in this issue . . . Forfeiture and Patrol   Retired On Duty    Confrontational vs. Non- Confrontational Interviews   Officer Down

- Sponsored By -

Patrol Officers and Asset Forfeiture: For Success, Follow Murphy's Law

by Rob Garver, Editorial Director of AssetRecoveryWatch.com, - website for professionals working to win back the proceeds of crime.

John Murphy, the former head of the asset forfeiture unit of the New York Police Department, is a nationally-recognized expert on recovering the proceeds of crime and is in great demand as an asset forfeiture trainer. He is also a member of the AssetRecoveryWatch.com editorial board and was a featured speaker at the Asset Forfeiture 2009 Global Conference.  In an interview with AssetRecoveryWatch.com editorial director Rob Garver, he discussed training patrol officers to recognize potential forfeiture cases at the onset of an investigation, and making sure they understand what steps to take to maximize the probability of success. He also shared insights on what key skills a supervisor needs to instill in asset forfeiture specialists, and on how to successfully integrate an asset forfeiture unit into a department. Q: It's clear that a solid asset forfeiture case often has to begin with the beat cop responding to a call or coming across suspicious activity. However, many rank and file officers have little training in asset forfeiture. What are some of the key operational things a supervisor should make sure officers understand in order to maximize forfeiture success? A: Possession of money is not a crime — however, possession of large sums of cash is unusual and may be indicative of criminal activity. When an officer responding to a call for service or making a traffic stop encounters a person possessing large sums of cash, it is important that they have the knowledge they need to spot and effectively address potential criminal activity. Agencies need to train street officers in common money laundering techniques and patterns. This allows officers to articulate the facts leading them to develop probable cause. Money couriers tend to be transient and difficult to locate for any follow-up actions. It is imperative to ask the necessary questions and document the answers so that a seizure made as part of an investigation can be transitioned into a successful asset forfeiture case.   Understanding the state and federal requirements for a successful forfeiture case is also important. Officers need to establish a nexus between the cash and criminal activity, and to be sure that the criminal activity creates grounds for forfeiture. Q: What is the best way to provide that sort of training and to make sure its lessons are implemented in the field? A: I feel it is a good idea to develop a balanced training program. Integrating internal and external training options provides different perspectives and creates great networking opportunities. A combination of government-sponsored and private training seminars provide a sound foundation to build and enhance skills and capacity. Q: At the departmental level, what sort of steps need to be taken to assure that cases initiated by street officers can be brought to a successful conclusion. A: Establishing relationships with federal, state and local counterparts early on comes in handy when a contact or assistance is needed. It is important to know who to call and how they may be able to assist in a specific case or situation. Refer the seizure to your asset forfeiture unit or to the state prosecutor or a federal agency for adoption. After doing all the work it is important that the seizure is forwarded into a forfeiture process. As time, resources, skill and ability permits, follow up to identify other assets and generate new case leads. Q: What kind of support system should a department have in place for an officer who encounters potentially forfeitable assets while in the field, but may not know what to do with them? A: Agencies need to have a central point of contact to coordinate and manage their forfeiture cases. Regardless of agency size, it is critical to long term success that seizures follow a uniform process — including review of the legal basis for the seizure and coordination with other agencies and prosecutors regarding potential forfeiture actions. You don't want assets prematurely returned prior to concluding an investigation or forfeiture action; you need to know where each case stands in the process and to maintain adequate records to account for all assets in custody and for all shared money and assets. Q: What sort of training is necessary to make sure officers know how to protect themselves from charges of corruption or selective enforcement? A: Agencies need to have documented policies that dictate the proper procedures to affect seizures and to manage assets in an agency's custody. They must also have policies regarding methods for disposing of those assets and for accounting for and documenting spending of seized money. Officers should not act independently, and supervisors should require officers to document the law enforcement purpose served by each seizure and subsequent forfeiture. Procedures for seizing and processing seized cash must address any potential corruption risks and officers must follow them. Supervisory involvement is essential in seizure decisions and processing of assets taken into custody. Q: For a department just starting to actively pursue asset forfeiture cases, what key skill sets do you recommend developing internally? A: The three general skills I would develop are great interview skills, the ability to analyze financial documents, and the ability to manage time.  It is important to have good people skills to engage suspects, bankers, businesspeople, lawyers, accountants and other professionals in meaningful discussions that elicit leads and information that further your cases. Developing the ability to adequately analyze a wide array of financial and transactional records is imperative. The ability to quickly request and obtain these records is equally important. Officers do not need to be accountants, but they need to be able to look at documents, cull out the important information and identify the pertinent leads that are presented on paper. Asset forfeiture is a time-sensitive business. Being able to manage time and move paper and investigations forward in a timely manner is critical to an agency's success. The law dictates the short turn around time required to bring forfeiture actions. Being able to operate well with in those established timelines is absolutely necessary. Q: In a department that has a specialized forfeiture unit, what is the best way to integrate that unit into an existing case while avoiding concerns on the part of the primary investigator that cases will be "taken over?" A: As agencies consider starting a new asset forfeiture unit or enhancing an existing unit's capabilities, it is important to recruit the right people. In addition to seeking great investigative skills and a wide breadth of experience, asset forfeiture investigators need to be confident, capable and secure in their identity. Investigators with oversized egos tend to seek validation and credit for their efforts. In order to be successful, asset forfeiture investigators need to be comfortable in a supporting role. The case agent is the primary point of contact and has developed a case that is made better by a strong asset forfeiture component. If investigators in the field feel that the forfeiture unit is looking to steal or take credit for their cases, forfeiture success will be limited because the asset forfeiture unit will only be called in at the end, losing the potential to have a greater impact on the case. Trust is essential to long term success.  Asset RecoveryWatch.com provides law enforcement officials with news, guidance, and analysis needed to use asset forfeiture as a powerful crime fighting tool. To receive their free AssetRecoveryWatch.com INTEL e-newsletter and three free special reports, click here.

