| Calendar | Add A Class | College Degrees | Online Classes | DVDs & CDs | On-site Classes | Advertising | Contact Us |
 

 

 

 

Sign up for FREE
training articles &
class updates
Your Email:

 

 

cleardot.gif (807 bytes)

 

cleardot.gif (807 bytes)

February 2012

Important: To ensure future delivery of the Policetraining.net newsletter to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders) please add our "From" address info@policetraining.net to your address book or e-mail whitelist.

in this issue . . .

 

- Sponsored By -

 


line-small.gif (227 bytes)

 

No Authority? Try Influence.


By Val Van Brocklin

You can lead people over whom you have no authority. A person can command with authority but you lead with influence. Whether it’s the Chief, a Sergeant, a fellow officer or support staff, you can influence people without being in a position of command. Here are some tips how.

Empathize. I know what you’re thinking. How do I empathize with a Chief or supervisor who is:

  • Pompous

  • Condescending

  • Doesn’t listen

  • In it for herself

  • A dinosaur

  • Counting down to retirement

  • Clueless 

Look, this isn’t my idea. It’s Stephen Covey’s. You know -- the guy that wrote 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and is one of TIME magazine’s 25 most influential Americans.

We’re not talking about sympathizing – being in harmony or agreement with the Chief’s feelings or views. Empathy is being able to visualize the Chief’s challenges, concerns, and future plans – as she sees them. 

This may be even more challenging when you don’t sympathize with the Chief but I have confidence that you can accomplish this mental exercise. Once you do, and you anticipate those challenges, concerns and plans, you can act and be influential.

Covey gives an example. He once worked for an extremely controlling, micromanaging boss. He observed two different responses to this boss. Most of the employees stood around griping about the boss’s micromanaging. Covey observed that wasn’t very productive.

But one subordinate decided that every time he was asked a question or given an assignment he would ask:

What is it that the boss is really trying to accomplish and why does he want this information?

This employee delivered not only what was requested, but additional recommendations and analyses that were so well thought out the boss immediately adopted them. (As a friend once told me, you can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit.) The boss’s confidence in this guy grew to the point that his endorsement on new projects and directions became mandatory. That’s a heap of influence.

Avoiding “no.”

Chiefs and supervisors have a full plate. Just ask them. If you press them for a decision on an idea you’ve got, they’re likely to say no.

  • No, it’s too risky.

  • No, it’s bad timing.

  • No, it’s not one of the Mayor’s priorities.

  • No, it’s not a top concern of the community (translation: Won’t get me headlines and re-elected).

  • No, we can’t afford it.

To avoid “no”

  • Quickly summarize the options you considered and why you selected the one you did.

  •  Tell her what you’d like from her: simply to inform her, to decide jointly, to evaluate the idea, etc.

  • Be prepared with data to counter disagreement and address concerns but don’t drown her in it. Give her a visual aid if you can – a chart, graph.

  • After the meeting, summarize the decision in writing for her to make sure you’re on the same page.

  • Whether it goes your way, or not, do not criticize externally. Don’t become one of those employees in Covey’s example who stands around and gripes. If you can, become an ambassador of what was decided. This will develop the boss’s trust in you.

[See web link below to Jacques Horovitz’s 10 Rules to Manage Your Boss

Influencers ask the right questions.

You can lead, regardless of your rank in the department, by keeping everyone on target with the right questions.

  • Can we define the problem/issue/challenge/concern?

  • Do we have the information we need to address it?

  • Can we determine the cause of it?

  •  Is it our problem?

  • Can we come up with some solutions?

  • Can we define criteria for evaluating the solutions? [Cost, measurable results, time frame, community reaction, etc.]

Don’t be a Sycophant, Superhero or Chicken Little.

I’ve taken some shots here at bosses. But they have their legitimate gripes. Good bosses dislike three kinds of subordinates (at least):

  • The brown noser who always tells you how great you are.

