in this issue . . . Off-Duty Intervention for Law Enforcement Officers   Evaluating A Subject's Posture During An Interview    Panic Can Cause Inappropriate Decision-Making

- Sponsored By -

ILEETA Use of Force Journal
WITH Larry Smith

In the early days of my police career carrying a firearm off-duty was the policy. I can remember if you met a ranking officer off-duty it was not uncommon for him to ask you to produce your off-duty firearm. If you did not have it, you could be subjected to disciplinary action. As time passed, off-duty officers were exposed to situations where the use of a firearm was a judgmental decision. Some of these incidents were controversial. The police department soon learned that requiring an officer to carry a firearm off duty placed the officer into an on duty capacity. Civil law suits named the city as a co-defendant because the carrying of a firearm was mandatory and noted that the officer was really on-duty. The legal staff of the department came up with the idea if we made carrying a firearm off-duty optional, it would ease the liability to the city. This would leave the officer still in his off-duty capacity and make the officer more responsible. In 2007, the San Diego County Chief’s and Sheriff’s Association adapted a countywide protocol concerning officers and off-duty intervention.

The protocol states that an officer has full police powers when off-duty and can take law enforcement action when they observe criminal activities. When off-duty officers observe criminal activity they must take many things into consideration. The first consideration is to contact on-duty officers, if possible, and become a good witness. If immediate action to prevent serious bodily injury or death is necessary, the seriousness of the offense and the immediate threat must be top priority before intervening.

Finally, if they decide to take police action, offduty officers must identify themselves as police officers and state their intent to make an arrest. Displaying your badge or shield is a very important part of this initial contact. At this point they are governed by the policies and procedures for on-duty officers of their agency.

As a matter of discussion, let’s look at the downside of off-duty police intervention. Many times on-duty officers may be responding to the call and don’t know you are an off-duty officer. If they see you with a firearm, they might think you are the perpetrator. Officers in larger department or neighboring police agencies don’t always know everyone on the department or those on other departments. You may look like a crook if you are working in an undercover capacity. A main problem is you don’t have all the resources that you have as an on-duty officer. You may not have your handcuffs, you don’t have a police radio, you don’t have any backup and you don’t have a red light and siren. The worse part is not everyone knows you are an officer because you are not wearing a uniform. Another consideration is for your family if they are with you. They need to be schooled about potential hazards of any off-duty involvement.

I was on vacation in New Zealand in a shopping mall. I observed some suspicious activity. Three “gang bangers” went into a clothing store in the mall. One stood by the entrance as a lookout as the other two shoplifted a pair of pants. I had to make some decisions because I am still a trained police officer and criminal conduct did not set too well with me. I considered that I was in a foreign country and unfamiliar with the laws; that if they pulled a weapon and injured or killed me, it would ruin my vacation. So, I ran after them, being a good witness, and yelled; “Thief, Thief.” I attracted no one’s attention and they escaped. The storeowner did not seem too concerned either. If I had gotten into a physical alteration, I might have been injured or arrested. I think I made the right decision.

Two incidents that occurred in San Diego, CA, recently hit the news. The media made these incidents high profile and stretched the image of police officers countywide. An off-duty officer on his way home from work spotted a vehicle traveling at high speed and weaving in and out of traffic. The officer suspected the driver was driving while under the influence (DUI) and followed the vehicle. He called for assistance via his cell phone, but on-duty officers were responding from quite a distance away. At one point the off-duty officer pulled up along the vehicle and yelled; “Police officer, pull over,” but the driver did not stop. The off-duty officer was in his own private vehicle dressed in jeans, a T-shirt and never displayed his badge. The officer followed the driver to his residence and was boxed in at the end of a cul-de-sac. The driver exit his vehicle and came at the officer. He again identified himself as a police officer, pulled his gun and shot a warning shot into the ground. The subject continued toward him and the officer said he feared for his life when the subject reached into his waistband (subject later found to be unarmed). The off duty officer shot the driver twice in the leg and thigh. The driver’s companion got behind the wheel and drove at the officer and the officer shot at the vehicle. By that time on-duty officers arrived and took charge.