 

VETERAN OFFICERS: BE A MENTOR I remember looking at the “old guys” at the office when I first became a cop.  They would come to work with the uniform wrinkled, an old revolver strapped to their hip that looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in a year, no vest with a daily agenda of how little can I do and where am I going to eat lunch.  We called those guys “ROD”, or retired on duty.  I told myself I would never become one of them. But after years and years of seeing what we see, children neglected and abused, drug dealers and habitual drunk drivers getting off on light sentences over and over, the bull crap of political red tape and favoritism within the department, I started to realize how those “ROD” guys became the way they were. But then, something inside of me told me that staying on top of my game would have to be a choice, even a fight not to morph into an unproductive officer.  So on those days when I wanted to throw in the towel, I find myself making little choices to keep my mind and body in the best shape to be an effective cop. What motivates me now is that I don’t want the young, gung ho officers looking at me and thinking the same thing I thought so many years ago about the old guys. An older, more experienced cop that stays on top of his game has the ability to influence and set an example to the young guys.  A 40 something cop with 20 years on the job that comes to work in good physical shape, with a crisp uniform, eager to help people and eager to do his job will set an example to those younger officers.  I’m not saying as a veteran cop you don’t get sick and tired of the BS.  What I am saying is use your maturity as a cop and hide those feelings from the younger guys.  Then you and your best bud that has just as much experience can get away alone and bitch about things in private Remember always that someone’s perception is their reality.  As a veteran officer, is it not only your duty to serve and protect, but it is also your duty to be an example to the next generation of officers.  And who knows, 10 years from now, when those rookies have some experience, they will sit around and tell war stories about you, and remember you as “Officer so and so, that old guy on our shift that really knew how to be a great cop and taught us everything we know”. The example you set is how you will be remembered.  Young officers look to you just like a child looks up to their parents, even if they don’t say it to your face.  You control your legacy as an officer. As for me, I have no intention of being remembered as “Retired on Duty”.  So if you’ll excuse me, I need to go find me a criminal to put in jail today. As always, Stay safe and go home at the end of your shift. Andrew G. Hawkes www.highwaydruginterdiction.com

  

Shane Sturman CFIâ, President of Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, Inc. (WZ) discusses the differences between Confrontational vs. Non-Confrontational interview and interrogation techniques.

http://www.w-z.com/

There are really only two ways to interrogate a suspect, either by being aggressive or using non-confrontational methods.   Some interrogators think being aggressive brings admissions that would be obtainable in no other way.  Certainly, Jack Bauer, on the TV show 24, would agree since he extracts information in ways that violate the Constitution and the Geneva Convention.  Still, it is interesting how the use of aggression is a favorite approach.  The military refers to it as the “fear up” technique; police the “good cop/bad cop”, but regardless, it confronts the individual on his primal emotional level, fear. 