  • The rescuer who comes to tell you, “There’s a HUGE, but don’t worry, I’LL solve it.”

  • The Chicken Little (“The sky is falling!”) who is always coming to you with a problem, but no solutions.

If you’re the first, stop it. If you’re the second, and you’re not fabricating the problem so you can be a hero (if you are, knock it off), just solve it.

If you’re the third, sometimes it’s hard to see the forest or the trees if you’re looking at a plummeting sky. Problems are often as simple as a gap between an objective and a result. Think of options to close the gap – define key tasks, dates, people and resources needed. Ask three people you respect for their opinions and counsel and consider incorporating them into your solution.

Then decide if you want the Chief’s input. Be clear on what input you want when you go to the Chief. [10 Rules to Manage Your Boss]

Provide feedback.

You don’t have to be the boss to express appreciation -- up, down and across the ranks.

  • You did a great job with that call. (Dispatcher)

  • I learned a lot from how you handled that guy. (Fellow officer)

  • Thanks for keeping our department looking so good. (Custodian)

  • I really appreciate you sharing your experience. (Sergeant)

  • Hey Chief, thanks for trying to make some changes for the better. Can I help?

You may be in a position to mentor someone – and not just as an FTO. 

  • Ask a junior officer how she felt after a stressful call.

  • Authentically share some of your scary calls and mess ups.

  • Ask her what she thinks she did right on the call, would like to be able to do over, and how she’ll handle it next time.

  • Offer some supportive suggestions, being careful to explain the reasons behind them.

  • Suggest she seek the advice of those she respects.

  • Suggest she find someone to mentor in the department (it doesn’t have to be another officer; it can be support staff, a dispatcher, a custodian, a records clerk) or community.

You may be in a position to mentor the boss – especially if she’s younger and greener than you. 

Remember.

 “The humblest individual exerts some influence, either for good or evil, upon others."

                                                                                    ~Henry Beecher Ward~

Choose good.

Described by Calibre Press as "the indisputable master of enter-train-ment, Val Van Brocklin is an international law enforcement speaker, trainer and author. She combines her dynamic presentation style with years of experience as a state and federal prosecutor, where her trial work received national media attention on ABC's Primetime Live, the Discovery Channel's Justice Files, in USA Today, The National Enquirer and Redbook. In addition to her personal appearances, Val appears on television, radio, and the internet. She’s a regular contributor to www.officer.com and www.lawofficer.com and has been published in Police Chief, The RCMP’s Gazette, Integrity Talk, and other magazines and books. When she's not working, Val can be found flying her airplane with a shotgun, a fly rod, her retriever and high aspirations.  Feel free to visit her web site at www.valvanbrocklin.com.

 line-small.gif (227 bytes)


The strategies outlined below are simple but many require a change to the way we think and train as a law enforcement culture

By Brian Willis

 

There were more than 150 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty in North America so far in 2011. That can be considered a small victory, perhaps, if you consider that in April of this year we were on pace to lose more than 200 officers.

However, 150+ is too many, and many people have asked the question, “What can we do to reduce line of duty deaths?”

I believe the strategies to reducing line-of-duty deaths are simple, but not easy. Simple refers to lack of complexity. Easy refers to lack of effort. The strategies outlined below are simple. Many, however, require a change to the way we think and train as a law enforcement culture. Cultural change is never easy, especially in law enforcement. The following are seven simple strategies to reduce line-of-duty deaths.

Train to win gunfights. Simple, but not easy.
The easy thing to do is to continue going to the range once a year and train to qualify. The easy thing to do is stand flatfooted on the range, go through the motions and shoot holes in paper targets. Creating new dynamic programs takes time and effort. It means rewriting existing lesson plans and possibly course training standards. It requires reaching out to trainers from other agencies to see what they are doing. It requires attending conferences like ILEETA and networking with progressive-thinking people in the law enforcement profession. It requires work, which means it is not easy, but it is simple. If you are not a firearms instructor then invest in yourself and attend training that will teach you to win gunfights, then continue to train on your own.

