By Sergeant Betsy Brantner Smith

Reprint with permission from PoliceLink.com

You’re out of the academy, done with field training and out on your own. You may be just off probation, ten years into the job, a detective, a supervisor, a manager; you may even be the chief, but chances are, you’re hoping to never have to sit in a classroom again. After all, isn’t most of what we learn in law enforcement “on the job” training? You probably learn something new almost every day just by being at work (and if you don’t, you’re not paying attention), but here’s a few reasons why you should look forward to, embrace, and even seek out in service training.

The Nature of Perishable Skills

Motor skills are by their very nature perishable. They require some form of repition or practice to maintain or improve the level of performance for each and every skill. Skills that will be performed under stress will require a higher level of repetition or intensity during their initial development and will still require constant “maintenance” through physical or mental repetition; ideally a combination of both. The old adage that you never forget how to ride a bike is true; however riding a police mountain bike down a flight of stairs takes it to a whole other level. And once you learn those police bike skills, as any IPMBA instructor will tell you, if you don’t consistently use and/or practice them, you won’t be able to perform them well, especially under stress.

“Routine” Can Either Train or De-Train Us

Routine is invisible by its nature, whatever you repeat will become your norm. If you repeat bad habits they will become second nature, if you repeat good ones, they too, will become “routine.” Repetition is repetition, and your brain doesn’t know the difference unless you make a conscious effort to eliminate the bad habits and replace them with solid tactics. Does “practice make perfect?” NO! As veteran police trainer and author Dave Smith tells his students: “Perfect Practice Makes Perfect.” Make sure that you don’t let the routine nature of some of our job functions, like making traffic stops, answering routine calls, even driving, “de-train” you into becoming complacent.

Lead by Example

What if you’re the boss? Even if you’re the Chief of a fairly large agency and it’s likely that you’ll never be in the position to handcuff a suspect ever again, do not neglect your in-service hours. Be the first one on the mat, be the first one in the range, sit in the front row at report writing class, be the first one to learn how to use the new booking system, and make sure your command staff does the same. When line level personnel see the bosses going to and getting excited about in service training, they will be more likely to do the same.

Encourage Competition

Cops tend to thrive on competition, but our society has spent a generation or two trying to downplay and diminish it. Don’t let this happen to your agency. Reward the officer who had the fastest time in speed cuffing class or the team who had the best collective score on the range. In fact, go out on a limb and have the commanders vs. the patrol officers in a shooting competition; the “losers” buy the “winners” a round of coffee and doughnuts the next morning. There is nothing wrong with healthy, well-managed, light-hearted competition to make in service training more fun, not to mention more effective. Performing under the “stress” of competition has great benefits to the learner, do not eliminate it from your training.

Don’t Make It All About “Bats and Guns”

Not all in service training is tactical in nature. If you’re a line level employee, is there something you’d really like to learn about but don’t know where to find the information? I know agencies that have held in service training on retirement planning and the pension system, basic fitness and nutrition, stress management, and many other “out of the box” topics. After a string of internal affairs issues, my department tasked my supervisory team to come up with in service training to give employees the skills to intervene in each other’s bad behavior, both on and off duty; it was extremely well-received and helped the department heal from a particularly difficult year.

Bring In the Civilians

Because so much of our in service training tends to be tactically oriented, we often leave out our civilian employees or provide them with separate training. Civilians, especially dispatchers, should be included in almost every non “hands on” class that sworn personnel attend. It’s also a good idea to allow the dispatchers to observe any simulation training you may conduct. Watching officers make deadly force decisions on the firearms simulator or search and clear a building during active shooter scenarios will help your dispatchers better understand what they are hearing on the radio and how they need to respond during an actual critical incident. Bringing sworn and civilian supervisors together for a leadership class can do a lot to bring consistency and cohesiveness to an organization.

Don’t Make “Remedial” Classes a Shameful Thing

Not everyone learns at the same pace or retains everything the first (or fifth or tenth) time. If you or someone else needs additional time on the range or in the classroom, realize that adult learners are a very diverse breed. If you’re the one managing the training function, don’t make “remedial” training shameful or painful for your employee. Find out what they need, why they aren’t learning, what might motivate them and then do what you and the organization can to help them. Managed properly, in service training can boost morale, help build and strengthen teams, and improve the performance of everyone, even those who need a little extra help.

What If Your Agency Won’t Provide Additional Training?

