In the Field Discussion
ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310
Features
Departments
13 Bulletin Reports Juvenile Justice Weapons
Strategies to Avoid Interview Contamination
By Vincent A. Sandoval
Canines and Community Policing
By Charlie Mesloh
Negotiation Position Papers By Vincent A. Dalfonzo
and Stephen J. Romano
1
October 2003 Volume 72 Number 10
Canine units can enhance law enforcement efforts in all communities, even on college campuses.
Sometimes, investigators can impede or negatively influence the interview process and hinder their quest for the truth.
14
19 Book Review Deadly Force
20 Perspective A Study in Survival
27 Negotiation Position Papers (NPPs) can serve as important communication tools during hostage or barricade incidents.
United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC 20535-0001
Robert S. Mueller III Director
Contributors’ opinions and statements should not be considered an
endorsement by the FBI for any policy, program, or service.
The attorney general has determined that the publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law. Use of funds for printing this periodical has been approved by the director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (ISSN-0014-5688) is published
monthly by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20535-0001. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, D.C., and additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,
Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.
Editor John E. Ott
Associate Editors Cynthia L. Lewis
David W. MacWha Bunny S. Morris
Art Director Denise Bennett Smith
Assistant Art Director Stephanie L. Lowe
Staff Assistant Linda W. Szumilo
This publication is produced by members of the Law Enforcement
Communication Unit, Training Division.
Internet Address leb@fbiacademy.edu
Cover Photo © Charlie Mesloh
Send article submissions to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room
209, Quantico, VA 22135.
October 2003 / 1
he unmarked sedan car- rying Detectives Barnes and Bailey screeches to a
Strategies to Avoid Interview Contamination By VINCENT A. SANDOVAL, M.A.
T stop in front of a construction site, catching the workers in hard hats by surprise. The drone of city traffic, honking horns, and a vibrating jack hammer perme- ates the background. Slamming their doors as they exit the sedan, the two detectives investigating the disappearance of Donna Hudson converge upon one of
the men, and, in a demanding voice, Detective Barnes bellows, “Are you James Johnson?” Caught by surprise but not to be outdone, Johnson inflates his chest and retorts in an equally gruff voice, “Who wants to know?” Ignoring the other con- struction workers and the gather- ing crowd of curious onlookers, Detective Bailey crosses his arms and spits, “We’re the po- lice. And, you were with Donna
Hudson last night, weren’t you?” Johnson begins to deny knowing anything about Hudson’s activi- ties the night before when he is interrupted abruptly by the scowling Detective Barnes who barks, “If you don’t come clean, you’re going downtown with us. Now what’s it gonna be?” Johnson defiantly crosses his arms, looks Detective Barnes in the eye, and replies, “Well, I guess we’re going downtown,
© Mark C. Ide
2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
aren’t we?” Within moments, the detectives usher Johnson into the back seat of the unmarked sedan, which rushes off leaving the growing crowd of curious on- lookers perplexed at what they have just witnessed.
This scene plays out each week on television police dra- mas. Although effective at help- ing resolve major crimes in an hour or less, the interviewing strategy modeled in these fic- tional portrayals rarely produces the same results in the real world. To the contrary, the tele- vision scenario serves to illus- trate how readily an interviewer inadvertently can contaminate the fact-finding process, hence producing less than the desired results.1
Contamination occurs when investigators impede or nega- tively influence the interview process, thereby causing the subject2 to provide inaccurate
information. Contamination can hinder subjects from fully dis- closing what they know and, as a result, handicap investigators in their search for the truth. The concept of contamination, however, is not unique to law enforcement, but also touches other arenas, such as the world of professional psychotherapy and counseling. In an effort to arrive at the truth regarding allega- tions of possible sexual abuse, one of the dangers therapists face when counseling alleged victims involves distorting their memo- ries, thereby causing them to recount events that may not be accurate.3 “Therapists can unin- tentionally plant suggestions that lead to the creation of false memories of abuse. Memories can be distorted, even created, by the tone of voice, phrasing of a question, subtle nonverbal sig- nals, expressions of boredom, impatience.”4
An early study on inter- viewing found that the single most important determinant of whether a criminal case would be resolved satisfactorily was the information gained from the in- terview of a witness, victim, or suspect in a crime.5 Despite ad- vances in forensic science, expe- rienced interviewers recognize that this principle still holds true.6 The objective of any inter- view should be to acquire accu- rate and complete information without contaminating the inter- view process. Yet, any number of factors can contaminate the interview. For example, the en- vironment where the interview is conducted, to include the num- ber of interviewers, can influ- ence the subject adversely. In ad- dition, the interviewers’ own nonverbal behaviors, including the way they address subjects and how they deliver their ques- tions, can result in incomplete or inaccurate information. Also, re- search has suggested that another source of contamination during an interview involves the spe- cific questions interviewers ask subjects.7 Despite the fact that the amount of information ob- tained during the interview often will be in direct proportion to the kinds and the quality of questions asked, in reality, many investigators give little thought to the questions they ask at different stages in the interview. However, by considering the factors that can contribute to
“
”Special Agent Sandoval is an instructor in the LawEnforcement Communication Unit at the FBI Academy.
The objective of any interview should
be to acquire accurate and complete
information without contaminating the interview process.
October 2003 / 3
contamination as they develop their interviewing strategy, in- vestigators can minimize these effects and maximize the pros- pects of conducting a successful interview.
Depending on the subject of the interview and the circum- stances surrounding it, an inves- tigator’s strategy, on occasion, can become very involved. On the other hand, extensive inter- view preparation is a luxury that busy investigators rarely can af- ford. While the interviewing techniques used by Detectives Barnes and Bailey illustrate how readily an interview can become contaminated, they also serve to introduce an interviewing strat- egy focused on three critical dimensions—the interview en- vironment, the interviewer’s be- havior, and the questions posed by the interviewer—that could have improved the detectives’ chances of learning the truth about the disappearance of Donna Hudson.
FOCUS ON INTERVIEW ENVIRONMENT
Interview Location
In the police television drama cited in the opening scenario, a number of factors contributed to a less-than-suc- cessful interview. The back- ground noises and curious on- lookers only served to detract from Detectives Barnes and Bailey’s abilities to conduct the
interview and Johnson’s willing- ness to cooperate and provide them with information about the disappearance of Donna Hudson. Interviewing a subject on a noisy and busy city street with multiple onlookers is fraught with danger. An investi- gator must be wary of pre- maturely interpreting a subject’s behavior as disinterested, un- willing to cooperate, or even de- ceptive when conducting the
Prior to arriving at the con- struction site in search of James Johnson, Detectives Barnes and Bailey would have been better served by considering the importance of the interview en- vironment. They would have en- hanced their prospects of enlist- ing Johnson’s cooperation into the disappearance of Donna Hudson if they had chosen to conduct their interview some- where other than the construc- tion site. It could have taken place at their department, at Johnson’s residence, or even at a neutral location. By recognizing the danger inherent in asking Johnson any questions at his place of employment while sur- rounded by his peers and curious onlookers, the detectives would have avoided the risks of misin- terpreting Johnson’s responses and behavior and prematurely concluding that he was hiding information about Donna Hudson—a crucial mistake diffi- cult to repair. In reality, Johnson may have reacted to nothing more than their haughty ap- proach and to the fact that they confronted him in the presence of his coworkers on a busy and noisy city street.
Number of Interviewers
Popular television shows can lead the public to believe that multiple investigators normally interview a victim or even a sus- pect. Viewers often see two or more investigators asking the
interview in an environment that contains distractions or contami- nants. For example, if a subject breaks eye contact after an inter- viewer asks a question, the inter- viewer may prematurely con- clude that the subject is being deceptive. Instead, the subject merely could be distracted by a passing vehicle or someone casually walking by.8 Selecting a quiet place free of distractions9
and without any physical bar- riers between the interviewer and the subject of the interview is critical.10
”
Interviewing a subject on a noisy
and busy city street with multiple
onlookers is fraught with danger.
