined the appropriate remedy when nonfederal law enforce-ment executed an unconstitu-tional search or seizure. Not

in some courtrooms but not in others. Finally, Justice Clark pointed out that the decision to apply the exclusionary rule across the board “gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guaran-tees him, to the police offi cer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.”30

Inevitable Discovery

The Weeks and Mapp cases both dealt with unconstitutional, warrantless searches. No claim was made by the government in either case that the evidence seized somehow would have been discovered without the constitutional violation. It was not until 1984 that the Supreme Court recognized the “inevitable discovery” exception to the ex-clusionary rule.31 Simply stated, the exception allows illegally obtained evidence to be used in a prosecution if the government is able to convince the judge that the evidence ultimately would have been discovered absent the violation. The logic in the inevitable discovery exception is that while the government should not profi t from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it otherwise would have occupied absent the illegality.32 This is certainly an argument for the

everyone in the state judiciary, or in the general public for that matter, believed that exclu-sion of valuable evidence was benefi cial to society. Therefore, prior to 1961, not every state had a state equivalent of the federal exclusionary mecha-nism. In Mapp, the Supreme Court expressed its view that the exclusionary rule had to be applicable to federal and state prosecutions to “close the only courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by offi cial lawlessness in fl agrant abuse”

of the basic right to be free from unreasonable searches.28 Jus-tice Tom Clark, writing for the majority, recognized a fl aw with some states’ refusal to adopt an exclusionary rule—that “no man is to be convicted on unconstitutional evidence.”29

That principle would be hollow indeed if it were possible to be convicted based on unconsti-tutionally obtained evidence

52701x.indd 3352701x.indd 33 8/9/2006 4:44:17 PM8/9/2006 4:44:17 PM


”

All law enforcementoffi cers take an

oath to uphold theConstitution of theUnited States and

not complying withthe mandate to

knock and announceviolates that oath.

“

government to make when theonly constitutional taint toevidence obtained pursuant toa search warrant is that the ex-ecuting offi cers failed to complywith the knock and announcerequirement of the FourthAmendment. It logically canbe argued that the search wasgoing to occur, so the evidencewould have been constitution-ally obtained mere momentslater than it was recovered. Thiswas the situation in the Detroitcase set forth in detail at thebeginning of this article andthe case that presented the U.S.Supreme Court the opportunityto rule whether suppression isthe appropriate remedy whenevidence is obtained pursuantto a valid warrant but where theknock and announce require-ment was violated.

The Hudson v. MichiganDecision

When accepting the petitionto hear Hudson v. Michigan,33

the Supreme Court recognizedthat state and federal courtsexpressed divergent views onwhether violations of the knockand announce requirementshould result in the suppressionof evidence. The MichiganSupreme Court34 and the fed-eral Seventh Circuit Court ofAppeals35 had found suppres-sion inappropriate; while theMaryland Court of Appeal,36 theArkansas Supreme Court,37 andthe Sixth,38 Eighth,39 and Ninth

(in Banks40) Circuits in thefederal system had ruled sup-pression an appropriate remedy.In Hudson v. Michigan41 theU.S. Supreme Court ruled thatsuppression of evidence ob-tained during the execution ofa search warrant where a viola-tion of the knock and announcerequirement had occurred wasinappropriate. In a 5 to 4 major-ity opinion authored by JusticeAntonin Scalia, the Court noted

course, because the offi cers hada valid search warrant to searchthe home.43 In other words, theevidence was to be inevitablydiscovered in spite of theviolation.

Finally, the Court turned itsattention to the deterrence valuein suppressing the evidence.Responding to Hudson’s chal-lenge that without suppressionthere will be no deterrence ofknock and announce violations,Scalia noted multiple fl aws inthe argument. First, exposureof the individual who violatesthe constitutional knock andannounce requirement to civildamages serves as a deterrent.Second, the majority noted that“[a]nother development overthe past half-century that deterscivil-rights violations is theincreasing professionalism ofpolice forces, including a newemphasis on internal policediscipline,”44 as well as the“increasing evidence that policeforces across the United Statestake the constitutional rights ofcitizens seriously.”45 Moreover,the Court pointed out that arepeated “[f]ailure to teach andenforce constitutional require-ments exposes municipalitiesto fi nancial liability.”46 Thismunicipal liability is in additionto the exposure the individualoffi cer faces when violating theconstitutional rights of citizens.

It is worth noting that thedecision in Hudson was passedby the slimmest majority (with

that suppression of evidence“has always been [the Court’s]last resort, not [its] fi rst im-pulse”42 because of the societalcosts associated with suppress-ing evidence.