Every week I talk to police employees who tell me “I’d love to go to that class” or “I’d love to learn how to do that” but that “the department just won’t send me.” If that’s true, then bite the bullet and pay for it yourself. Some of the best firearms training I ever received was at a pistol class I paid for myself. Instead of a new hunting rifle, an expensive new purse, or a weekend getaway, use the money for a class that may help save your life someday. Nearly 50% of the attendees at the Calibre Press “Street Survival” seminar pay their own way. Make a deal with your boss: if you pay for the class, will they give you the training days? It never hurts to ask, and the boss may appreciate your initiative. There are also many police associations that will allow you attend their conferences for free if you volunteer to help with the conference. Make training and learning a priority in your life, even if the department doesn’t. And if you’re lucky enough to work for an agency that does, take advantage of every minute of in service training you can get. Whether you’re a brand new rookie or you’re a 20-year chief, you are always a student and there is always something new to learn.

Reprinted with permission from Policelink.com

  

 

 

 

OR Parameters of Police Deception
The "L" word

Editors note: This article generated a lot of comments when first published. We think it is a discussion worth having and invite any comments you might have.

By Valerie Van Brocklin
www.valvanbrocklin.com

 
It was the use of the "L" word that did it – “lie.” If instead of the title Training Cops to Lie – PT 1 I had used Legal Parameters of Strategic Deception, when the article was first published on www.officer.com, I doubt there would have been a brouhaha. If you'd like to see a brouhaha, just click on the web link to PT 1 and read all the way through the comments at the end of the article.

My intent in Part 1 was to posit that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the duties of law enforcement may require limited, officially sanctioned deception in the course of criminal investigations. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 434 (1973). ("Criminal activity is such that stealth and strategy are necessary weapons in the arsenal of the police officer.")

Even criminal defense attorneys empathize with this necessity,

I have not read many reported decisions in which the Courts have been enthusiastic about trick, deception, and artifice by law enforcement personnel, but the Courts do understand that in the real word, a world in which crime loves darkness, stealth, and concealment, crime can sometimes only be detected and prosecuted through those same means.

(Web link below  to J.D. Obenberger's article.)

The Supreme Court has referred to these sanctioned ruses as "strategic deception." Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990).

It was also my intent in Part 1, to look at some court decisions on police deception for some legal guidance on a topic so complex and murky that the courts don't even agree.

Then I intended in Part 2, and possibly subsequent articles,

• To look at some scenarios and see if we could apply case law in a way that would help officers in the field ensure they acted legally.
• To raise consciousness about some of the psychological effects of employing deception in the investigation of criminal activity.
• To discuss appropriate training for the use of police deception.
• To consider agency policies and procedures for employing police deception.
• To examine the response of police leadership to the use of police deception.

But use of the "L" word - lie - rather than something like strategic deception, created an uproar that I had neither intended nor anticipated.

Can we face the truth about lying?

I was taken aback by the intensity of negative response to the idea of law enforcement using any deception in investigating criminal activity. Such a posture would eliminate any undercover investigations of drug trafficking, prostitution, pimping, child pornography, public official misconduct, corporate corruption, and an endless list of etceteras. I was chagrined by the notion, as one reader commented, that I had unwittingly provided reactionary "cop bashers with more ammunition."

In retrospect, I'm glad for several reasons that the "L" word set a fire where strategic deception hasn't even have lit a spark.

• If there are reactionaries who are going to blame officers for the balances our courts draw, and not enforce the law if they don't agree with it, I want to know that. And I want prosecutors to know how to voir dire for such people during jury selection on a case in which officers have used legally sanctioned deception.
• Not all the comments were "knee-jerk" or extreme. Some were inquiring citizens and officers with honest concerns about any use of deception. This raises a separate question: Does legal equals ethical? That is, just because the law says police can use deception, should they? And what are some of the consequences officers, prosecutors and the criminal justice system might face if the public doesn't think a legal use of deception was ethical?
• It's been interesting to see the reaction to telling the truth about police lying and the "how" and "why" the system hides behind jargon.

Addressing this latter point first, it was the Supreme Court that coined the phrase strategic deception, in sanctioning some police lying in the investigation of crimes. Did the court hope to thus shroud the bargain they had struck "in the real word, a world in which crime loves darkness, stealth, and concealment, (and) crime can sometimes only be detected and prosecuted through those same means?"

Hiding the truth behind jargon.

Using jargon to make palatable what we ask officers to do to keep the rest of us safe and secure against those who would harm us isn't unique to the criminal justice system.

Our politicians, and under their direction, our military, has engaged in the same linguistic contortions.

• In 1947 the Department of War changed its name to the Department of Defense.
• The Cambodian invasion was called an "incursion" and the war was officially a "police action," even though 2 million people died. (The president could declare a police action without congressional approval.)
• In 1974, a US Air Force colonel in Phnom Penh, Cambodia said to American reporters, "You always write it's bombing, bombing, bombing. It's not bombing, it's air support."
• We didn't retreat in Vietnam; we staged a "phased departure."
• "Neutralize" is the current euphemism for killing someone (CIA Manual).
• "Collateral damage" is the unintended killing of civilians.