“
4 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
subject of a television police in- terview a barrage of questions. However, common sense and ex- perience have shown that people tend to talk about what they know, including confessing their deepest secrets and crimes, when in the company of one or, at the most, two investigators. The late, renowned polygraph examiner John Reid underscored this obvi- ous, yet often overlooked, prin- ciple. He recommended that only one investigator should be present in the room when con- ducting an interview and interro- gation of a suspect and also said, “The principle psychological factor contributing to success...is privacy.”11
As part of their interviewing strategy, Detectives Barnes and Bailey should have decided be- forehand the benefits of having one, versus both, of them present during the interview of James Johnson. If they had chosen to conduct the interview as a team, then one of them should have taken the initiative and become the “lead interviewer,” making the necessary introductions, building rapport, and asking Johnson the majority of the ques- tions. The second detective then could have focused his attention on taking thorough interview notes or on assessing Johnson’s verbal and nonverbal behavior. Experienced interviewers who work in pairs often “work off of each other,” with one taking the lead in asking questions and the
other filling in any gaps in the gathering of information that may become apparent as the in- terview progresses. In addition, by ensuring that no physical barriers, such as a desk or even an object as seemingly insignifi- cant as a drinking glass or an ashtray, stood between them- selves and Johnson, Detectives
suspect the person of concealing information or having commit- ted a crime.13 However, investi- gators also should realize that the subject of the interview is ob- serving them as well and that through their own body lan- guage they can either encourage or discourage the subject from providing information. People communicate volumes through their own nonverbal behavior.14
Investigators should heed the ad- vice imbedded in the observation that “...the interview is a process in which interviewee and inter- viewer exert mutual influence on the results of the interview.”15
Body language supplements what a person says verbally with dozens of messages, such as small gestures, eye movements, changes in posture, and facial expressions.16 In the opening scenario, the detectives’ body language sent James Johnson a very clear message. By crossing their arms, staring, scowling, raising their eyebrows, and a host of other nonverbal behav- iors, they placed Johnson on the defensive and truncated the pros- pect of gaining his cooperation.
Detectives Barnes and Bailey could have gained the psychological advantage by un- derstanding the role that the interviewer’s nonverbal behav- ior plays in the interview and then taking deliberate steps to ensure that their body language encouraged Johnson to talk. They could have employed such
Barnes and Baily then would have been in a better position to not only observe Johnson’s en- tire body but to maintain the psy- chological advantage by not al- lowing a barrier for him to “hide” behind.12
FOCUS ON INTERVIEWER’S BEHAVIOR
Nonverbal Behavior
Experienced investigators are acutely aware of the impor- tance of observing the nonverbal behavior of the subject of the in- terview, especially when they
”
Experienced investigators recognize
the strategic importance of using
their voices to gather information
and elicit confessions.
“
October 2003 / 5
appropriate nonverbal commu- nication as maintaining an open posture without crossing their arms; being frontally aligned and facing Johnson, as opposed to being canted away from him; leaning forward to show interest in what he said; and acknowl- edging what he said by main- taining consistent eye contact, physically nodding their heads to encourage him to con- tinue speaking, and, above all, not interrupting him when he spoke.17
Verbal Behavior or Paralanguage
Psychologists have long recognized the importance that the interviewer’s voice plays in the interview.18 An interviewer’s voice can af- fect the outcome of the in- terview, especially during the in- formation-gathering stage. If the investigator speaks in a loud voice or even stresses one word over another, it will act like any other source of distraction or contamination and will deflect the subject’s concentration.
Detectives Barnes and Bailey immediately placed James Johnson on the defen- sive with their abrasive, demand- ing, and demeaning style. Inves- tigators inadvertently can con- taminate an interview through their paralanguage (i.e., the man- ner in which they say what they say).19 Most interviewers readily recognize the importance of
the words that they use or the content of their speech. How- ever, interviewers also should pay careful attention to the man- ner in which they speak to sub- jects and the way that they pose their questions.
Experienced investigators recognize the strategic impor- tance of using their voices to gather information and elicit
during the interview. The natural tendency for someone who be- comes nervous is to speak faster and louder. Similar to fledgling public speakers who consciously and deliberately try to slow down their rate of speech, interviewers can transform the dynamic of the interview by intentionally ma- nipulating their voices. “Some investigators may find it difficult
to master the art of speaking softly at first because they are not used to playing their professional roles as soft- spoken figures...but mini- mal practice combined with concentration and self- monitoring should promote better interview habits.”21
The loud volume and abrasive tone of Detectives Barnes and Bailey’s voices did nothing to create a
mood that encouraged Johnson to cooperate. The detectives failed to consider that through the quality of their voices they placed Johnson on the defensive and, thus, discouraged him from providing the information they sought. Research has shown that the pitch of a person’s voice con- stitutes the best vocal indicator of emotion.22 Approximately 70 percent of individuals studied experienced higher pitch in their voices when they became angry or afraid. 23 Had Detectives Barnes and Bailey monitored the pitch of their voices and spoken slowly, softly, and deliberately, they would have fostered an
confessions. In fact, a seasoned polygraph examiner maintains that one of the most important qualities that interviewers and interrogators can possess is their ability to use their voices to project sincerity to the subject.20
Drawing upon years of experi- ence in conducting interviews and interrogations, this examiner has concluded that to project sincerity, investigators should consciously and deliberately slow down their rate of speech and speak very softly. This abil- ity, while unnatural for many, is complicated by the fact that investigators themselves may become nervous or excited
6 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
environment that encouraged Johnson to cooperate and to talk.
During the information-gath- ering phase of the interview, in- vestigators should make every effort to deliver their questions without placing more vocal stress or emphasis on any one word over any other, referred to as phrasing questions in a “lev- eler mode.”24 For example, in- stead of asking, “Did you rape the girl?” or “Did you rape the girl?” wherein an emphasis is placed on the subject or on the crime itself, the interviewer merely should ask, “Did you rape the girl?” Although this may rep- resent a valid question designed to assess a suspect’s verbal and nonverbal behavior, interview- ers who place more vocal stress on one word as opposed to another inadvertently can con- taminate the response, thereby
running the risk of misinterpret- ing the suspect’s behavior.
Detective Bailey immedi- ately contaminated Johnson’s response by asking, “You were with Donna Hudson last night, weren’t you?” Johnson may not have had anything to do with the disappearance of Donna Hudson, but his reaction to De- tective Bailey’s question, deliv- ered in an accusatory manner, prompted the detectives to inter- pret it as evasive and deceptive behavior. In reality, Johnson may have wanted merely to de- fend himself and felt the need to verbally retaliate to what he per- ceived as a threat to his mascu- linity or pride. This does not sug- gest that an investigator never should accuse or confront a sus- pect. Most investigators recog- nize when to appropriately tran- sition from an interview to
an interrogation and to mark this transition by convincingly accusing the suspect of involve- ment in or knowledge of a crime.25
FOCUS ON INTERVIEWER’S QUESTIONS
Most investigators define an interview as a conversation with a purpose26 and recognize that a list of questions does not, in and of itself, constitute an inter- view.27 This does not suggest, however, that investigators should not formulate relevant questions to address specific top- ics to explore prior to conducting an interview. To the contrary, proper interview preparation must include this aspect as well.28
The skillful and adept han- dling of questions can encourage
The results of interview contamination can produce devastating consequences, such as those that occurred in the case of a man falsely convicted of rape in the early 1980s. Inves- tigators conducted an interview of the rape victim, wherein they coached her into selecting the man out of a photo array of individuals.45 It constituted a classic example of contami- nation as the investigators subtly manipulated the victim, leaving her no alternative but to select the man, whose general physical description and vehicle matched those she previ- ously had provided. A series of investigative and prosecutorial errors followed, leading to the man’s conviction for rape. For years, he fought to clear his name and have the convic- tion overturned. Subsequently, the conviction not only was overturned but a jury awarded his estate a $2.8 million settlement.46 Unfortunately, he did not live to see his name cleared; he died a few months before the settlement at the age of 35. It was a tragedy ignited by investigators who contaminated an interview of a distraught victim and led her to believe that they had caught her attacker.