Scalia’s opinion also pointedout a lack of causal connectionbetween the failure to knockand announce and the discoveryof the evidence in Hudson’shome. This was the case, of

September 2006 / 31

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito concurring in its entirety, while Justice Kennedy concurred with Parts I, II, and III of the opinion but wrote a separate opinion concurring in the judgment). Meanwhile, Justice Breyer wrote a strongly worded dis-senting opinion joined by three other Justices (Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg). Most important to the dissent was its disagree-ment with the majority’s view that suppression was not needed to deter future knock and an-nounce violations. Rather, Justice Breyer indicated that the “holding will seriously under-mine deterrence in knock and announce cases.”47 In his view, “[o]ffi cers will almost always know ex ante that they can ignore the knock and announce requirement without risking the suppression of evidence discovered after their unlawful entry.”48 Clearly, there is dis-agreement among the members of the Supreme Court regarding the current state of law enforce-ment and its professionalism (or lack thereof) in this country.

The other emphasis in the dissent is that the knock and an-nounce violation is inseparable from the search itself. While the majority concluded that there was no causation between the violation and the discovery of evidence, the dissent opined that the illegal entry and the subsequent search constituted

and not complying with the mandate to knock and announce violates that oath. This alone should serve to deter knock and announce rule violations. Ad-ditionally, constitutional viola-tions give rise to costly lawsuits that could result in individual liability for the violator. Fur-thermore, law enforcement departments must continue to demonstrate that they are staffed by police professionals and that all violations of law are dealt with accordingly. In spite of other consequences fl owing from a knock and announce vio-lation, the Supreme Court has now ruled that suppression of evidence acquired by virtue of a valid search warrant, but pre-ceded by a knock and announce violation, does not have to be one of them. While individualstates may decide to legislate suppression as an appropriate remedy for knock and announce

one event and the improper entry tainted the entire search. Therefore, according to the dis-sent, the doctrine of inevitable discovery is not applicable in this situation, and none of the evidence discovered during the search should be admissible.

CONCLUSION

The requirement in this country for law enforcement offi cers to knock and announce before making entry is a very important matter. Indeed, the “requirement protects rights and expectations linked to ancient principles in our constitutional order.”49 It should go without saying that the Hudson “deci-sion should not be interpreted as suggesting that violations of the requirement are trivial or beyond the law’s concern.”50

All law enforcement offi cerstake an oath to uphold the Con-stitution of the United States51

52701x.indd 3552701x.indd 35 8/9/2006 4:45:05 PM8/9/2006 4:45:05 PM


Law enforcement offi cers of other thanfederal jurisdiction who are interestedin this article should consult their legaladvisors. Some police proceduresruled permissible under federal consti-tutional law are of questionable legalityunder state law or are not permittedat all.

Wanted:Notable Speeches

he FBI Law EnforcementBulletin seeks transcriptsT

of presentations made bycriminal justice professionalsfor its Notable Speech depart-ment. Anyone who has de-livered a speech recently andwould like to share the infor-mation with a wider audiencemay submit a transcript of thepresentation to the Bulletin forconsideration.

As with article submis-sions, the Bulletin staff willedit the speech for length andclarity but, realizing that theinformation was presentedorally, maintain as much ofthe original fl avor as possible.Presenters should submit theirtranscripts typed and double-spaced on 8 ½- by 11-inchwhite paper with all pagesnumbered. When possible, anelectronic version of the tran-script saved on computer diskshould accompany the docu-ment. Send the material to:

Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin FBI Academy Madison Building, Room 201 Quantico, VA 22135 telephone: 703-632-1952, e-mail: [email protected]

Law enforcement offi cers of other thanfederal jurisdiction who are interestedin this article should consult their legaladvisors. Some police proceduresruled permissible under federal consti-tutional law are of questionable legalityunder state law or are not permittedat all.

violations, the Hudson decisionmakes clear that the Constitu-tion does not require thesuppression.

Endnotes1 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

§ 333.7401(2)(a)(iv) (West 2001).2 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.227b

(West 2004).3 The statement of facts and procedural

history were presented in an Amicus Cur-

iae Brief submitted by the U.S. Solicitor

General to the U.S. Supreme Court in

support of the state of Michigan.4 547 U.S. (2006). See 2006 WL

1640577.5 U.S. CONST. Amend. IV.6 Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927

(1995).7 Id.8 Id. at 934.9 Id. at 935-936.10 Id.11 Id. at 931-932, quoting Semayne’s

Case, 77 Eng.Rep. 194, 195-196 (K.B.

1603).12 Id. at 932.13 520 U.S. 385 (1997).14 Id. at 388-390.15 Id. at 394 (emphasis added).16 Id. (emphasis added).17 Id. at 396.18 Id. (See, for example, State v. Arce,

730 P.2d 1260 (Ore. App. 1986), State v.

Bamber, 630 So.2d 1048 (Fla. 1994)).19 540 U.S. 31 (2003).20 Id. at 41.21 Id.22 United States v. Banks, 282 F.3d 699

(9th Cir. 2002).23 Supra, note 4.24 232 U.S. 383 (1914).25 Id. at 393.26 Id. at 398.27 367 U.S. 643 (1961).28 Id. at 654-655.29 Id. at 657 (emphasis added).30 Id. at 660.31 Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984).