And don't forget all the corporate buzzwords such as "right-sizing," "relayering," and "reengineering," for describing firing people.

I'm glad I used the "L" word instead of strategic deception. While I didn't anticipate the breadth of depth of response, I take heart from the ever wise Anonymous, who said,

Never fear to use little words. Big, long words name little things. All big things have little names, such as life and death, war and peace, dawn, day, night, hope, love, and home. Learn to use little words in a big way.

I don't believe that soldiers and police officers should be the only ones facing the truth of what we ask and authorize them to do on our behalf. We already ask them to face enough on their own while we sleep safely in our beds.

In this ongoing series of articles, we will face squarely the bargains we - the courts and the citizenry - ask police officers to make on our behalf. And if we find the bargain distasteful when truthfully revealed, we - the citizenry and the judiciary - need to address that.

But before I continue in this series with examining our legal system's criterion for police lying in the investigation of crimes, reader response to Part 1 reveals we first need to look at:

The Truth About the Truth in Our Criminal Justice System - A criminal trial is NOT about finding the truth.

So stay tuned for the next article truth or consequences in our criminal justice system

Training Cops to Lie – PT 1, The tangled web of police deception, http://www.officer.com/web/online/Investigation/Training-Cops-to-Lie---Pt-1/18$49343

Police Deception, J.D. Obenberger, http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/GP03-98.htm

Described by Calibre Press as "the indisputable master of enter-train-ment," Val Van Brocklin is a trainer and author. She combines a dynamic presentation style with over 10 years 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, she appears on television, radio, and webcasts, in newspapers, journal articles and books. Val is a regular contributor to officer.com and lawofficer.com and her writing has also been featured in the Calibre Press Online Street Survival Newsletter, Police Chief magazine, The Law Enforcement Trainer magazine, Integrity Talk magazine, Outdoor magazines and books. When she’s not working, Val can be found flying her airplane with her retriever, a shotgun, a fly rod, and high aspirations. Visit her at her website: www.valvanbrocklin.com.

   

www.reid.com

The importance of a face to face interview with a job applicant to evaluate their recent past behavior was emphasized in the last web tip. One reason employers are reluctant to ask probing questions during a preemployment interview is the fear of a subsequent law suit. This discussion will focus on legal aspects of preemployment screening and cost-effective strategies in making hiring decisions.

The underlying legal principle applied to areas of proper inquiry during a preemployment interview involves a concept called a Bona Fine Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). In other words, can the employer demonstrate that the information elicited by the question is necessary to assess the applicant's suitability for employment. Any written or verbal question asked of a job applicant in the selection process must satisfy a BFOQ.

It may, therefore, be considered improper to ask the applicant if he rents or owns a home but it would be permissible to ask for the applicant's mailing address since the employer needs to know where to contact the applicant. Certainly it would be improper to ask about the applicant's origin of birth but it is permissible to require proof of being able to legally work in this country (upon being offered a position).

Fundamental to any employment position is a person's integrity, honesty and reliability. Therefore, an applicant who lies on an employment application about being fired from a previous position has demonstrated a lack of integrity. An applicant who acknowledges recent drug use, shoplifting or auto theft indicates not only dishonesty, but potential poor reliability as well. It is a reasonable possibility that an applicant with a propensity for illegal activity risks being caught and arrested and therefore, will not be able to show up for work.

There are a number of federal laws which regulate hiring practices. The longest standing are discrimination laws under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1973 enforced through the Equal Employment Occupation Commission (EEOC). These acts create protected classes of people and prohibit an employer from using race, age, religion or national origin as grounds for disqualifying a job applicant from employment. An employer who does not hire a job applicant from a protected class may be challenged to articulate specific grounds for their not-hire decision. A valid defense for EEOC claims is that the employer utilized a BFOQ in disqualifying a job applicant. An example of this principle is a job applicant's contact with police. It is generally considered discriminatory to ask whether or not an applicant has been arrested for a crime. However it is lawful to ask if the applicant has been convicted of a crime.

In 1988 the Federal government adopted the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. This legislation argues that the polygraph is not a reliable indicator of truth and deception and therefore prohibits most private employers from asking, requesting or requiring a prospective employee from taking a preemployment polygraph examination (or other purported lie-detection device such as a voice stress analyzer). Exempt from this restriction are all government employees and private employers who operate sensitive businesses such as nuclear power plants, drug manufacturing or armed security services. There is also The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Preemployment questions relating to the applicant's medical or emotional health are prohibited under the ADA unless the applicant has been offered a position. With respect to illegal drug usage, the act permits employers to only question job applicants about recent drug usage and unsuccessful treatment in a drug rehabilitation program. Recent drug usage has been defined as a period of two years and unsuccessful treatment in a rehabilitation program involves any use of an illegal drug since leaving the treatment.