Tragic Consequences of Interview Contamination
October 2003 / 7
subjects to participate in the interview process. On the other hand, improper questioning techniques can create barriers, stifle the flow of information, and, hence, contaminate efforts to arrive at the truth. Experience has shown, however, that even when investigators have specific questions in mind going into an interview, they tend to pose those questions in a random and haphazard manner, giving little thought to the psychology be- hind eliciting the subject’s coop- eration. Although it appears de- ceptively easy, asking questions in a cohesive manner designed to arrive at the truth is, in itself, a complex skill. In reality, inter- viewers often ask subjects a bar- rage of questions with little or no forethought to a deliberate order or purpose. As one investigator has said, “We often fly blind into verbal combat.”29 Experienced investigators can identify with the observations that “...we ask too many questions, often mean- ingless ones. We ask questions that confuse the interviewee, then we interrupt him. We ask questions the interviewee cannot possibly answer. We even ask questions we don’t want answers to, and, consequently, we do not hear the answers when forthcoming.”30
One approach proven effec- tive with many investigators in- volves thinking of the question- ing process as a funnel, similar to a funnel used to pour a liquid.
In its design, a funnel is broad near the top and gradually nar- rows until it culminates in a very small opening at the bottom. Us- ing this analogy and employing the categorization of questions as either closed or open-ended,31
interviewers should begin the in- formation-gathering phase with broad open-ended inquiries de- signed to obtain as much infor- mation as possible and culminate the process with very direct and specific closed questions.
“Tell me what happened?” en- courages the subject to provide a broad, amplified response. Other open-ended questions can begin with phrases, such as “Tell me your side of the story...,” “Ex- plain to me...,” “What happened when...?” and “Describe the person....”
Many recognize that open- ended questions constitute the most effective questions for gathering information.32 For ex- ample, crisis negotiators use this technique to help resolve volatile confrontations successfully.33
Negotiators recognize that open- ended questions, by design, en- courage individuals to talk. As long as people keep talking, negotiators can gain insight into their concerns, desires, and mo- tives. Negotiators then can use this insight to attempt to diffuse a crisis. By the same token, inves- tigators also can take advantage of the benefits inherent in open- ended questions by concentrat- ing on them at the beginning of the interview.
The Value of Closed Questions
Closed questions, on the other hand, elicit more narrowly defined responses from the sub- ject, such as a yes, no, or other brief answer. Examples of closed questions include “Who was with you?” “What time was it?” “Where did you go?” and “When did this happen?” Closed ques- tions, which are specific and
The Value of Open-Ended Questions
Open-ended questions mini- mize the risk of interviewers im- posing their views or opinions of what happened on the subject. Beginning with open-ended questions takes advantage of the psychology of active listening as a skill that encourages the use of broad inquiries to gather as much information as possible. An open-ended question, such as
”
Open-ended questions minimize
the risk of interviewers imposing their views or opinions of what
happened on the subject.
“
8 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Tips for Avoiding Interview Contamination
Questions to Consider Strategies to Use
Where should the interview take place?
How should the room be configured?
Who should conduct the interview?
Focus on Interview Environment
Questions to Consider Strategies to Use
Focus on Interviewer’s Behavior
How can interviewers encourage subjects to talk?
How can interviewers encourage subjects to listen?
Questions to Consider Strategies to Use
Focus on Interviewer’s Questions
What is a model for posing questions?
What are the benefits of open-ended questions?
What are the benefits of closed questions?
How can interviewers ensure thoroughness?
What are other cautions during questioning?
Use an open and relaxed posture, facing the subject; lean forward, make eye contact, nod, and occasionally say “uh huh” and “ok.”
Speak slowly, softly, and deliberately; avoid stressing or emphasizing one word over another.
A location free of distractions.
Without barriers (e.g., desk or plants) between interviewer and subject.
One interviewer builds rapport and engenders trust more easily. Two interviewers should use team approach; one asks questions and the other takes notes.
A funnel, with open-ended followed by closed questions.
Gather complete information, minimize the risk of imposing views on subject, and help assess subject’s normal behavior.
Elicit specific details, ensure accuracy, and help detect deviations/changes in subject.
Address the basics of who, what, when, where, how, and why.
Never ask questions that disclose investigative information and lead the subject toward a desired response.
October 2003 / 9
direct, ensure that interviewers elicit details from the subject. Closed questions that prompt a yes or no response are referred to as bipolar questions inasmuch as these represent the only two an- swers that the subject logically can provide.34 By design, closed questions limit the subject’s re- sponse. As such, they generally are not the most effective ques- tions for obtaining information. Closed questions, however, can help corroborate information and secure specific details. Often, as investigators prepare to docu- ment their interviews by review- ing their notes, they find that they neglected to obtain detailed and specific information. To al- leviate this, they should bear in mind the importance of thor- oughness, which includes ob- taining answers to the basic closed questions of who, what, when, where, why, and how. By doing so, they stand a better chance of having acquired all of the details.
The Balanced Approach to Asking Questions
Over the last 70 years, nu- merous researchers have studied the benefits of open-ended, or narrative reporting, versus the use of specific, more direct questions, or interrogatory re- porting.35 One conclusion from this research revealed that the use of open-ended questions generated more complete in- formation, but potentially less
accurate information, than the use of more direct closed ques- tions. Being aware of this, inves- tigators should take advantage of the benefits inherent in each kind of question—open-ended ques- tions for obtaining complete information and more direct closed questions for ensuring the accuracy of the information.
Using this strategy, Detec- tives Barnes and Bailey would have had more success by begin- ning their interview of James Johnson with broad open-ended
ensure that they obtained all of the details concerning Johnson’s relationship with Hudson and the night in question. Other ques- tions could have included “What was Hudson wearing when you last saw her?” “What was her ‘state of mind’”? “What time was it when you last saw her?” “Where were you when you last saw her?” “When did you last see her?” “Is there anyone who can vouch for your activities last night?” “Where did this take place?” and “How did this happen?”
The Danger of Leading Questions
Interviewers can influence the subject by the words they choose to use. The precise ques- tions asked during an interview prove crucial because even slight changes in the wording can cause the subject to provide a different answer. For example, researchers designed an experi- ment to see whether substituting one word for another would affect a subject’s recall of an event.36 Forty-five subjects viewed films of an automobile accident. Then, they were inter- viewed, with each subject being asked the same questions except for one variation. Some subjects were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” Other subjects were asked, “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” Additional
questions, such as “Tell me about your relationship with Donna Hudson.” After establish- ing that Johnson, in fact, had spent time with the victim the evening before, the detectives could have continued with addi- tional open-ended questions, such as “Tell me everything you did yesterday from the time you left your job until you went to sleep.” As the interview pro- gressed, the detectives gradually could have incorporated more specific and direct questions to
” Interviewers can
influence the subject by the
words they choose to use.
“
words used to describe the same action of the two cars coming together included collided, bumped, and contacted. All of the subjects who were asked the question with the word smashed estimated the speed of the cars higher then those questioned with the words collided, bumped, and hit, where the speed estimates were progressively lower.37 The experiment illus- trated that the wording of a ques- tion can influence the answer. “This effect has been observed when a person is reporting his own experiences, describing events he has recently witnessed, or answering a general question, for example, How short was the movie?”38
During the information-gath- ering phase, interviewers should consider carefully their choice of words, especially descriptive ad- jectives and action verbs. Inves- tigators should refrain from us- ing words that could lead a person in a specific direction. A leading question indicates to the interviewee the response that the interviewer wants.39 In the auto- mobile accident experiment, the interviewers intentionally con- taminated the fact-finding pro- cess by using the more volatile word smashed as opposed to the more benign words collided, bumped, and hit. Through the use of emotionally laden words, investigators can con- taminate an interview by leading
or suggesting to the subject the answer they want.
As an example, investigators searching for a robbery suspect who repeatedly used a chrome- plated .357-magnum revolver in- terview a female victim who tells them, “He pointed a gun at me.” If the investigators respond, “Was it a chrome-plated .357- magnum revolver?” before she can describe the weapon, then they have contaminated her re- sponse by leading her in a very
specific direction. The legal sys- tem has recognized the danger of the use of leading questions and even has formulated rules indi- cating when they are permitted in that context.40 Unfortunately, no rules governing investigative in- terviews exist that prevent inves- tigators from leading the subject in a specified direction. The consequences of such actions can include inaccurate infor- mation, which can complicate an
investigation and even taint the subject’s testimony.