What is even more interesting, these aggressive methods contradict the most successful techniques used by American and German interrogators during World War II.  A common thread between the most successful World War II interrogators was the use of rapport to open lines of communication between the interrogator and his subject.  Yet in light of the success of the non-confrontative approach, investigators continually return to a confrontational interview or interrogation style.

The confrontational approach forces the suspect to initially deny his involvement in the incident under investigation.  Once the suspect has lied to the interrogator, he is now committed to protect that position with further denials.  In essence, the suspect now has to admit not only his crime, but also the fact he has lied to the interrogator.  The direct accusation often limits a suspect’s admission to a single issue while limiting the possibility of obtaining additional admissions to other crimes.

The non-confrontational approach provides an interrogator many more opportunities to succeed.  If the confrontational approach is successful, one can almost always be certain the suspect would have confessed more quickly and with less of a struggle using the non-confrontational method.  The non-confrontational approach encourages the suspect to make a rational, rather than an emotional decision to confess.  In addition, the non-confrontational approach may reveal a pattern of criminal behavior, rather than the single incidence the investigation had revealed. 

When we examined the structured non-confrontational method of interrogation in property crimes we found that those interrogators conforming to the non-confrontational structure had a confession rate of 73 to 85% depending on the group examined.  In addition, the interrogator's overall admissions were three times higher and with a greater variety of methods used to steal than interrogators using a confrontational or unstructured approach. 

It seems clear a non-confrontational method of interrogation is likely to provide an easier path to confession for both the suspect and the interrogator.  As the World War II interrogators discovered, a non-confrontational approach to interrogation delivers multiple benefits. 

There is another benefit to be considered by those departments recording their interviews and interrogations.  The non-confrontational approach often leads directly to an admission of guilt without the suspect ever having said they were not involved in the crime.  Viewing a non-confrontational interrogation easily illustrates the voluntariness of the suspect’s admissions and ultimate confession.

 

 

WITH BRIAN MCKENNA

Mission: As unpleasant as it may be to critique the actions of fellow officers who have been injured or killed in the line of duty, it is even more distasteful to see a fellow officer's blood shed in vain, to deny others the lessons to be learned from these incidents. The purpose of this column is not to criticize, but to learn from the mistakes, and -- perhaps even more importantly – the triumphs of those who have faced lethal violence firsthand. With this in mind, this column is dedicated to the officers whose blood was spilled in the course of the incidents it analyzes, and to all our fellow officers who have been killed and injured in unselfish service to their communities.   

Questionable-Risk Assignments Officer Nick Ekovich wasn‘t particularly concerned as he pulled to the curb next door to the beauty salon. Hang-up calls to 911 were even more common in his city than in most places, and they were unfounded almost without exception. In fact, bogus 911 hang-up calls were so common, and the workload so heavy (due to recent deep manpower cuts), that the officers had gotten into the habit of canceling their backup as soon as they were dispatched to them. Even though the field supervisors had recently put a stop to this practice, no one really took 911 hang-ups very seriously. In this case, it was especially easy to take the call lightly, because Ekovich had just cruised past the salon a short time before and nothing had appeared out of the ordinary. Besides, there had been no other calls for help from the salon, and it was mid-afternoon – hardly a peek time for robberies or other violent business crimes – on the Friday before the Labor Day weekend, a popular time for small businesses to close early. Ekovich had pretty well concluded that the call was unfounded; an assumption that was bolstered by what he saw when he arrived. All the lights in the front room were dark, while the lights in the back rooms were still on. From all appearances, the salon was about to close and the staff was cleaning up in the back. Nevertheless, Ekovich, 51 years old and a 25-year veteran of the city police department, knew better than to take any unnecessary chances. He eased up to the near corner of the salon, positioned himself off to the side and looked inside. It was a clear, warm day, and plenty of the late summer sunlight shown through the window, making it rather easy to see inside. Ekovich paused to give the scene a good look, and saw a young woman walking across the hall that led to the back door. She appeared to have come from a room on the right, and was heading toward a door on the left (later determined to be the color room and bathroom respectively).   

