| 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)

June 2014

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)

LEOs: Want to Legalize Drugs?

 

Legalized? Decriminalized? Regulated? Ignored?

By Lt. Jim Glennon

Reprinted from LawOfficer.com

Some group reached out to me. They seem sincere and I read what they wrote and considered their line of reasoning. In short, I found that they are a consortium of law enforcement officers who are rallying against the prohibition of drugs. Their belief, and I see their point, is the same belief that many promote: end the prohibition, legalize, decriminalize and/or regulate narcotics. Sounds simple, logical and reasonable because: We are losing the war on drugs, and everyone knows that.

But here is where I pause—dramatically—and I do this for two reasons.

One: Nothing about this subject is that simple; in fact it’s quite complicated.

And two: The entire proposition is based on a presupposition, which is: We are losing the war on drugs, and everyone knows it.

The problem with presuppositions is that they do exactly that—presuppose. And in this case it’s a troublesome supposition.

But let’s step back from whether we are winning or losing and revisit the notion that our effort to combat drugs is even a “war.” Is it? And if it is, who said it was? Who declared it? I think President Nixon used the term once or twice, but it wasn’t a legal definition or a congressionally sanctioned military action. Still, it became part of our lexicon.

So if it is a war, how are we doing?

We’re losing; case closed.  The debate is over, the scholarly have spoken. Media types, Hollywoodians, educators, politicians and even some in law enforcement have made the declaration: When it comes to enforcement of illegal drugs, we’re failing. Their collective solution? Surrender. Let’s legalize narcotics and tax its distribution. That’ll fix the problem.

So here’s the controversial part of the article—the part that’s going to tick some people off—I don’t think it’s a war. I don’t think we are losing, and surrender isn’t an option. By the way, the verb losing is the real point of the previous statement.

Think through that line of us losing a war and the uncontested conclusion that surrender (legalization) is the only option. Since when do we surrender because things aren’t perfect or there is no clear win? If you take that belief to its logical conclusion we’d have to apply it to other domestic type wars.

The War on Poverty. The War on Cancer. The War on Crime—how we doing there? Hell, we don’t even know how to measure that one.

Back to drugs. Are we really losing this supposed war? Let’s examine.

What would the country’s physical and psychological makeup be if drugs were legalized or decriminalized (two different things, by the way).

Legalize: regulate and tax.

Decriminalize: ignore it.

Either one you choose, what would be the result? Less dependency? Less addiction? Fewer deaths? Not as many innocent victims? Less intoxicated motorists on the roadway? A smaller number of overdoses?

A study cited in the Los Angeles Times noted that “38,329 people died of drug overdoses in the United States in 2010, an uptick from the previous year and the latest sign of a deadly trend involving prescription painkillers.” Prescription drugs! Legal narcotics! These taxed and licensed drugs accounted for 57% of those 38,000 deaths. Hmmm …

Law enforcement’s job isn’t to rid society of illegal drugs; never has been. Our job is to keep a lid on the chaos, the mayhem, the destruction, the death.  The same thing we are doing with all other types of crime.

Our efforts, as well as our successes, cannot be measured accurately when it comes to battling drug use and narcotics trafficking just as we really can’t measure successes in our battle against domestic abuse (less arrests, by the way, doesn’t translate into less women being beaten).

I know that I often write with a glib smart-ass attitude in an effort to avoid boring readers. Suffice it to say, there is no easy, politically correct answer to this very serious and deadly problem. And our future efforts need to be thought through very carefully before we rush in to legalize, decriminalize and/or a taxing policy.

I grew up a Chicago democrat, went to college and was fairly liberal; had the Starsky afro and hippie beard to prove it. Admittedly, I’ve become more conservative over the years. I acknowledge that I’m skeptical of government overreaching into our private lives and choices. But when it comes to drugs and legalizing them I’m hesitant. I’ve seen the devastating destruction they cause both professionally and personally.

I’m not saying that treatment and counseling are worthless (they aren’t) or that drug courts shouldn’t exist (they should), but if anyone thinks that therapy and medication or taxing narcotics will stem the addiction tide, pardon me, but you don’t live in reality. Get ready for a tsunami if we walk away from enforcement. The truth is: Drug programs work less than 10% (some say it’s actually around 3%) of the time. Consider the fact that most people who enter them want to get sober. What do you think the success rate is for people who enroll because a court gave them no other option?