The Importance of Assessing Behavior
The objective at the outset of the suspect interview should be to fully identify the subject by using innocuous questions to ob- tain information, such as the person’s complete name, any aliases, age, residential address, and other pertinent background information. Throughout the interview, the investigator is endeavoring to determine what involvement, if any, this particu- lar suspect had in the commis- sion of the crime under investi- gation. The suspect interview, designed to ascertain if a person has knowledge of or is involved in the commission of a crime, often is referred to as the behav- ioral analysis interview41 or rel- evant issue questions inter- view.42 The use of open-ended questions at the outset of the in- terview serves the primary pur- pose of gathering information and, at the same time, a second- ary purpose, especially strategic when interviewing a subject who may have reason to deceive ei- ther through concealment or by fabrication. Open-ended ques- tions help investigators deter- mine and assess subjects’ baseline behaviors or “norms.” If subjects do not perceive a question as a threat, they generally respond in a manner
10 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
“Tell me what happened...”
Open-Ended Questions
Who What Why
When How
Active Listening
Verification Questions
Active Listening
Verification Questions
Assessment Questions
October 2003 / 11
consistent with their normal way of speaking and behaving. Expe- rienced interviewers pay close attention to subjects’ verbal and nonverbal behaviors as they re- spond to a question and continue to assess subjects’ behavior, looking for any deviation from their “norms” when they re- spond to more sensitive ques- tions later in the interview. Skill- ful questioning of suspects includes not only asking the right questions at the proper time but also monitoring and assessing suspects’ behavior during and following their responses to these questions.
Using this approach, Detec- tives Barnes and Bailey would have proceeded much differently in their interview of James Johnson. After obtaining bio- graphical information, they would have asked Johnson a se- ries of open-ended questions to obtain as much information as possible about his relationship with and knowledge of the disap- pearance of Donna Hudson. Throughout the process, the de- tectives would have monitored Johnson’s behavior closely as he responded to these questions to establish his behavioral “norms.” The detectives then would have asked Johnson more direct questions designed to as- sess any changes in his behavior, such as “Did you have anything to do with Donna Hudson’s dis- appearance?” “Why do you think
somebody would harm Donna?” “What do you think should hap- pen to the person who harmed Donna?” and “Would you be willing to take a polygraph exam in an effort to get this matter cleared up?”43 Any success that Detectives Barnes and Bailey would have had in determining if Johnson was responsible for Donna Hudson’s disappearance
leads to a breakdown in commu- nication, which greatly hinders the search for truth. But, by ex- amining some basic interview principles, investigators can develop more in-depth strategies to minimize the effects of contamination.
Although every interview is unique, by focusing on three fundamental elements—the in- terview environment, the inter- viewer’s behavior, and the ques- tions posed by the interviewer— before the interview and by implementing some time-proven guidelines, investigators psycho- logically will create an environ- ment that encourages the subject to provide more complete and accurate information. This, in turn, will lead to discovering the truth, the investigator’s ultimate goal.
Endnotes 1 The author is indebted to Mr.
Avinoam Sapir with the Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation (SCAN) for coin- ing the phrase interview contamination in The L.S.I. Course on SCAN Workbook.
2 In this article, the term subject refers to the person being interviewed or the interviewee, whether the person is a victim, witness, or suspect.
3 Katherine Ketcham and Elizabeth Loftus, The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual
Abuse (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).
4 Ibid., 88. 5 Ray Bull and Rebecca Milne,
Investigative Interviewing, Psychology and Practice (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, LTD, 1999), 1.
would have been in direct rela- tion to the kinds of questions they asked, the timing of those questions, as well as their ability to detect any deviations from his “norms,” both during and after they asked the question.44
CONCLUSION
Interview contamination can result in devastating conse- quences not only for law en- forcement professionals but for the public they must protect. Im- peding or negatively influencing the interview process, whether knowingly or unknowingly,
”
Investigators should refrain
from using words that could lead a person in a
specific direction.
“
6 John E. Hess, Interview and Interro- gation for Law Enforcement (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997), 3.
7 Elizabeth Loftus, Diane Altman, and Robert Geballe, “Effects of Questioning Upon a Witness’ Later Recollections,” Journal of Police Science and Adminis-
tration 3 (1975): 162-165. 8 D. Wicklander and D. Zulawski,
Practical Aspects of Interview and
Interrogation (New York, NY: CRC Press, 1993), 59; and Joe Navarro, “A Four- Domain Model for Detecting Deception: An Alternative Paradigm for Interview- ing,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 2003, 19-24.
9 David Vessel, “Conducting Success- ful Interrogations,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 1998, 1-6.
10 Joe Navarro and John R. Shafer, “Detecting Deception,” FBI Law Enforce- ment Bulletin, July 2001, 9-13.
11 Fred F. Inbau, John E. Reid, and Joseph P. Buckley, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 3d ed. (Baltimore, MD: William & Wilkins, 1986).
12 David J. Lieberman, Never Be Lied To Again (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).
13 Supra note 10. 14 Mark L. Knapp and Judith A. Hall,
Nonverbal Communication in Human
Interaction, 3d ed. (Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1992), 4.
15 Dale G. Leathers, Successful Non- verbal Communication (Needham Heights, MA: Allen and Bacon, 1997), 302.
16 Gordon R. Wainwright, Body Language (Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Contemporary Publishing, 1999).
17 Supra note 15, 299. 18 Ronald P. Fisher and R. Edward
Geiselman, Memory-Enhancing Tech- niques for Investigative Interviewing
(Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1992).
19 Susan H. Adams and Vincent A. Sandoval, “Subtle Skills for Building Rapport: Using Neuro-Linguistic
Programming in the Interview Room,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 2001, 1-5.
20 Paul H. Cully, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Polygraph Unit, Guidelines for Interviews and Interrogations (Washington, DC).
21 Supra note 18, 80. 22 Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to
Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and
Marriage (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1985).
23 Ibid. 24 Wendell C. Rudacille, Identifying
Lies in Disguise (Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1994).
25 Supra note 11, 85. 26 Supra note 6, 4. 27 John E. Hess, “The Myths of Inter-
viewing,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, July 1989, 14-16.
28 Supra note 24, 221. 29 Supra note 12, 4. 30 Supra note 5, 21. 31 Supra note 18, 73. 32 Supra note 5. 33 Gary W. Noesner and Mike Webster,
“Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiations,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 1997, 13-19.
34 Supra note 24, 33. 35 Supra note 7. 36 Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness
Testimony (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).
37 Ibid., 96. 38 Ibid., 97. 39 Supra note 5. 40 Supra note 5, 97. 41 Supra note 11, 63. 42 Supra note 24, 221. 43 Supra note 11 for additional
behavioral assessment questions. 44 Supra note 10 for additional informa-
tion on assessing behavior in the interview. 45 Katherine Ketcham and Elizabeth
Loftus, Witness for the Defense (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 38.
46 Ibid., 60.
12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Wanted: Notable Speeches
he FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin seeks transcriptsT
of presentations made by crim- inal justice professionals for its Notable Speech depart- ment. Anyone who has delivered a speech recently and would like to share the information with a wider audience may submit a trans- cript of the presentation to the Bulletin for consideration.
As with article submis- sions, the Bulletin staff will edit the speech for length and clarity, but, realizing that the information was presented orally, maintain as much of the original flavor as possible. Presenters should submit their transcripts typed and double- spaced on 81/2 - by 11-inch white paper with all pages numbered. When possible, an electronic version of the tran- script saved on computer disk should accompany the docu- ment. Send the material to:
Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin FBI Academy Madison Building, Room 209 Quantico, VA 22135 telephone: 703-632-1952, e-mail: leb@fbiacademy.edu
October 2003 / 13
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) presents Trends in Juvenile Violent Offending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data, which offers information on trends in juvenile violent offend- ing from the past two decades, based on data collected from victims of serious, violent offenses (e.g., aggra- vated assault, robbery, and forcible rape) by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). This bulletin observes that examining information from a variety of
sources related to juvenile offending will assist efforts to prevent and intervene in such delinquency. This report is available electronically at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/ violvict.html#191052 or by contacting the National Criminal Justice Refer- ence Service at 800-851-3420.
Juvenile Justice
Bulletin Reports is an edited collection of criminal justice studies, reports, and project findings. Send your material for consideration to: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Room 209, Madison Building, FBI Academy, Quantico, VA 22135. (NOTE: The material in this section is intended to be strictly an information source and should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any product or service.)