32 Id. at 443. See also, Murray v. United

States, 487 U.S. 533, 537 (1988)(making

reference to the almost indistinguishable

notion of an “independent source” for the

illegally obtained evidence).33 125 S. Ct. 2964 (2005).34 People v. Stevens, 597 N.W.2d 53

(Mich. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1164

(2000); People v. Vasquez, 602 N.W.2d

376 (Mich. 1999).35 United States v. Langford, 314 F.3d

892 (7th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S.

1075 (2003).36 State v. Lee, 821 A.2d 922 (Md.

2003).37 Mazepink v. State, 987 S.W.2d 648

(Ark.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 927 (1999).38 United States v. Dice, 200 F.3d 978

(6th Cir. 2000).39 United States v. Marts, 986 F.2d 1216

(8th Cir. 1994).40 Supra, note 22.41 Supra, note 4.42 Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. at ___

(2006). See 2006 WL 1640577 (page 4).43 Id. See 2006 WL 1640577 (page 5).44 Id. See 2006 WL 1640577 (page 12).45 Id.46 Id. (emphasis added).47 Id. See 2006 WL 1640577 (Breyer,

J., dissenting, page 24).48 Id. (emphasis added).49 Id. See 2006 WL 1640577 (Kennedy,

J., concurring, page 1).50 Id.51 U.S. CONST. art. 6 provides, in perti-

nent part, that “all executive and judicial

Offi cers, both of the United States and

of the several States, shall be bound by

Oath or Affi rmation, to support this

Constitution.

52701x.indd 3652701x.indd 36 8/9/2006 4:45:48 PM8/9/2006 4:45:48 PM

The Bulletin Notes

Law enforcement offi cers are challenged daily in the performance of their duties; they face eachchallenge freely and unselfi shly while answering the call to duty. In certain instances, their actionswarrant special attention from their respective departments. The Bulletin also wants to recognizethose situations that transcend the normal rigors of the law enforcement profession.

Offi cer Liford

While on patrol, Offi cer Joseph Madden of the Decherd, Tennes-see, Police Department heard the impact of a car crash approximatelya block away and immediately responded. Arriving at the scene,he observed a head-on collision involving a county sheriff’s patrolcar. Offi cer Madden immediately opened the door of the cruiser andfound the deputy unconscious and bleeding from the mouth. Fur-ther, he noticed the air bags on fi re. Disregarding his own safety,Offi cer Madden entered the vehicle, cut the air bag off the steeringwheel, and removed the deputy from the mangled car. In the process, hereceived burns on his fi n-gers, palm, and right arm.

The brave, selfl ess actions of Offi cer Maddensaved the life of the deputy, who sufferedburns, lacerations, and a concussion.

Offi cer Madden

Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be basedon either the rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s)made at unusual risk to an offi cer’s safety. Submissionsshould include a short write-up (maximum of 250 words),a separate photograph of each nominee, and a letterfrom the department’s ranking offi cer endorsing thenomination. Submissions should be sent to the Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,Madison Building, Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.

While off duty enjoying a river fi shing trip with a family member,Offi cer Matthew Liford of the Columbus, Ohio, Division of Police hearda man yelling for help. He went to investigate and, as he approached thearea, noticed that a boat had capsized. He then saw two elderly men in thedeep water. One was holding onto the hull of the vessel, but the other in themiddle of the river was exhausted from swimming after their gear. Offi cerLiford entered the water and pulled the stranded boater, who was startingto sink, into his boat. Then, he swam to the man holding onto the capsizedvessel and helped him to safety as well. The actions of Offi cer Lifordprevented a tragic situation.

Patch Call

Nacogdoches is the oldest town in Texas andhas been occupied by American Indians, Frenchexplorers, and Spanish and Mexican settlers. Thepatch of its police department features an Indianchief and the state seal surrounded by all nine fl ags,including those of the state of Texas, the UnitedStates, Spain, France, and Mexico, that have fl ownover the city during its history.

The patch of the Hopewell Township, NewJersey, Police Department features a depiction ofthe 1776 crossing of the Delaware River by Gen-eral George Washington and his troops. Refl ectingthe opinion of many people, the patch refers to thisevent, along with the subsequent surprise attack onHessian troops in Trenton, as the turning point ofthe American Revolution.

PeriodicalsPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of Investigation

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535-0001

Offi cial Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Law Enforcement Bulletin SM...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Bureau of Investigation - Law Enforcement Bulletin SM...