Do I know the answer to this problem? Absolutely not, I’m a C student. But I know the devastation of narcotics on the body, the family and society. Give drugs a free reign and in a decade you might not recognize this country.                   .

 line-small.gif (227 bytes)

Fitness Tip from 

Body weight and resistance band exercises can help create a traveling gym, allowing you to work out anywhere. To ensure long-term benefit, click here to explore four variations that will help continue to challenge the body, regardless of equipment availability.
 

    line-small.gif (227 bytes)

Investigations: Establishing Informant Reliability


By Dr. Larry F. Jetmore

Reprinted from LawOfficer.com

 My October column dealt with confidential, reliable informants. Along with a model policy and procedure for department personnel using informants, the article also provided information on the use and audit of department undercover funds, and some practical suggestions on how to recruit informants.

This article deals with establishing the reliability of informant information for use in securing arrest and search-and-seizure warrants. For the purposes of this article, a confidential informant is a person formally registered and compensated by the department for supplying information or performing a service, such as a controlled purchase of drugs. This article also distinguishes between paid police informants and others who provide information to the police.

Although laws vary considerably from state to state, affiants applying for a search warrant must convince a judge that probable cause exists to believe a crime is being, has been or will occur; that the information in the warrant application is reliable and timely; that there is a fair probability that that the premises or person searched will yield the items sought; and that the items are reasonably related to criminal activity.

The Aguilar-Spinelli Test

For many years, the Aguilar-Spinelli test was the standard for determining whether informant information was reliable. In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 643, 1964, and later in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 213, 1969, a judicial guideline was established by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating the validity of a search warrant based on information from a confidential, reliable informant. This became known as the two-pronged test, in which a magistrate had to be informed of the officer s reasons to support a conclusion that an informant was both reliable and credible. In Illinois v Gates, U.S. 213, the Supreme Court abandoned the two-pronged test in favor of a totality of circumstances approach, effectively mitigating the requirement of officers to independently establish the reliability of informant information. In Illinois v. Gates, the court moved toward a more traditional probable cause standard, where a judge determines whether the information supplied by the police provides probable cause to believe there s a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Note: Gates is a federal constitutional requirement and doesn t prevent individual states from providing additional rights under their own statutes and requiring the more stringent Aguilar-Spinelli test. And because the goal of officers seeking search warrants is most often to obtain evidence of criminal activity, it seems to me that regardless whether the Aguilar-Spinelli test or Gates is used, we want the evidence admitted and the case to withstand judicial scrutiny. Following the guidelines, outlined in Aguilar-Spinelli is a good way to ensure this.

Key Elements in Establishing Informant Reliability

Investigators should take the following steps to achieve the totality of circumstances and thus probable cause under

Illinois v. Gates:

1. Corroborate as much of the informants information as possible;

2. Determine how, where, when and under what circumstances the informant obtained the information;

3. Explain (without citing specific cases and names) use of the informants information in past criminal cases that led to arrests, convictions, seizures, etc.;

4. Provide/reveal statements informants made; and

5. Identify the informant if it s safe to do so.

A Training Exercise

I use fictional scenarios to teach a variety of topics, such as probable case, exigent circumstances, search warrant application and establishing the credibility of informants. Students and practitioners are provided with the scenario and search warrant application forms. I act as a judge and either approve or reject the warrant. Copy the below scenario and circle or highlight what you believe should be placed in a search warrant application. Determine when you feel probable cause is established.

Background Information

You are Detective John Smith and have been a member of the Anywhere Police Department (APD) for five years. You ve been assigned to the department s Vice and Narcotics Division for eight years and a police officer for 15 years. You have been teamed-up with Detective Beverly Brown, who is also assigned to Vice and Narcotics. Brown has been a member of the APD for four years and was recently promoted to detective.

The Informant

Mr. Carlos Santiago (informant #3029) is a confidential, reliable informant who has provided information to you that you have used to obtain search and seizure warrants in the recent past. This informant has also made controlled purchases of narcotics under your supervision after being supplied money, which you properly obtained from the APD s undercover fund. During the recent past, information supplied by Santiago has resulted in the seizure of narcotics and controlled drugs, the arrest of persons possessing and selling narcotics and controlled drugs, and the conviction of many of those arrested.

The Situation

On Nov. 15, you and Detective Brown are on duty working from 0800 - 1600 hrs. At 0915 hrs, you receive a telephone call from Santiago. He tells you he has information that a large supply of cocaine is due to arrive in Anywhere from New York City late this afternoon. Further, a known drug dealer, Felix Bowman, left for New York City early this morning from his home located at 227 Merrow Street in Anywhere with a large sum of money to meet with his contact in New York City to purchase two kilos of cocaine. Santiago also informs you that Bowman was accompanied to New York City by one Hector Gonzales, and that Bowman and Gonzales were seen leaving for New York by the informant with Bowman driving a 2002 Chevrolet bearing CT. Reg #JLT-149. Santiago tells you that cocaine will be brought to Bowman s cousin s apartment (Dolores Domingo) located at 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D, in Anywhere. Santiago describes Gonzales as a Hispanic male, 5'6" tall, weighing 150 lbs., with medium-length brown hair and missing the thumb on his left hand.