Bulletin Reports
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) presents The Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray, April 2003, which examines two unpublished NIJ-funded studies on the use of pepper spray in real-life arrests and compares them with previous studies. While the research cannot prove that pepper spray will never be a contributing factor in the death of a subject resisting arrest, it seems to confirm that pepper spray is a reasonably safe and effective tool for law enforcement officers to use when confront- ing uncooperative or combative subjects. This publication is available electronically at http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/195739.htm or by contacting the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at 800-851-3420.
Weapons
Canines and Community Policing An Introduction to K-9 Lite By CHARLIE MESLOH, Ph.D.
14 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
umerous municipal, county, state, and fed- eral law enforcementN
agencies in the United States successfully employ canine units as an additional, as well as cost-effective, measure in their crime control strategy.1 How- ever, this option appears underused in the college and university setting. As shown in crime and drug literature, cam- puses often suffer the same ills as many communities. Addi- tionally, the threat of terrorist
October 2003 / 15
attacks spawned by the activities of September 11, 2001, have cre- ated a sense of uneasiness in an environment previously free of such tension. These two factors offer compelling reasons for starting campus canine programs to supplement the traditional campus police model for the pur- pose of explosives or narcotics detection.2
Campus law enforcement agencies can establish such pro- grams with a minimum of start- up expenses through creative networking and planning. The University of Central Florida Po- lice Department (UCFPD) based its canine unit upon this premise and offers its own experiences as an example of the potential for this type of operation.3 This par- adigm links trained dogs to on- going community policing ef- forts by generating high levels of community support through planned media coverage and pro- vides creative funding strategies that can significantly enhance the probability of success in such endeavors.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Prior to the arrival of UCFPD’s first dog, the depart- ment’s public information of- ficer developed the proper social construction of the program. This construct described the ca- nine program as a new form of community-police partnership and the dog as the four-footed community police officer of the
21st century.4 Because percep- tion often becomes reality, the department worried that its ef- forts would be wasted if the public’s opinion of the program was anything but positive. Consequently, when a window of opportunity presented itself for a press conference, the de- partment decided to move for- ward, even though its police dog had not yet arrived. The depart- ment used a stand-in dog, K-9 Rommel, to provide the media with the necessary photo oppor- tunity. K-9 Rommel was fully trained and able to perform a number of search-related tasks that captured the interest of a number of television and news- paper reporters who found the story newsworthy.
UCFPD sent press releases to all forms of media (radio, television, and newspaper) and
offered the opportunity to meet its dog. All of those who at- tended the press conference re- ceived a comprehensive fact sheet that contained a cost analy- sis. By providing the information necessary to construct a news- worthy story, the department played a major role in the direc- tion that the coverage took. Con- sequently, the initialization of the program met with no criti- cism, and a strong relationship formed between the department and specific contacts in the media.
PROGRAM FUNDING
Campus law enforcement agencies can procure a number of items at little or no cost that may greatly enhance their canine programs. The only limit to the amount of items is an agency’s creativity. UCFPD actively
“
”
Campus law enforcement agencies
can establish such programs with a
minimum of start-up expenses through
creative networking and planning.
Dr. Mesloh, a former law enforcement officer and canine handler and trainer, currently is an assistant professor
at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers.
16 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
sought donations from other agencies, the military, and citi- zens in the community, as well as within its own university envi- ronment. Much of the depart- ment’s success hinged on the availability of surplus resources from the federal government.5
Although the donation of equipment and supplies is a cor- nerstone of K-9 Lite, cash fund- ing offers the flexibility to pur- chase specific items difficult to locate through a direct donation. UCFPD sent e-mails to various corporations seeking sponsor- ship, and one pet store chain responded. This organization scheduled a series of dog washes at a number of its stores in the region. The business donated the proceeds of these events, plus a cash match from each store, to the program. In addition to the obvious funding benefits, such events offer high visibility interaction with the public,
further strengthening commu- nity support.
Identifying Trainers and Handlers
Probably, the most important component of this equation rests with identifying a trainer and a handler for the dogs.6 In many cases, small agencies can “pig- gyback” off larger agencies. These larger agencies usually have many more resources to draw upon and may allow campus canine handlers to attend the training that they conduct with their own personnel. In addition, training aids for both explosives and narcotics detec- tion can be costly and difficult to obtain, as well as possibly create storage hazards. Most larger agencies have identified and dealt with these issues. In the pi- lot stage of a campus police ca- nine program, it may prove easier to steer clear of these
problems by using the training aids of other agencies. For ex- ample, UCFPD had a strong, positive relationship with many neighboring departments that of- fered to train its dogs at no cost. Moreover, by partnering with other agencies, handlers are ex- posed to varied methodologies of training, while the relation- ship between agencies is strengthened by the interaction between their personnel.
Acquiring Dogs
Within the K-9 Lite model, UCFPD attempted to identify donation dogs that possessed the necessary drives to accomplish the tasks at hand. To this end, the department searched newspaper ads and the Internet and con- tacted animal controls and hu- mane societies within the region. It tested a number of dogs before obtaining one from a rescue shel- ter, which had learned of the department’s search for a drug dog. Screened for ability and temperament by this organiza- tion, the dog has completed tracking training and has begun training in narcotics detection. Interestingly, one of the univer- sity’s fraternities ultimately paid for the dog. Although the cost of the animal was minimal ($175), the payment symbolized an im- proved relationship between campus police officers and the student body.
As a cautionary note, agen- cies must realize that the task of
© Charlie Mesloh
October 2003 / 17
testing and selecting a dog should fall upon the trainer that eventually will be asked to train the animal. Then, adminis- trators should make the final de- cision based upon the expert opinion of the trainer and the needs of their particular univer- sity environment.
Allocating Vehicles
One of the costliest invest- ments can be the dedication of a vehicle to the program. For UCFPD, however, a solution presented itself (quite by acci- dent) that overcame this issue. The department decided to adopt a 12-hour shift plan after re- search showed that personnel strongly favored such a change. Upon initiating this shift alter- ation, the department found that it no longer needed several patrol vehicles to maintain the same level of coverage. In fact, the department was able to remove two vehicles from the fleet and still have surplus pool cars. The department assigned both ve- hicles to the canine unit, thereby providing take-home cars for the dog handlers.
Obtaining Kennels
One expense not always ap- parent in the beginning is the kennel that accommodates the dog within the patrol vehicle. These kennels protect the dog from injury and, thus, are a nec- essary item. However, prices range from $1,200 to $3,800,
depending upon the quality and materials used in constructing the kennel. UCFPD contacted all law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida requesting the donation of surplus kennels and received two responses. The de- partment accepted both kennels and installed them in the two dedicated canine patrol vehicles.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Recently, in holding with the philosophy of community polic- ing, the UCFPD engaged in a re- search project to evaluate and better understand the various as- pects of student experiences at the university.7 As part of this project, the department surveyed approximately 600 students to develop a benchmark measure of K-9 Lite. In this system, canines represent an integral part of the public relations aspect of the
department. Likewise, UCF stu- dents make up the community as they receive the majority of po- lice services at the university. Consequently, the cumulative perceptions of the students serve as an evaluation and the ultimate measure of success or failure of K-9 Lite. The evaluation eventu- ally will become a steering mechanism for the program, with yearly surveys compared against it to measure levels of student approval.
Preliminary findings indi- cated that the students, as a com- munity, have responded posi- tively to the canine program as a form of community policing. Seventy percent of the students surveyed believed that the pres- ence of the K-9 unit could deter drug use on campus, while less than 12 percent felt that police dogs were a waste of resources.
© Charlie Mesloh
Sixty percent of the students reported that having a bomb dog made them feel more secure on campus, and 67 percent agreed that canines reduced crime on campus. In an examination of contingent valuation, students responded to hypothetical sce- narios about out-of-pocket fund- ing for certain canine services. Seventy-eight percent of the stu- dents stated that they would pay $1 or more per month to fund a bomb dog on campus, and 73 percent indicated that they would pay $1 or more per month to fund a drug dog on campus. Although analysis of the data will con- tinue, initial examination indi- cated that the K-9 Lite system has met with approval.
CONCLUSION
Canine units can enhance law enforcement’s crime control strategies, especially in the areas of narcotics and explosives
detection. Because many campus police departments face the same challenges as municipal law en- forcement agencies, they too may benefit from employing de- tection dogs in their crime con- trol efforts.