To protect against discrimination claims it is recommended that employers establish pre-existing objective standards of unacceptable behavior against which all applicants are compared. As an example, an employer may consider a person as unsuitable for employment if the applicant has been fired from a job in the last 5 years, has used any illegal drugs in the last 2 years, has stolen money from employers in the last 5 years or committed a theft crime in the last 7 years. Because the same objective standards are applied to all applicants for a particular position, the employer is in a position to demonstrate that the not hire decision was in no way discriminatory.

Utilizing objective hiring standards in this manner can also decrease the costs of preemployment screening. An employer should first implement the least expensive and time-consuming procedures to pre-screen job applicants. Frequently, this will be a face to face interview designed to verify information on a written application. Our experience indicates that between 25 and 30% of job applicants make disqualifying admissions during an Integrity Interview. This allows the employer to reserve more expensive and time-consuming pre-employment procedures for those remaining applicants who are most likely suitable candidates for the position.

Conversely, it is less cost effective to reverse this process where the employer first spends the time and money to assess an applicant's knowledge, skills and abilities and then objectively evaluates the validity of the written application and the applicant's integrity through a face to face interview. Because the initial assessment tends to be subjective, very few applicants are eliminated. This means that almost all applicants for a position go through the entire extensive screening process. It is much more cost effective to eliminate unqualified applicants at various stages of the screening.

While this web tip presented legal guidelines for preemployment screening, it was designed as an overview of some Federal guidelines regulating preemployment inquires. As such, it is not intended to be all-encompassing.. In addition, there are various state statutes that regulate preemployment inquires. Our best recommendation is to develop a standardized written employment application that satisfies all state and federal guidelines and to have each job applicant complete an application. Further, the first stage of the hiring process should be to verify the information written on that application.

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.

YOUR CELLPHONE IS A COMPUTER!

Reprinted from  WWW.PATC.COM
by Chuck Washburn, Attorney

©2011 Chuck Washburn, Attorney, Legal Counsel, Instructor, PATCtech Digital Forensics (PATCtech.com)

U.S. v Kramer, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 2367, February 8, 2011, No. 10-1983
Is your cell phone comparable to a personal computer in the eyes of the law? The United States Court of Appeals for the 8th circuit believes so.

Neil Kramer pleaded guilty in District Court for the Western District of Missouri. His charge was transporting a minor in interstate commerce with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity with her. Kramer also acknowledged that he used his cellular telephone (Motorola Motorazr V3) to send text messages and place calls to the victim for a period of six months leading up to the offense.

During the sentencing of Kramer the District Court of Missouri determined that Kramer’s cell phone was a computer and therefore applied a sentencing enhancement for its use to facilitate the offense.
The District Court reasoned that U.S. sentencing guidelines §2G1.3(b)(3) generally authorizes a two-level enhancement when a “computer” is used in the commission of a crime.

The definition of a “computer” under 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(1) was defined as “an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device….”

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the definition under §1030(e)(1) as being broad and that a “cellular phone might not easily fit within the colloquial definition of a computer”, however they are bound, not by the common understanding of the word computer, but by the specific definition set forth in §1030(e)(1). Furthermore, there is nothing in the statutory language that purports to exclude devices because they lack the capability to connect to the Internet. The Court essentially said that it would be up to the Sentencing Commission or Congress to address and correct any unintended or inappropriate application of the statute, and thus concluded that nothing in the language of §1030(e)(1) excludes cellular phones from the definition of “computer”.

So what does this mean for law enforcement when investigating a crime that involves the use of a cellular phone? Should a cellular phone be treated as a personal computer, and thus fall under the current laws that apply to both search and seizure of a personal computer? The answer is not an easy one. If you follow the plain language as set forth in §1030(e)(1), as the Court did in Kramer, then the answer is yes, and when preparing your search warrant for a cellular phone you should prepare the warrant as if it were for a personal computer.

SEE RELATED ARTICLES
Cellular Phones/Digital Devices and Search Incident to Arrest (2007 Legal Update)
Personal cell phone records of an officer (Legal Question 2008)
Search Of Officer’s Text Messages From Department Issued Pager Was Reasonable (Legal Update 2010)
Court: No Warrant Needed To Search Cell Phones (PATCtech Blog 2011)
Sexting and Sextmessaging (PATCtech Blog 2009) 

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page