What type of training do you need to do to win a gunfight? Consider the following:

Gunfights involve at least two people with guns both
Gunfights involve officers being shot at and sometimes shot
Gunfights involve movement by the officer and the subject
Gunfights occur in all lighting conditions
Gunfights require shooting into and from vehicles
Gunfights do not always take place with the officer on their feet
Gunfights are often won by an officer shooting one handed, and sometimes with their non-dominant hand

Wear your seatbelt. Simple, but not easy.
Wearing a seatbelt is something almost every officer does in their personal vehicle. You make your kids wear their seatbelts because it is the law and because it keeps them safe. You ticket people on the street who do not wear their seatbelt. If you are like 50 percent of cops you then get into a police vehicle and refuse to wear a seatbelts because you believe it is tactically unsafe.

In fact, you may have been convinced that wearing a seatbelt will result in your being trapped in your vehicle and dying when you are ambushed. While there are cases of officers being ambushed and murdered in their vehicles, cases where the officer was trapped by the seatbelt in those ambushes and died because they were wearing a seatbelt are rare, if they even exist. More than 300 officers who were not wearing their seatbelt however, died in traffic collisions between 1980 and 2008.

Train to win up-close-and-personal violent confrontations. Simple, but not easy.
Easy is standing at the three-yard line and shooting holes in a piece of paper. You need to train to shoot a subject from inches away. You need to train to shoot a subject in the back. You need to train to shoot a subject who is engaged in a contact range deadly battle with a fellow officer. This can be done with red guns in the combatives room, in a car and in confined spaces. Train with the subject and the officer(s) in a variety of positions including on their feet, and on the ground.

Slow down. Simple, but not easy.
Speeding has become a habit, and even a sense of entitlement for many in the law enforcement profession. Cops speed to minor calls, to emergency calls, to coffee, and to the station at the end of shift. Cops speed in the police vehicles and cops speed in their personal vehicles. Are you one of those who speed because you can?

Why am I talking about this? Because speed kills cops. Speed has killed hundreds of law enforcement professionals over the years. There are numerous examples of officers driving over 100 miles per hour to minor calls and killing themselves, their partners, other officers and innocent people on the roads. The time has come to say enough is enough. The time has come to slow down. Care enough about yourself and your family to slow down. Care enough about your brother and sister law enforcement professionals to have the courageous conversations with them concerning their driving habits.

Train for the crossfire scenario. Simple, but not easy.
Not easy because officers have been told to never place himself or herself in a crossfire situation with another officer. In most cases this is sound tactical advice. What if the subject places you in a crossfire situation? Have you trained to fix this problem and win this fight? This happened in the coffee shop in Lakewood, Washington. This happened in Maryland following a bank robbery. This happens numerous times every year around North America. The training can be done with red guns or non lethal training ammunition but you have to do the training.

Wear your body armor. Simple, but not easy.
The easy thing to do is to keep making excuses (too hot, too uncomfortable, nothing will ever happen here, etc). The simple thing to do is throw your armor in a ready bag so you have it when you need it. Body armor has saved thousands of officers’ lives since the mid 1970s yet a large number of officers still refuse to wear body armor.

Are you one of them? Are you willing to continue to make excuses and put yourself and your fellow officers at risk unnecessarily? Wondering how your refusal to wear armor puts others at risk unnecessarily? I will guarantee you that if you go down because you are not wearing armor other officers will put themselves at huge risk to come and save you.

Prepare your mind for where your body may have to go. Simple, but not easy.
This great saying from LAPD officer Stacy Lim is simple, but not easy. You need to imagine being in and winning those gunfights. You need to imagine shooting someone from inches away. You need to imagine shot, stabbed or otherwise injured, staying focused, staying in the fight and winning the fight. The easy thing to do is tell yourself it will never happen to you. The easy thing to do is make excuse that you are not going to imagine getting shot or stabbed because that means you screwed up.