The K-9 Lite model imple- mented successfully at the Uni- versity of Central Florida repre- sents one method of establishing a canine program. Obviously, not the final word in the creation of a campus canine program, it nonetheless offers one way to begin using trained dogs within a university environment. Additionally, it demonstrates that the minimal costs to fund a canine program provide an op- portunity for even the smallest college to establish and main- tain a detector dog program, which, in these uncertain times, may prove extremely valuable to the safety of the students and faculty.
Endnotes 1 One example of K-9 unit cost
effectiveness, examined by the author and Dr. Ross Wolf of the University of Central Florida Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies in 2002, found that trained search dogs were 33 percent more effective than officers without narcotics- trained dogs when calculating the number of possible arrests.
2 The author cautions readers that dogs should not be trained to search for both explosives and narcotics, as the potential for a dog to misunderstand creates an unacceptable level of risk to both persons and property.
3 The author and Dr. Ross Wolf first presented the concept of K-9 Lite at the 44th annual International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators conference in Cleveland, Ohio, in July 2002. They based their concept on the model Government Lite first proposed by Marsha Segal-George in Public Manage- ment 79, no. 7 (1997).
4 Based on research the author and Ray Surrete conducted on police dogs in the media, wherein they examined 2,022 newspaper stories around the country over a 7-year period to determine trends and public perception. See “From Killers to Cuddlers: News Media Coverage of Law Enforcement Canines,” Police Forum 12, no. 4 (2002).
5 The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, http:// www.drms.dla.mil/.
6 For additional information, see the International Association of Chiefs of Police, “Law Enforcement Canines,” IACP National Law Enforcement: A Compila-
tion of Model Polices, Volume II, Section 34.
7 The project collected data from self- reported survey instruments. Surveys were confidential and voluntary and students were given informed consent prior to receiving the survey. The project adhered to all university requirements regarding human subject participation and obtained Institutional Review Board approval.
18 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
© Charlie Mesloh
Deadly Force, Constitutional Stan- dards, Federal Policy Guidelines, and Officer Survival by John Michael Callahan, Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc., Flushing, New York, 2001.
It is axiomatic that the use of force is an inherent part of law enforcement. It remains equally self-evident, in a free society, that whenever a law enforcement officer makes a decision to use deadly force, others will scrutinize that decision severely. To maintain the appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of society in effective enforcement of its laws and the protection of its officers, it is essential that such scrutiny be fair. That fairness can be achieved only through the application of factually supported, objective criteria. When the criteria are neither factual nor objective, the result never can be fair. In such instances, the ill-informed—not to mention the ill- intentioned—have a disproportionate impact on the process. While little can be done to alter the views of the latter, it must be hoped that good information can educate the former.
With this problem in view, a recently published volume may assist law enforcement
officers, as well as attorneys, members of the media, and the general public. Titled Deadly Force, Constitutional Standards, Federal Policy Guidelines, and Officer Survival, this small book (only 46 total pages) addresses a wide range of topics critical to an understand- ing of the legal and practical issues relating to the propriety of a law enforcement officer’s decision to use deadly force.
The book provides an excellent survey of the federal constitutional rules that govern the use of deadly force by the law enforce- ment community. Equally important, it represents an excellent primer on such issues as wound ballistics, the concept of “action versus reaction,” and physiological responses to stress. In other words, it covers the kinds of practical matters that influence an officer’s ability to perceive the existence of a threat and to implement an appropriate and timely response. It is not an exaggeration to say that an understanding of these practical matters is essential to a proper application of both law and policy.
The author, a retired FBI special agent, served in the Legal Instruction Unit at the FBI Academy before becoming the chief division counsel in the Boston, Massachu- setts, FBI office. He has dealt with deadly force issues not only as an instructor but also as a law enforcement officer in the field. As a consequence of that academic and practical experience, he is singularly qualified to bring together both the legal and the practical elements relating to this subject. His “big” little book is well worth reading.
Reviewed by John C. Hall, retired
Legal Instruction Unit FBI Academy
October 2003 / 19
Book Review
20 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
he true measure of a person’s character comes through adversity and how that
Agent Norcross serves in the Intelligence Services
Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor, Camden County, New Jersey.
T
The “Modern Warrior” A Study in Survival By Richard H. Norcross
individual survives the ensuing challenges. These tests can manifest themselves in everyday life, or they can come in one horrific incident. But, the way that people react, face the threat, and over- come it stands as a testament to who they are and what they are made of. This proves especially important for those charged with enforcing society’s laws. Being a law enforcement officer carries an awesome responsibility, and only those with the strongest character will succeed. In the law enforcement profession, there is no other option but success. The strength of character needed lies within everyone; learning to harness it is the key to developing the law enforcement officer’s “warrior” mentality.
Having the “warrior” mentality does not mean that officers are prepared to “kill” their enemy nor does it mean that they are prepared to “die” for their cause. Instead, for them, the words warrior and survivor are interchange- able. Because of this, these officers are prepared to accomplish their mission—to protect the public from the menace of those who violate the law—with honor and to the best of their abilities while overcoming any obstacle by any means. They can apply this mind-set to an armed encounter, to a hand- to-hand altercation, or even to a search for a suspect who stole a small child’s bicycle. Warriors/survivors are determined to succeed and will not be distracted from accomplishing the task at hand. In essence, they enter every situation mentally prepared to do what it takes to win.
This determination to win surfaced in re- search conducted on law enforcement officers who survived serious, life-threatening assaults.1
Although the study could not provide a definitive answer as to why some officers lived and others did not, it did find that an uncommon “will to survive” existed in many of the surviving offic- ers. These officers related that they attributed their survival to their determination to “win,” which they believed was ingrained in them through concentrated training.
However, for warriors/survivors, it is not enough to just live with the knowledge that they “made it,” that they stared death and fear in the eye, and that they walked away the victor. Rather, they must relate what they have learned, both good and bad, and the characteristics of sur- vival—that warrior/survivor mentality that enabled them to persevere—to other officers who, in turn, can use this hard-won knowledge to overcome the challenges that they will encounter. In short, warriors/survivors must learn from their
Perspective
October 2003 / 21
tragedies because not doing so is the greatest tragedy of all.
Confronting Adversity
My worst nightmare occurred on April 20, 1995, when I was a detective with the Haddon Heights, New Jersey, Police Department. I, along with five other officers, planned to execute a search warrant for a weapons violation upon a suspected child molester. Our tactic in the execu- tion of the warrant was a ruse. The lead officer, Investigator Jack McLaughlin, was to engage the suspect in a conversation. I volunteered as his backup. Four other officers from my depart- ment accompanied us.
The suspect’s mother admit- ted us into the residence, and Jack began speaking with the suspect—who was at the top of an enclosed stairway on the second floor. During the conver- sation, the suspect attempted to flee. Jack pursued him up the stairs, and, as the backup of- ficer, I drew my weapon and followed. Jack got to the top and turned at a half wall that ran down the hallway. He was met immediately with a hail of gunfire. The suspect, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle in one hand and a 9-mm pistol in the other, mortally wounded Jack.
As I was running up the enclosed steps, I could see Jack being shot in front of me and muz- zle flashes above and behind me. The half wall angled around behind the steps so that the assail- ant was standing almost directly behind me on the second story. I instinctively turned and began firing at the suspect as he began firing at me. I fired three shots before I was struck in my shoot- ing hand by a round that went through my hand and into my pistol, thereby disabling my weapon. Then, the suspect shot me twice in the chest, with one round penetrating my bullet-resistant vest,
and once in the upper right arm. The force of the impacts knocked me onto my back, and I was lying upside down looking up at my attacker. He then took another shot at me with the AK-47 as I lay on the stairs defenseless. This shot struck me in the thigh. His weapon then ran out of ammuni- tion, thus distracting him momentarily.
As I was collapsing after being shot, I remem- ber thinking, “This isn’t it. This isn’t the way my life is going to end, not here, not on these steps.” I was shot in the chest, collapsing my right lung and piercing my diaphragm. An intense, mind-
numbing fatigue set in immedi- ately. I desperately wanted to sleep. Just to close my eyes for a moment was the intrusive thought that kept coming. But, I was determined not to go to sleep. Sleep meant certain death, and I was not going to die. Then, suddenly, I could not breathe. I felt like I had been thrown into a pool to learn to swim for the first time. I told myself to calm down, to try and
breathe. Miraculously, I could inhale a little, just enough to keep going.