Facts

1. A check with the motor vehicle department reveals that CT Reg #JLT-149 is registered to Dolores Domingo of 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D, in Anywhere. The car is a 2002 Chevrolet, four door, color red.

2. A check with the local light company indicates Domingo pays the electric bill at 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D.

3. Detectives Smith and Brown establish surveillance from an abandoned building adjacent to and with a clear view of all approaches to 129 Bellevue Street. The surveillance began at 1000 hrs on Nov. 15. At 1400 hrs, they observe a 2002 Chevrolet, four door, color red, CT. Reg #JLT-149, occupied by two Hispanic males, pull into the parking lot in the rear of 129 Bellevue Street. From a police department photograph, Smith identified the driver of the vehicle as Bowman. The other occupant of the vehicle is unknown to either detective, but based on the informant s description, they think it s Gonzales. Both men are observed to exit the vehicle, look cautiously around and enter the front door of 129 Bellevue Street. Bowman is carrying a black gym bag with the word Nike on the side.

4. At 1430 hrs, Detective Smith met with informant Santiago and supplied him with a $20 bill from the APD undercover fund, serial number H75149365, in order to make a controlled buy of narcotics from 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D. The detectives observed the informant enter the front of 129 Bellevue Street at 1440 hrs and exit the front of the building at 1450 hrs. At 1500 hrs, Smith and Brown met with the informant, who turned over to Smith a small glassine bag containing a white powder.

5. Brown performs a field test on the substance from the bag and receives a positive reaction for cocaine.

6. Informant Santiago informs Smith and Brown that he went to 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D and knocked on the door. A woman opened the door and said her name was Dolores. Santiago asked if he could get some, and she told him to wait in the hall. A few minutes later, Bowman came to the door. Santiago purchased the glassine bag with suspected cocaine in it from Bowman in exchange for the $20 bill Smith had given him.

7. 129 Bellevue Street. Apartment 4D is located within a city housing project. A check with the housing department by Brown revealed the apartment is rented to Dolores Domingo. It s a brick building consisting of apartments on five floors with the number 129 painted in black letters over the front entrance. A check of APD records by Smith revealed that a search warrant was served at 129 Bellevue Street, Apartment 4D on Oct 20, and 53 glassine bags of cocaine were seized from the apartment. Domingo was arrested for possession of the drugs and is currently out on bond.

8. Smith further checks police department arrest records, which reveal Domingo s birth date (5/11/70) and that she is a Hispanic female, 5'2'' tall and weighs 110 lbs. Arrest records indicate Bowman s date of birth is 7/4/72 and that he is a Hispanic male, 5'7" and 180 lbs. Bowman was arrested by the APD on Oct. 20 for illegal possession of a narcotic substance and is currently out on bond awaiting trail.

Probable Cause?

How much of the information contained in the scenario do you think is needed to establish probable cause that a crime is taking place, and evidence of that crime is located in a specific location? Keep in mind, the court can require the disclosure of the identity of an informant if it believes such disclosure is necessary to support the truthfulness of the officers affidavit. In most states, such disclosure isn t required if the officers show the information is credible and the informant's information reliable.

One last question: In order to protect the safety of the informant, how long would you wait after the obtaining of a search warrant to execute the warrant (hit the place) so the drug dealer wouldn t be able to single out your informant as the snitch? Because your informant s safety far outweighs seizing some illegal plant s product, the timing of the raid may be what ultimately separates the professionals from the amateurs.

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

Reid Military Instructional Programs In Non-Coercive Humint Collection

On January 22, 2009, the President of the United States issued an executive order mandating that the protocols described within Army Field Manual 2-22.3 ("the Manual") be followed with respect to Human Intelligence Collection Operations involving interviewing and interrogation ("HUMINT Questioning Sessions").

John E. Reid & Associates, Inc., has provided instruction to United States military and intelligence assets in the arts of detection of deception and non-coercive interviewing continuously since 1977. Over that time span, we've trained in excess of 35,000 military and intelligence personnel from more than 275 United States government security agencies and military units. Of those, we've provided instruction to more than 12,000 military and intelligence personnel from more than 175 United States government security agencies and military units since implementation of the Manual in September 2006.