Getting shot does not mean you screwed up. It simply means you have been shot. The realities of action versus reaction are that the first indication you may have that you are in a gunfight is when you get shot. The same with getting stabbed. Training your mind can be as simple as closing your eyes and imagining yourself in a variety of these situations. Imagine responding the way you would most like to and imagine feeling good after knowing that you performed well and saved a life.

If every officer and every trainer in North America focused on these simple strategies, the number of line-of-duty deaths would drop dramatically. In 2012, are you going to focus on the simple, or the easy?

About the author
Brian Willis is an internationally-recognized thought leader, speaker, trainer, and writer. Brian serves as the Deputy Executive Director for the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association (ILEETA) and is President of the innovative training company Winning Mind Training. Brian was a full time police officer with the Calgary Police Service from 1979 to 2004. He is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of his contribution and commitment to Officer Safety in Canada and was named Law Officer Trainer of the Year for 2011. He is also editor of the highly-acclaimed books W.I.N.: Critical Issues in Training and Leading Warriors , W.I.N. 2: Insights Into Training and Leading Warriors, and his latest work, If I Knew Then: Life Lessons From Cops on the Street , are all available through (www.warriorspiritbooks.com). Brian is a member of NTOA, ITOA, IALEFI, and the Canadian Association of Professional Speakers. Brian can be reached through his website at www.winningmindtraining.com.
Brian can be reached via e-mail at
brian.willis@policeone.com.

 

    line-small.gif (227 bytes)

By  John Reid & Associates

I recently taught at a newly constructed police department. The architecture was beautiful featuring a massive open community room. The detective's work area was equally impressive with state of the art computer terminals, surveillance monitors and communication system. However, the interview room was right out of the 1960's. There was a table in the middle of the room and the suspect sat on a stainless steel bench bolted to the floor. The investigators' two chairs were on the opposite side of the table. Presumably, the suspect's bench was bolted to the floor to prevent movement away from the camera's view (which was mounted in plain sight in the upper corner of the room). As for the stainless steel finish, perhaps it is easy to clean up after an intense interrogation. This department, as well as probably many others, needs to catch up to the 21st century when it comes to designing a room for conducting interviews and interrogations.

Why is this important? Learning the truth from suspects, victims and witnesses is difficult enough without creating additional barriers within the room environment. The most important consideration is that the room should afford the subject privacy. Very simply, it is much easier to tell the truth to a single person than multiple individuals. Second, the environment should not remind the subject of the consequences awaiting him should he decide to tell the truth. After all, trying to avoid these consequences is what motivates the guilty subject's deception. Finally, the investigator should be aware of how the room will be perceived by a jury viewing a video-taped interrogation. Will the room's appearance raise issues of duress or coercion?

Location of the interview room: Ideally, an interview room should be placed away from reminders of what the suspect will face should he or she decide to tell the truth. Just as it is much more difficult for a person to tell the truth if his parent, spouse or supervisor is present, it is difficult for people to tell the truth when they can hear cell doors slam or know that the first people they will face once they leave the room will be co-workers. In a law enforcement setting, the interview room should be away from booking areas, holding cells and barred jail cells. In the private sector, the room should be removed from the employee's work area.

Construction: The interview room should be large enough for three individuals to sit comfortably, but not so large that the suspect can psychologically escape into the void. A dimension of 8' x 10' works well. The walls and ceiling should be well insulated to dampen outside noises. For the same reason, the door should be made of solid material, but certainly not resemble a cell door. Unless the room is exclusively used for custodial interviews, it is recommended not to have a lock on the door. The room should not have any windows to the outside or interior glass panes. Even if these are covered with drapes, the presence of windows decreases the desired sense of privacy.

For a floor covering, a short fiber carpet works well in that it absorbs sound and is easy to vacuum. The walls may be painted a light pastel color, reflecting an office-like appearance. The room should have its own thermostat and a quiet vent fan, if the circulation is poor.