Once I calmed myself enough to breathe, several other noteworthy things happened. Ini- tially, I had developed tunnel vision, putting me at a defensive disadvantage. When I calmed myself, my vision cleared. I was able to see my opponent. But, more important, by concentrating on survival, I could exercise my thought process so that I could make life-saving decisions. I knew that I had to get off the stairs, so I used my elbows to drag myself down to the first floor.
As I stood up, the officer who initially had been behind me approached the open doorway. He did not see the assailant charging down the steps nor that he was about to step into the line of fire. I shoved him back to safety and stumbled into the kitchen area where I realized that I was
“
”
In developing the warrior/survivor mentality, facing
fears is the hardest obstacle.
22 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
too badly wounded to continue and made my escape through a side door. Once outside, I clearly remember thinking, “Going out back is probably safer, but the cavalry will be coming to the front. Go to the front so you won’t bleed out.” I limped toward the front of the house, collapsed at one point, again dragged myself up, and took a position of cover behind a tree and a telephone pole that had twisted together. I then yelled down to one of my backup officers that I was hit, that I had lost my weapon, and that Jack was down on the second story. Within moments, a patrol car pulled up and whisked me to the hospital.
During the drive to the hospital, I kept saying over and over that I was not going to die. I told the officer who drove me, the paramedics who met us en route, and anyone else who would listen that I was not going to die. I never lost conscious- ness during the entire ordeal until I was put to sleep in the operating room. I refused to give in to that desire to sleep.
As bad as my situation was, it became even worse. My younger brother, John, was home getting ready to come in for the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. His partner heard the “shots fired, officers down” call on the radio and called John at home. They joined up and responded to the scene. By that time, approximately 10 min- utes after the initial shots, the assailant had assumed an offensive position in several second story windows of the residence and was firing at all of the responding officers. He exchanged hundreds of rounds with officers in this extremely intense gun battle that lasted approximately 20 minutes.
My brother and his partner heroically moved a trapped family from inside a neighboring home and took them to safety. As they returned to
positions of cover to reenter the fray, my brother received a single, fatal gunshot wound to the eye from a distance of approximately 70 yards. My closest family member and dearest friend was gone in an instant.
Still, the gun battle raged on. In the end, a 14-hour standoff ensued, but, fortunately, with no further loss of life. The defendant surrendered and was taken into custody.
Facing Fears
If the only casualty had been me, this incident would have been difficult enough, but I would have gotten through it. However, what happened to me was worse than anything I ever could have
imagined. I saw Jack, a hus- band and father of two, die just feet in front of me. My younger brother died coming to back us up. I was critically wounded and, in essence, a lone survivor.
To make matters worse, due to the severity of my injuries, I was on life support for 4 days and could not attend those brave men’s funerals. Thus, I never really got a chance to say my good-byes, and I had a tremendous case of “survivor’s guilt,” a condition where people
play over and over in their minds, “Why them, not me?” I quickly realized that the emotional toll of this event was going to vastly outpace the physical effects.
As soon as I was off life support, I requested a counselor. I began dealing with what had happened. I faced the challenge head on, and I was determined not to die mentally, despite the circumstances. Not only was I going to survive, I was going to live.
For a moment, we need to imagine the human mind as a series of rooms. When a critical inci- dent occurs, no matter how large or small, a fire
“
”
The preparation for survival can take on
many forms, and officers should look on it as deposits for
their future.
October 2003 / 23
erupts in one of the rooms. We now have a choice to make: expose ourselves to additional pain and go in and put the fire out or close the door and hope that the fire smothers itself. We all know that the easy answer is to close the door and maybe try to smother the flames with a beer or two. Warriors/survivors, however, do not choose the easy answer. Instead, they take the path that will result in the accomplishment of their goals no matter how difficult the course. My goal was to deal with the fire and extinguish it.
In developing the warrior/survivor mentality, facing fears is the hardest obstacle. We must admit the possibility of defeat and further pain while coura- geously moving forward. The time will come when we must confront the unthinkable, but the true warrior/survivor will prepare ahead of time. For example, the time to ask, “Can I fight and arrest this person?” is not while squaring off against a tall and muscular 19-year-old gang member who does not want to be arrested. The time to prepare for that is prior to facing such a situation by taking a defensive tactics class or practicing with impact weapons. Survivors prepare both mentally and physically to meet the challenges placed before them.
While in the hospital, one of my doctors said that I should thank whoever picked me up and carried me to safety because that person undoubt- edly saved my life. I explained to the doctor that no one carried me. I told him what happened and how I had gotten myself to safety. The doctor credited my sound physical condition from weightlifting as the reason why I was able to help myself despite grievous wounds. Prior to my incident, I did not lift weights because I thought that they would save me the way they did. I lifted so that I could better perform my duties as a
police officer. And, thus, it represents one of the ways that I prepared myself to survive.
Preparing to Survive
Since September 11, 2001, the role of law enforcement has changed drastically. In essence, every man and woman in the law enforcement profession has become a soldier on the front lines responsible for responding to the new threats to American society. Due to these changes, now more than ever, officers need to be prepared to meet the challenge and survive to fight another day. While everyone hopes that no other night-
mare like the 11th occurs again, we must be prepared in case it does. In this manner, I am speaking of individual prepara- tion, getting oneself ready for the ultimate challenge.
The preparation for survival can take on many forms, and officers should look on it as deposits for their future. Many times, my superiors told me that if I needed a particular piece of equipment or to attend a school, they would get it for me or send
me. The bottom line, however, was that it was my life, not my sergeant’s life or my captain’s life. I was going to be the person who prepared me for the worst because, rest assured, it was me who was going to deal with the aftermath. With this in mind, I offer officers seven basic steps to survival preparation that I have learned from my tragedy.
1) Mind-set: This is the warrior/survivor mentality that says that officers are going to do whatever it takes to accomplish their mission, with the primary mission being their ultimate survival. Their mental preparation is the key to their success. Officers must enter each encounter with the attitude that they are going to be successful. They never should go
© Digital Stock
24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
in with a defeatist attitude. If they think they are going to lose, then they are well on their way to doing just that. In my incident, one of the most amazing facts was how fast it hap- pened. The third officer on our team had gotten from the front door of the house to the doorway to the second story—a span of about 11 feet—in the time that the suspect killed Jack and shot me multiple times. In mere seconds, my life changed forever. It is vitally important to realize that these types of events occur in the blink of an eye and that officers’ survival instincts must be second nature. Officers cannot think about their actions; they have to happen naturally.
2) Equipment: The day of my incident, I had changed from an undercover holster to a tactical duty rig. I had my spare magazines and hand- cuffs within easy reach. I had donned my bullet- resistant vest and put a new battery in my radio. I took care to have all of my needed equipment ready and available. Even though my vest did not stop all of the bullets, it did slow them and minimized the trauma. Officers always should make sure that their gear is in top condition. If it is worn, they should replace it or, where practical, upgrade it to the best available. I did not have a backup weapon the day of my incident. In retrospect, I probably would not have been able to use it, but I would have liked to have had it had I become trapped. If departments permit it, I recommend carrying a secondary firearm.
3) Training: Officers should get as much training as possible—they should not let the last law enforcement training they had be basic academy training. If an agency cannot
send its officers to school, they should attend on their own. Officers also should not limit themselves to “cop” schools, but take a martial arts class or learn a foreign language applicable to their policing region. Training also includes firearms proficiency. My assail- ant practiced at a range on an average of once every 11 days. How many officers take their training that seriously? Moreover, officers should remember to practice weak-hand shooting. I was shot in my shooting hand, and I personally know of three other officers also shot in their shooting hands during engagements.
4) Physical fitness: The only way to find out how a person’s body will react in an intense situation is to stress it in some type of con-
trolled physical exertion, in other words, exercise. This is nothing new. To ensure their survival, officers must have their main piece of equipment, their bodies, in top shape. They should do whatever they like— lift weights, run, or ride a bike—just do something to raise their heart rates and strengthen their bodies. Offic- ers will adapt, both physically and mentally, to situations quicker if they have trained for
them. As their heart rates and breathing increase, their mental capacities diminish unless they train their bodies to effectively operate under stressful conditions. In the words of General George Patton, “A pint of sweat today will save a gallon of blood tomorrow.”
