|
|
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.
- Sponsored By -
|
|
|
|
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:
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.
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.
|
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.
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
|
|