The walls should be free from distracting art-work and certainly not reinforce consequences, e.g., a display of police patches from departments across the state or framed certificates from interviewing and interrogation courses attended. If there is an adjacent observation room, the two-way mirror should be placed at a height of about five feet; the subject should not be able to see his own reflection in the mirror when seated.

The preceding describes the three walls visible to the subject. The wall behind the subject is different. Because it is out of the subject's constant sight, It may be desirable to place art work on this wall to give the sense of an office setting. This is particularly desirable if the interview/interrogation is electronically recorded. The view jurors see resembles a non-threatening office setting. If the room contains a clock, it should be placed on this back wall -- Suspects are plenty defiant on their own without having a clock staring them in the face reminding them of how long they have been in the interrogation room.

Furniture: The room should contain four pieces of furniture - a writing surface (desk or table) and three chairs. One of these chairs is for an observer (partner, parent, union representative, etc.) the other two are for the investigator and the subject. The subject's chair should not have arms, which tend to restrict movement, nor a swivel seat or castors. It should be a basic chair one might find in a waiting room or reception area. The investigator should sit in a chair similar to the subject's, certainly not one which is more comfortable or luxurious. The investigator's chair in our office has a hinged writing desk that is brought up for note taking during the interview, but taken down during the interrogation.

It is a major error to have any barrier (desk or table) between the investigator and subject's chair. A guilty suspect will use that barrier as a shield and he will feel more confident and protected when lying to the investigator. In addition, the desk or table will conceal the subject's lower body movements which are critical for interpreting nonverbal behavior. Consequently, the desk or table should be positioned off to the side. The observer's chair should be placed behind, and to the side of, the subject's, perhaps on the other side of the desk or table. The goal here is to have the observer out of the suspect's sight, so as to minimize the violation of privacy represented by having a third person in the room.

Electronic Recording: Any newly constructed interview room should be designed to accommodate potential electronic recording - if it is not already required in your state, eventually it probably will be. There are a number of basic considerations. First, the camera should be positioned to view the subject's entire body, from head to toe. Remember that the purpose for the recording is not only to document that the suspect was properly treated, but also to reveal his emotional state and physical well being. A problem that is sometimes encountered is that if the investigator sits directly in front of the subject (which has several benefits), but the investigator's head may block the camera. To avoid this, the camera should be placed at a height of about six feet and view the subject at a slight angle.

Second, any recording device (camera, tape recorder, microphone) should be concealed and surreptitious (unless otherwise required by law). This can be accomplished by placing a camera behind a two-way mirror, using a camera lens disguised as a thermostat or placing a microphone underneath the desk. Research and experience clearly indicate that it is not the act of electronic recording that inhibits truth-telling - it is the constant reminder that the session is being recorded or memorialized that causes guilty suspects to stick with their earlier lies and victims and witnesses to withhold sensitive or embarrassing information. The same outcome may occur if an investigator is typing up the suspect's responses on a laptop computer during an interview. While we are strong advocates of note-taking during an interview, and have found several benefits to this practice, the act of key-stroking data into a memory storage and retrieval device is much more intimidating than a casual hand-written note.

In conclusion, room environment is an important factor contributing to the success (or failure) of an interview/interrogation and warrants careful consideration at the designing stage of a new police department or office suite. Many investigators are stuck with an existing arrangement, but still have some control over the room environment. At the very least the investigator should arrange the chairs and writing surface within the room in such a way as to eliminate barriers and afford privacy. The investigator who is interacting with the subject should sit directly in front of the subject. The partner, or any other observer, should be out of the subject's sight and not be actively involved in questioning the subject. Finally, any electronic recording device should also be out of the suspect's sight.

Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit
www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.