We are proud that before the January 2009 Executive Order, John E. Reid & Associates' instructional program for military personnel (specifically the "Behavior Analysis Interview" and "Reid Nine Steps") had already conformed to the non-coercive HUMINT Questioning Session protocols described within the Manual.

The Manual describes "Five Phases" of every HUMINT Questioning Session each of which is integrated into the Reid military instructional program for use during Field Questioning, Screening, Verification Interviewing, and Debriefing within controlled as well as uncontrolled environments. The Five Phases are as follows.

1. Planning and Preparation: During this phase, the HUMINT collector conducts the necessary research and operational planning in preparation for a specific HUMINT collection effort with a specific source (chapter 7 of the Manual). The Reid technique emphasizes that the key to effective HUMINT collection is preparation by the collector of both the environment as well as the human component. Therefore, as a precursor to any HUMINT questioning session the Reid technique provides methodical profiling of a source's motivations, group affiliation, ideology, needs, as well as personal traits such as behavioral, educational, and professional backgrounds. By accurately sizing up a source and assessing the environment within which a questioning session will be undertaken, the HUMINT collector establishes a "game plan" for the interview that follows.

2. Approach: During the Approach phase, the HUMINT collector establishes conditions of control and rapport to gain the cooperation of the source and to facilitate information collection (chapter 8 of the Manual). Rapport and mutual respect between HUMINT collector and source is fundamental to the Reid technique. Our underlying premise is that a HUMINT collector's success will be determined by his or her approach which includes selection of a persuasive theme, i.e., the argument (presented in monologue fashion by the collector to the source) which appeals to the source's own mentality and beliefs and serves to psychologically (not legally) justify the source's conduct and facilitate disclosure of actionable intelligence. Themes are chosen after assessing a source's motives that are revealed both through Phase 1 (described above) and through the early stages of the interview process itself.

3. Questioning: During the questioning phase, the HUMINT collector selects and applies the appropriate questioning methodology to systematically probe a source's knowledge of relevant topics, collect information in response to the intelligence tasking, and ascertain source veracity (chapter 9 of the Manual). It is at this phase that the collector engages in the progression from the Reid "Behavior Analysis Interview" (in the event deception is indicated by the facts and by the source's verbal, paralinguistic, and non-verbal behavior) to the Reid "Nine Steps" of a verification interview. It is during the Reid "Nine Step" verification interview that the truth is fully developed both through the source's statements as well as through identification by the source of evidence that corroborates the source's statements.

4. Termination: During the termination phase, the HUMINT collector completes a questioning session and establishes necessary conditions for future collection from the same source by himself or by another HUMINT collector (chapter 8 of the Manual). Under the Reid technique, the prospect of successive questioning sessions with the same source is always a consideration. The ease of transition from one session to another is taught as a means of maintaining rapport and cooperation with a source without compromising either the collector's credibility or the gravity of the subject matter under investigation.

5. Reporting: During the reporting phase, the HUMINT collector writes, edits, and submits written, and possibly oral, reports on information collected in the course of a HUMINT collection effort (chapter 10 of the Manual). Instruction is provided into adherence to "best practices" to assure the collector's compliance with Reid's non- coercive techniques which, in turn, assures reliability of intel derived from a questioning session and validates the accuracy of information presented within reports to superior officers or to reviewing bodies at higher levels of command.

It is presumed under the Reid technique that non-coercive HUMINT questioning sessions require at least two components for success: a) rapport between the HUMINT collector and the source; and b) persuasive argumentation. The motivations of prevalent and emerging terrorist groups will affect the "Five Phases" and, as a consequence, the basis for rapport as well as the collector's choice of persuasive argument. Accordingly, instructional programs presented to the military by John E. Reid & Associates accommodate those shifting paradigms of anti-American ideology and motivation which are driven by geographical, cultural, socio-economic, and theological influences.

At its core, the Reid technique of non-coercive HUMINT questioning is pragmatic and user-friendly for those within a military theater of operations. It is built upon an understanding of a specific source's mentality, beliefs, and ideological framework that allows a collector to efficiently establish rapport, plan a strategy, prepare for potential resistance or counter measures, develop an approach, formulate questions, detect deception, and present motive-based persuasive arguments to obtain actionable intelligence from a source during HUMINT collection sessions of field questioning, screening, verification interviewing, and debriefing.

If you are interested in hosting this seminar please call Debbie Please at 1-888-255-1635.

.

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

Copyright: boogaloo / 123RF Stock Photo

 

 
 

(



 

 

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page>ge>