The District Attorney ruled this was a justifiable shooting. The driver pled to driving while under the influence and the driver’s companion was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and driving under the influence. However, in the middle of the civil trial, the driver, a professional football player, and the city agreed to an out of court settlement worth 5.5 million dollars for the injuries sustained to the driver in this incident. The settlement document indicated that the officer violated his department’s training and policy by trying to pull over the driver rather than just following him until backup arrived.

In another incident an off-duty officer and his police dispatcher spouse were victims of a road rage incident. A female and her eight year old son pulled out directly in front of the officer, and then tailgated the off-duty officer yelling profanities at him. The off-duty officer was out of his jurisdiction when he pulled into a business parking lot. The suspect followed and soon she sideswiped the officer’s vehicle. It seems the suspect vehicle had tinted windows and it was difficult to see inside the driver’s compartment. The officer shot the driver and her son. The woman was unarmed but was charged with driving on suspended driver’s license and driving while under the influence (DUI). The off duty officer did not make a statement and the outcome is pending.

I guess the worst scenario is when a retired officer gets involved in observing criminal activity occurring. The retired officer trained his entire career to watch for criminal incidents and may still carry a firearm when he/she leaves his house. The trouble is that he/she is usually out of their jurisdiction and not readily identifiable as a police officer. If a retired officer gets into a shooting incident, they have no umbrella of liability protection like they had when they were sworn peace officers. Their powers of arrest are limited to that of any private citizen since they are no longer sworn peace officers.

In contrast, Officer Robert Hindi, an off-duty Las Vegas Metro Police Officer, went into a convenience store to make a late night purchase. He left home without his firearm and did not even have a knife, never anticipating any trouble. While Hindi waited at the cashier station, a suspect grabbed the money in the cash register and tried to flee. Hindi reacted spontaneously taking action and got into physical combat with the suspect. Hindi won the confrontation and the police arrived to take the suspect into custody. This might be a good example where not having a weapon could have been a disaster. Thankfully, the suspect was not armed.

To intervene in any police incident, armed or unarmed, you could be a hero or you could end up losing your life or be arrested if your decisions are not well thought out. I believe I learned the most important two words in my life from the Calibre Press Officer Survival Seminar. Those words are: “Crisis Rehearsal.” These words have helped me to be prepared for all types of incidents. I already have a plan for most any scenario that could happen and I am ready to deal with it. It is my opinion that intervention as an off-duty officer or as a retired officer should be restricted to protection of life or self defense. Otherwise, you should be a good witness.

What is your opinion? ILEETA
Larry Smith is a 34-year veteran lieutenant (retired) from the San Diego (CA) Police Department. He is a judicially recognized expert witness in use of force and police procedures. Larry has instructed arrest and control tactics for the past 40 years. His martial arts training in Aikido and police training has prepared him to understand the mechanics of use of force encounters. Email to larrysmith@ileeta.org.

 