 

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

 




Fourth Amendment Protection Applies to Placing GPS on Vehicle

U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Jones
January 2012
by Jack Ryan, Attorney

Reprinted from  WWW.PATC.COM

On January 23, 2012 the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that law enforcement’s act of attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and tracking the vehicle by use of the device constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. [i] It is noted that the prosecution had failed in the lower courts to argue that placement of the device on a vehicle was a reasonable search thus that argument was waived. The Court outlined the facts in Jones as follows:

In 2004 respondent Antoine Jones, owner and operator of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, came under suspicion of trafficking in narcotics and was made the target of an investigation by a joint FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. Officers employed various investigative techniques, including visual surveillance of the nightclub, installation of a camera focused on the front door of the club, and a pen register and wiretap covering Jones's cellular phone.

Based in part on information gathered from these sources, in 2005 the Government applied to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a warrant authorizing the use of an electronic tracking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones's wife. A warrant issued, authorizing installation of the device in the District of Columbia and within 10 days.

On the 11th day, and not in the District of Columbia but in Maryland, agents installed a GPS tracking device on the undercarriage of the Jeep while it was parked in a public parking lot. Over the next 28 days, the Government used the device to track the vehicle's movements, and once had to replace the device's battery when the vehicle was parked in a different public lot in Maryland. By means of signals from multiple satellites, the device established the vehicle's location within 50 to 100 feet, and communicated that location by cellular phone to a Government computer. It relayed more than 2,000 pages of data over the 4-week period.

The Government ultimately obtained a multiple-count indictment charging Jones and several alleged co-conspirators with, as relevant here, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841 and 846. Before trial, Jones filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the GPS device. The District Court granted the motion only in part, suppressing the data obtained while the vehicle was parked in the garage adjoining Jones's residence. 451 F. Supp. 2d 71, 88 (2006). It held the remaining data admissible, because "'[a] person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.'" Ibid. (quoting United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281 (1983)). Jones's trial in October 2006 produced a hung jury on the conspiracy count.

The government took the position that the data should not be suppressed arguing that no warrant was required for the placement of the GPS device, thus the investigators’ non-compliance with the warrant should not lead to suppression.

In its decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the placement of the GPS on the vehicle was clearly a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In doing so, the Court looked at older cases which interpreted the Fourth Amendment in terms of trespass. It is noted that a line of cases following the Court’s decision in Katz v. United States [ii] analyzed the Fourth Amendment in terms of a person’s right to privacy while cases preceding Katz had traditionally considered Fourth Amendment intrusions based on common law trespass. In the Court’s decision in Jones, the Court determined that Katz added a personal privacy dimension to the Fourth Amendment but did not take away the trespass dimension. It should be noted that a concurring opinion criticizes the majority opinion for using the trespass analysis. The majority opinion is clear that the Katz privacy analysis would apply to a case where there was no physical intrusion to a person’s property but there was a collection of transmitted data.

The Court noted: “It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted.”

The Court held that the use of the GPS was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

It is important to recognize that the Court did not address whether a warrant was even required. Due to the non-compliance with the warrant the government had argued that placement of the GPS on the car was not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Court decided that in fact the placement of the GPS is a search.

The government did not present the argument that even if placement was a search, such a search would be reasonable to conduct without a warrant. The Court noted:

The Government argues in the alternative that even if the attachment and use of the device was a search, it was reasonable--and thus lawful--under the Fourth Amendment because "officers had reasonable suspicion, and indeed probable cause, to believe that [Jones] was a leader in a large-scale cocaine distribution conspiracy." We have no occasion to consider this argument. The Government did not raise it below, and the D. C. Circuit therefore did not address it. We consider the argument forfeited.(cites omitted).

As a result, the question is left open for another day as to whether law enforcement is required to get a search warrant when armed with probable cause prior to placement of a GPS on a vehicle. The best advice is to obtain a warrant in such cases and comply with the requirements of the warrant.

Court holdings can vary significantly between jurisdictions. As such, it is advisable to seek the advice of a local prosecutor or legal advisor regarding questions on specific cases. This article is not intended to constitute legal advice on a specific case.

 

[i] U.S. v. Jones, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 1063; slip. Op. 10-1259 (January 23, 2012).
[ii] Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S.347 (1967).

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page