The young woman looked at Ekovich. Her face wore a calm, unconcerned expression that didn‘t change as her eyes met his. Without pause, she continued across the hallway, and walked through the bathroom door. Nothing in the woman‘s appearance gave Ekovich any cause for alarm, and her manner and dress led him to believe that she was an employee. Ekovich remained there a moment longer to check for signs of trouble. Seeing nothing out of the ordinary, he moved over to the front door and pulled it open to go inside.   

The woman Ekovich had just seen was not an employee, but a customer named Grace Finley, and her calm expression belied the excruciating fear in the pit of her stomach. She was living a nightmare, and was too terrified to alert the officer at the window to her plight. Just a few minutes earlier, she had been in the color room with her two year-old son, waiting for her hair treatment to set in while the beautician cleaned up in the front room.   She had heard someone come into the salon and engage the beautician in conversation. When the conversation dragged on and the beautician failed to return as expected, she walked up front to investigate. The first thing she saw was a large, husky man talking to the beautician. The man instantly turned to look at Finley, and then pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at her. ―Get over here! ‘ he demanded.   Fear threatened to make Finley‘s knees buckle, but she complied. Holding tightly to her son‘s tiny hand, she haltingly walked toward the gunman.   

The beautician was a young woman named Rita Kline. Kline was no fool, and she knew how to keep her head in a crisis. She had noticed the large man hanging around outside earlier, and something about him had made her very uncomfortable, prompting her to grab the cordless telephone. She had watched him closely, and when he started to move toward the front door, she punched a ―9 ‘ and then a ―1 ‘ into the phone. Holding the phone face down to keep the man from seeing it‘s ―on ‘ light, she approached him and asked if she could be of any assistance.   Although he offered no explanation for being there, he showed no interest in leaving either. Hiding her mounting concern, Kline had tried to talk him into leaving, but then Finley had shown up and he pulled the gun. Then, before the man could turn his attention on her again, Kline punched in a second ―1 ‘ and held her fingers over the earpiece to keep him from hearing the call go through.   The robber, later identified as James Morgan, a 35 year-old meth user with a growing and increasingly violent arrest record, didn‘t look like a man to fool with. Kline, like Finley, didn‘t hesitate to cooperate with him. She held the muffled telephone down by her leg as Morgan herded them into the color room. Once there, Morgan spotted the phone

―Gimme that phone! ‘ he demanded. Devastated by this loss of her lifeline but too wise to argue, she pushed the ―Off ‘ button and handed the telephone over.  ―Wait here! ‘ Morgan commanded, and returned to the front of the salon. The two women could see the lights go out in the front room, followed by the sound of the front door being closed. Dark despair fell over them as they heard Morgan returning. A moment later, he stepped back into the room, ―Gimme all your money! ‘ he growled.  ‘Jewelry, credit cards – everything you got!  As the two frightened women emptied their purses, pulled off their jewelry and started to hand it all over to Morgan, they heard someone enter the salon through the front door. ―What‘s goin‘ on here? Where is everybody? ‘ came the voice of the salon owner, Dana Schmitt, followed shortly by her appearance in the doorway. Morgan was already moving toward the door. He grabbed Schmitt by one arm, announced the robbery, and ordered her to hand over all her valuables. Without argument, she nervously complied with the request as Morgan stuffed his pockets with the booty. ―Is that all you got? ‘ he asked in a threatening voice. ―That‘s everything, ‘ Kline interjected as the other two women nodded their heads in agreement. ―O.K., everybody in the bathroom! ‘ Morgan commanded as he motioned across the hall. Then, looking at Kline, he said, ―You first! ‘ Kline sensed the danger of being cornered in a confined area. But she could see no alternative to compliance, and headed for the bathroom.