By John E. Reid & Associates The foundation of a subject's nonverbal communication is his posture. How a person's body is positioned in a chair often dictates arm and leg movements and, in some cases, even eye contact. Three inferences can be drawn from a subject's posture: the person's level of interest, their emotional involvement and their level of confidence. A SUBJECT'S POSTURE REFLECTS INTERNAL THOUGHTS Dynamic vs. Static An important assessment of a subject's posture is the extent of change within the posture over the period of a 30 or 40 minute interview. For a number of reasons, a truthful subject will exhibit a variety of different postures throughout the course of an interview. These postures will be appropriate given the content of conversation during the interview. A deceptive subject, on the other hand, may assume an initial posture and never significantly deviate from that posture. It is theorized that the deceptive subject is exerting so much thought and energy to generate verbal responses to the interviewer's question, that nonverbal communication becomes frozen. A static posture clearly reflects a lack of confidence within the subject. A forward vs. retracted posture When a subject leans forward in the chair during a response, he is nonverbally reinforcing the verbal content of his response. This is frequently seen in truthful subjects during early portions of the interview, when key questions are asked. As the interview progresses, the truthful subject will assume a more relaxed and comfortable posture in the chair. Some deceptive subjects will lean forward in the chair throughout the entire interview. This is a challenging behavior, similar to the deceptive subject who stares at the investigator throughout the interview. A retracted posture describes one in which the subject's feet or hands are restricted in some manner. This is most typical of the deceptive subject. The subject's feet may be pulled up under the chair, or tucked behind the front legs of the chair. In unusual cases, a subject may actually tuck a foot under his thigh, so as to partially sit on his foot. As can be visualized, when the subject's feet are retracted in this manner, it prevents the body from leaning forward to reinforce the strength of a verbal response. With respect to hands, the deceptive subject may sit on his hands or keep his hands wedged between the knees. This posture effectively prevents the hands from becoming involved during conversation to reinforce a verbal response. Frontal alignment A truthful subject exhibits high levels of interest and emotional involvement during an interview. To fully communicate with the interviewer he will align his body with that of the interviewer. The subject's entire body, the head, shoulders and hips, are all directly facing the interviewer. On the other hand, a deceptive subject may turn his legs and hips away from the interviewer. This posture reflects a lack of interest or emotional detachment. Non-frontal alignment               Evaluation of Barriers Within a posture, barriers represent crossed arms or legs. While crossed arms can be a comfortable posture while standing and talking to a friend, considering the high level of motivation associated with an investigative interview, it is inappropriate for a truthful subject to cross his arms. This behavior reflects either a challenge (generally feigned anger) or a protective gesture reflecting lack of confidence. In addition, of course, when the arms are crossed the subject's hands are restricted from movement which is also more typical of the deceptive subject. Crossing of the legs is common in both truthful and deceptive postures. While seated, especially for an extended period of time, it is comfortable to occasionally cross, or re-cross the legs. However, there are some significant differences between the leg crossing behaviors of truthful and deceptive subjects. At the outset of an interview, when anxiety levels are highest and key questions are being asked, most truthful subjects will have their feet flat on the floor. As the interview progresses, and the subject realizes that the investigator is not accusatory in his questioning, it is common for the truthful subject to assume a more relaxed posture, including crossed legs. On the other hand, a subject who starts out the interview with crossed legs is more typical of the deceptive. This is a defensive posture, as though the subject wants to remain emotionally distant from the investigator. A truthful subject's leg cross appears comfortable and relaxed. Whether it is an ankle-knee cross or knee-knee cross, the subject's muscles are non-contracted and loose. On the other hand, the deceptive subject's leg cross is often tight and restricted, where muscles are contracted. A good example of this is the leg cross in which the subject actually grabs the ankle to bring it up higher on the thigh.   Truthful relaxed posture Deceptive barriers Changes in Posture As previously mentioned, a truthful subject will display a number of different postures during the course of an interview. The timing of these posture changes will be natural. Conversely, it is highly indicative of deception when posture changes occur on cue to a question, such as the crossing or re-crossing of the legs, or a shift in the chair where a subject often uses his hands to momentarily lift or move his body within the chair. The investigator should look for these shifts during two significant time frames. The first is just before the subject answers a question: Q: "Did you leave your house at all that night?" S: (Shift in chair) "No, I really had nowhere to go so I stayed home." The second significant timing is during the subject's verbal response: Q: "Were you experiencing any financial difficulties last month?" S: "Nothing out of the ordinary. (Shift in chair) That I can recall." In conclusion, a subject's posture can offer meaningful information during an interview. As with all of the behavioral assessments that we teach at our course, there are factors other than truth or deception that may influence a subject's behavior and must be considered.