Morgan was no longer holding the gun, but she was sure he still had it close at hand. With her senses numbed by dread, she stepped into the bathroom, followed very soon by the owner with Finley‘s son in tow. As the two women stood waiting for Finley to enter the room, Kline realized that there might be some safety in moving as far out of Morgan‘s line of fire as possible. She suspected that the man intended to kill them, and she didn‘t want to be caught out in the open. She stepped into the toilet stall, climbed up onto the bowl, and hunkered up against the wall. Finley came in at just about that time, stepped up to the two women, and excitedly whispered, ―There‘s a cop outside! I think he‘s comin‘ in. ‘ In the meantime, Morgan had also spotted Ekovich. He snatched one of the spare smocks off its hook, pulled it on, stepped into the hallway, and headed for the front room. Ekovich didn‘t feel threatened as he stepped through the front door, but he knew better than to let his guard down. Still scanning for anything unusual, he unsnapped his holster, wrapped his fingers around the grip of his .45 caliber Glock, and left his hand there as he stepped inside. Almost immediately, he spotted someone coming down the hallway from the back room. It was a rather large man in his 30s, wearing a smock. ―Must be another employee, ‘ he thought as he eyed Morgan closely. Morgan didn‘t seem nervous or uncomfortable about Ekovich‘s presence. ―We got a 911 hang-up call here, ‘ Ekovich said, ―Is everything OK? ‘ ―Everything‘s fine, ‘ Morgan answered pleasantly. Morgan had approached in a casual manner, his movements unrushed and calm, and his attitude didn‘t change as he kept walking at the same unhurried pace. He turned to his left, strode over to one of the nearby workstations and stepped up to a small table with a black fanny pack resting on top of it. He casually reached into the fanny pack as if to retrieve identification from inside. It was not unusual for people to get their ID without being asked, and Morgan‘s mannerisms gave absolutely no indication that he had anything else in mind. Then, with blazing speed, Morgan‘s hand flashed back into view. It held an S&W 9mm that belched flame almost before it cleared the top of the fanny pack. The muzzle flashes bloomed savagely in the darkened room as Ekovich drew his own gun and returned fire.

Ekovich hadn‘t expected this, but the surprise didn‘t delay his response – he simply fought back. At this range it seemed unlikely that either man would miss, but Ekovich felt no impact or pain from Morgan‘s bullets, nor did he worry about it. Still, as his .45 bucked again and again in his hand, he could see that Morgan wasn‘t going down. The big man was advancing toward him, still shooting and showing no sign of giving up! ―I have to shoot this guy in the head, ‘ Ekovich thought to himself. He raised the Glock, pointed it at Morgan‘s head, and pulled off another round. Morgan flinched, and then crumpled to the floor. Ekovich immediately looked at his gun and saw that its slide was forward. Now confident that he had at least one round left, he kept the .45 trained on Morgan and backed off to the front door for cover. Morgan lay there in motionless silence. Ekovich had witnessed death many times in his long career, and he had no doubt that Morgan was dead. After reaching the doorway, he holstered his Glock and reached for his shoulder mic with his left hand – or at least tried to reach for it. His left arm refused to move. He looked down and saw the arm hanging limply by his side, drenched in blood. Morgan had fired five times, and three of those shots had hit Ekovich‘s left arm. One had slammed into the upper arm, fracturing the humerus, and the other two had struck the forearm, cracking the ulna and tearing a path along the radial nerve. Morgan‘s remaining two rounds had also landed on target, and, had it not been for Ekovich‘s body armor, they would have inflicted devastating, if not fatal, wounds. Both had struck the center of his chest, but had caused nothing more than the deep bruises common to body armor hits. It is believed that these were Morgan‘s first two shots.

Ekovich‘s arm was now useless and bleeding profusely, but he didn‘t let that bother him. Instead, he focused on what he had to do next. Using his good right hand, he keyed his shoulder mic and called for help. That done, he knew it was time to tend to his wounds. He leaned against the doorframe, eased himself down into a sitting position, and began to apply direct pressure to the brachial artery to stop the bleeding. It was then that he noticed the Glock at his feet. He had unknowingly missed his holster, and the gun had dropped to the floor. Keeping his eye on Morgan, he made up his mind that he would grab the gun if he saw any movement, and then kept up the pressure on his bleeding arm. Soon, one of the women showed up with a towel, which he used to help control the bleeding while he waited for backup. Assistance and an ambulance were not long in coming. Morgan was pronounced dead at the scene, as expected.

Ekovich had fired thirteen off the fourteen rounds in his Glock, and all but two had found their mark. Two had hit Morgan in the right arm, one in the head, one through the heart, and the remaining seven had struck him in the torso, mostly in vital areas. Ekovich was transported to the hospital, where he began his long recovery. The damaged nerve eventually regenerated itself, the other injuries healed and, after a year of extensive rehabilitation, he returned to work. He went on to retire after a 30 year career on the street, but regretfully passed away just two years after his retirement. While Ekovich was in the hospital, Finley‘s husband came to visit him. He told the wounded officer that he wanted to thank him for saving his wife and son‘s lives. He was probably right. The investigation had revealed that Morgan was planning to murder his victims, including the Finleys‘ young son, after robbing them. Officer Ekovich had done his job superbly.  