  

LEETA Use of Force Journal
By Larry Smith

My son, Randy, and I were SCUBA diving off the coast of San Diego, CA in the kelp beds at about a depth of 40 feet. We were looking for abalone and spear fishing. Randy was only 14 years old and already an accomplished diver, but he lacked the fears of what could happen if safety procedures were not followed. He was wearing a smaller air tank than I was, but it had an air gauge to determine the amount of air that he consumed during the dive. Being a watchful parent, I always kept checking his air supply as a precaution. Things progressed well and his air consumption was much less than mine. Randy just finished spearing a big link cod and put it into his “goodie bag” when I looked at this air gauge. His air tank was down to less that 200 PSI and we usually surface at 300 PSI. I gave him the hand signal to surface. He motioned that he wanted to spear one more fish. Then, he gave me the signal, finger across the throat that he was out of air.

Luckily, I had plenty of air my tank. I felt the onset of panic. We could both perish if I did not get air to him or he had to make a free assent to the surface from 40 feet, which is not an easy task for a sport diver. I momentarily slowed my breathing and grabbed his SCUBA tank harness. Randy knew from recent practice sessions that he should grab my SCUBA tank harness to connect us for buddy breathing. I would control the air regulator taking three breaths, and then he would take three breaths as we ascend to the surface.

It seemed like eternity until we reached the surface. Randy had  dropped his weight belt, his spear, and his fish and inflated his buoyancy compensator. I forgot all those procedures and only focused on the buddy breathing. We both swallowed some seawater, but other than that we survived a potentially fatal accident.

How does this relate to panic? Well, panic is described as a sudden feeling of fear or anxiety that comes on suddenly, is overwhelming, and appears to be uncontrollable. In our incident, panic was starting to set in. I knew that I felt it and I am sure Randy could see his life pass before his eyes. We managed it and were able to bring a near fatal incident into a lifesaving experience.

You may not be a SCUBA diver, but during my diving experience I have had the feeling of the onset of panic many times underwater. I have learned to cease whatever I am doing and  take stock in what is happening. I do not act immediately, but evaluate my options. Sometimes acting on first instinct is not the wisest decision. As a police officer I can remember many incidents that could have taken my life or the life of my partner if either one of us would have panicked. It may happen to you on a daily basis when you drive your patrol car or when you search an open business during a response to an alarm call. How about when a suspect reaches into his waistband on a high-risk vehicle stop and you inappropriately react and there is not a gun?

Lieutenant Colonel Grossman describes, “combat breathing” in his lectures and in the martial arts we talk about Ki breathing exercises that are one in the same. Taking a breath, holding it, then exhaling slowly, then taking another breath and repeating the exercise brings the heart rate down, relaxes you and allows you to make better decisions before panic sets in.

There is a fine line between fear and panic. Fear is healthy, makes you give respect to the environment you are in. As long as you control your fear, you control your response to the environment. Once you allow fear to take over and you fail to respond appropriately, then panic sets in. This is where you find that fine line between the two. That line is dependent upon the individual, his mindset and his crisis rehearsal. The military trains soldiers so that under pressure, when fear and panic set in, they follow through with the rehearsal.

Sergeant Andy Barton, Bristol (CT) Police Department, pointed out the relationship of confidence and panic, “If you lack confidence, panic will surely set in. If you have confidence (or faith) in the technique or recommended course of action, it will be a start to accomplish your task at hand. Above all, you need confidence in yourself that you know your ability to perform and that you will perform under duress exactly as you have trained to do, knowing that the technique or course of action will enable you to succeed or make it through the event. It worked in the diving incident with the buddy breathing system.”

We mostly agree that crisis rehearsal is the key to surviving the streets as a police officer, but learning how to manage panic can give us the best advantage to make the right decisions under pressure.

What is your opinion?
Larry Smith is a 34-year veteran lieutenant (retired) from the San Diego (CA) Police Department. He is a judicially recognized expert witness in use of force and police procedures. Larry has instructed arrest and control tactics for the past 40 years. His martial arts training in Aikido and police training has prepared him to understand the mechanics of use of force encounters. Email to larrysmith@ileeta.org.

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page