The Role of Training in the Outcome Officer Ekovich‘s shooting provides an exceptionally clear example of the lifesaving value of good training. His department‘s trainers had recognized the need to prepare officers for intense unexpected violence through highly realistic simulations. To achieve this goal, they had designed a reality based training scenario that thrust the trainees into a situation in which they were suddenly attacked at close range from a completely unexpected source; i.e., one of several harmless looking patrons at a restaurant table during a lunch break. As the trainees entered the scene, the gunman suddenly stood and shot them at point-blank range. The performance objective of the scenario was to immediately return fire after being shot. Regardless of how well they performed, the trainees were required to repeat the scenario several times to make sure that the proper response became a habit. It was not long after completing this training that Officer Ekovich faced Morgan in the beauty parlor, and he responded exactly as he had been trained to do. Despite the fact that he had not anticipated the attack, he responded coolly, quickly and effectively with deadly force of his own. He later commented that he was ―surprised but not shaken ‘ by the attack, and credited the aforementioned training exercise with making this possible. He said he felt like he ―had been there before ‘ and won. Instead of freezing up, he had focused on his ability to win, instantly adapted to the situation, and fought back.  

Study Questions

1. It is easy to become complacent when handling 911 hang-ups and other potentially dangerous calls that frequently turn out to be unfounded. What can we trainers do to help our officers combat this problem?

2. Like suspicious persons and other questionable- risk situations, 911 hang-ups present a special safety concern because of their ambiguity. Despite the fact that considerable danger may be present, it is seldom obvious enough to justify the use of highrisk tactics. Without any clear indication how to proceed, many officers opt for unknown- risk tactics, leaving them unnecessarily vulnerable. How can we do a better job of preparing them to deal with situations like this one? What tactical options can we offer them?

3. Officer Ekovich reacted quickly to Morgan‘s surprise attack, but he probably would have reacted even sooner if he had been able to watch Morgan‘s hands more closely. Discuss the importance of watching the hands. What can we do to help our officers develop this habit? The dim lighting hampered Officer Ekovich‘s view of Morgan‘s hands? How can we train our officers to deal with low light concerns?

4. Officers must be mentally and tactically prepared to counterattack, if necessary, any time a suspect‘s hands disappear from view. What are the options for responding to this threat? What is the best way to train our officers to execute those options?

5. Despite Officer Ekovich‘s quick and accurate return fire, Morgan seemed oblivious to his wounds. What should our attitude and expectations be about the ability of bullets to rapidly stop an attack? What can we do to help prepare our officers for the possibility that their bullets may not have the desired effect on an assailant?

6. Officer Ekovich wisely retreated to cover before assessing his injuries and calling for help, and then he kept an eye on Morgan while taking action to stop the bleeding from his arm wound. Is there anything else he could have done to defend against further attack by Morgan and/or any accomplices he may have had waiting nearby? Why are post-shooting tactics important? What is the best way to train our officers to use them? Are your officers trained in self applied first aid? How important is it to ensure that they receive such training? What is the best way to train officers in self applied first aid?

7. Officer Ekovich had been very well trained to respond quickly and effectively to a surprise attack. Considering how often officers are successfully attacked unexpectedly, how important is it to ensure that officers receive this kind of training? How important was the performance objective to the success of the reality based training he received? 8. In what ways did Officer Ekovich demonstrate a winning mindset? How can we best instill winning mindset in our officers?  

The incident recounted here is true, but some of the names were changed to insure the privacy of those personally involved. Likewise, in order to preserve confidentiality and clarity, some facts may have been altered slightly, but the essential elements of the story remain unchanged. Brian McKenna recently retired after 30 years with the Hazelwood (MO) Police Department, where he was assigned to the patrol division as a shift supervisor (lieutenant), and also served as an in-service trainer and lead firearms instructor. He is a certified police instructor and holds a Master‟s Degree in human resource development. Brian authors Street Survival Magazine‟s “Officer Down” column, a regular feature that analyzes officer involved shootings for key learning points. He also teaches officer safety courses and consults for Winning Edge Training. This article was derived from an article that originally appeared in “Officer Down.” Brian can be reached at BrianMcKenna@ileeta.org, 314-921-6977 or 314- 941-2651.  

 

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page