5) Professionalism: Officers must be profes- sional and do what they were trained to do. No matter what happens, no one can take away an officer’s professional spirit. It is my opinion that professionalism walks hand in
“
”
I told the officer who drove me, the
paramedics who met us en route, and
anyone else who would listen that I was not
going to die.
October 2003 / 25
hand with the warrior/survivor mentality and that one cannot exist without the other. In the incident that took my brother’s life, the officers around him emerged from cover and dragged him to safety. These same officers then returned to the firing line and continued to engage the suspect in gunfire. When the shooting stopped and the laws of our society dictated negotiation as the course of action, they did that. They behaved as professional police officers and did their jobs. The profes- sionalism displayed by those heroic officers serves as a standard to emulate for everyone who wears a badge.
6) Aftermath problems: When a critical incident occurs, officers must not shut the door and allow the fire to spread, but go in and deal with the problem. Like any wound, if it is allowed to fester, it will hamper their recovery and, ultimately, the quality of the life they are trying to save. Some problems they can handle and others they cannot. Officers must have the wisdom to know the difference; to know when it is time to ask for help from a spouse, a friend, or a profes- sional; and to know that there is no shame in asking for that help. Facing fears is the warrior/ survivor’s hardest obstacle, and there is no shame in facing these fears. If I had not had the courage to ask for help from a profes- sional early into my recovery, I would not be where I am today. Many agencies have policies mandating that their officers see a specialist after a critical incident. While they can make their officers go to the meeting, only the officers can make themselves partic- ipate in any recovery offered. Officers must
never allow foolish pride or ignorance to stand in the way of their well-being.
7) Worst-case scenario: One of the first things that recruits do when they join the U.S. military is fill out their will and assign their insurance benefits. The main reason for this is not in case they die, but, instead, it is so they are not worrying about their family members and their future when they should be concen- trating on fighting. The same thing applies to the law enforcement profession. Officers should talk with their spouse about worse- case scenarios and discuss insurance benefits, funeral arrangements, and other issues sur- rounding their untimely demise. I know this is unpleasant, but it is a burden that officers will not carry to work if they already have dealt
with it. They then can concen- trate on surviving and not what will happen if they do not.
By incorporating these simple principles into their everyday lives, officers will have a box full of survival tools. When a crisis hits, such as the death of a child, they can reach into their handy toolbox and grab the implement needed to make the repairs. Some officers probably can think of other things that I may have omitted. That is excellent because my
goal is to get them to think of their own survival and what they can do to make their chances even better. We are all individuals, and different things work for different people. Many officers will use the new tools in their toolbox for preventative maintenance and that also is a goal of mine.
Conclusion
Am I “Superman”? I think not. Many people have told me that they could not have endured what I have and do what I do. I always tell them
© Peter Hendrie, Tribute
26 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
that I am nobody special. I have learned that there is no “Superman” and that we all are human. I have faced my own mortality and realized that life is truly a precious gift. Living is what I do in the present because I cannot change the past nor guarantee the future. Surviving is not existing; it is living life to the fullest.
The person I am is the person I am. Prior to April 20, 1995, I did not look at myself as having a warrior/survivor mentality. My self-description was that I was a determined individual who did not like to lose. One of my friends pointed out that I was a warrior/survi- vor because of my determina- tion to overcome the adversity that I had been dealt. But, I felt that I had that desire because I had a wife and three children to think about. I had to survive not only for me but also for them. Without them and their love, I certainly would not have gotten as well as I have.
I also pushed myself out of anger. Anger can become just as good a motiva- tion for survival as love. Some people may disagree with me, I am sure. But, I was not going to let the person who did this to me think that he had killed me without killing me. When it came time for the trial, I was going to be there, head held high, to testify against him. I wanted him to see that he had not destroyed me. I wanted him to see that he had failed.
Due to that characterization as a warrior/ survivor by my friend, I have examined my personality and those of others with similar traits. We all exhibited that same mentality, even though none of us ever really considered it to be such. We were all professionals who took our jobs seriously and did whatever was required to get that job done each day of our lives. It was not a onetime occurrence; it was how we always car- ried ourselves. The mind-set is not a thought or
an attitude. It is a way of life. It is not something that goes away at the end of our shift. It is our being. It is who we are.
I was determined to make my life right and move forward. I went to physical therapy and counseling. I endured hour upon hour of excruci- ating pain at the hands of my physical therapists. I underwent session after session of psychological pain while working with my psychologist. In the end, I have become a much better person with a
much deeper appreciation of life. I also have a mission to take what I have experienced and teach other officers some basic, instinctive survival skills. I teach them to fight and never give up. I show them that I am no one special, and, by that, I mean that everything I did, have done, and will do again lies within each one of us. All that we need is the awareness that these tools exist inside us and the desire to implement them. If only one
officer applies these lessons learned and is able to survive, then I know that what I have endured and continue to share with others is worthwhile. My questions are simple: Are you that officer? Will you be the one to survive? Only you know for sure.
Endnotes 1 Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E.
Miller III, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Institute of Justice, In the Line of Fire (Washington, DC, 1997), 4.
“
”
It is my opinion that professionalism walks hand in hand with the
warrior/survivor mentality and that one cannot exist without the other.
The author presents this article as a tribute to Officer John Norcross of the Haddon Heights, New Jersey, Police Department and Investigator Jack McLaughlin of the Camden County, New Jersey, Prosecutor’s Office, two valiant and compassionate men who made the supreme sacrifice in fulfilling their sworn duty of safeguarding the public.
October 2003 / 27
risis negotiators take great pride in their com- munication skills. TheirC
specialty is to influence and per- suade, primarily through the use of active listening skills1 and other communication techniques and strategies. Ironically, how- ever, it is not unusual for even the most well-trained crisis ne- gotiators to have difficulty effec- tively communicating the ratio- nale for their assessments and strategy recommendations to the on-scene commander. To this end, negotiation position papers
(NPPs) help negotiators express their positions clearly and con- cisely during an incident.
The FBI’s Crisis Negotiation Unit routinely uses NPPs and values them as important tools, especially during hostage or bar- ricade incidents. Similarly, the use of well-formatted NPPs can prove very beneficial to other law enforcement agencies when handling these incidents.
Why Use NPPs?
The crisis negotiation coor- dinator, or team leader, is one of
the on-scene commander’s key advisors during hostage or barri- cade incidents. Specifically, throughout the course of these incidents, the on-scene com- mander relies on the crisis nego- tiation coordinator to provide periodic briefings that give the status (an overall description of the incident), an assessment (an analysis of the incident), and recommendations (guidance and strategy).
Overall communication can be difficult during a crisis sit- uation. The stress levels of all
Negotiation Position Papers A Tool for Crisis Negotiators By VINCENT A. DALFONZO and STEPHEN J. ROMANO, M.A.
28 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Special Agent Dalfonzo is a program manager in the Crisis Negotiation Unit of the Critical Incident Response Group at the FBI Academy.
Special Agent Romano is chief of the Crisis Negotiation Unit of the Critical Incident Response Group at the FBI Academy.
major crisis management partici- pants are high; the on-scene commander, who is under an enormous amount of pressure, in fact, also may be in crisis. As a result, the crisis negotiation co- ordinator may find briefing the on-scene commander an arduous task. NPPs serve as visual aids to complement these briefings; however, crisis negotiators should not use them as substi- tutes for briefings.
Also, negotiation teams ide- ally share NPPs with the com- mand and tactical components. In this regard, NPPs help ensure that all three components of the crisis management triad (com- mand, negotiation, and tactical) become equally well informed during a crisis situation.
Of course, NPPs are not used to communicate time-sensitive
or life-threatening information obtained by the crisis negotiation team. Such information is re- layed immediately to the com- mand and tactical components.
What Are The Benefits?
NPPs offer many benefits. Specifically, the crisis negotia- tion team will find that they en- hance teamwork, communica- tion, and documentation.
First, preparing NPPs can help the various members of the crisis negotiation team work together effectively. Although NPP writing may involve only one member, all team members contribute ideas. As a result, the entire team focuses on the negotiation effort. To this end, NPP preparation helps ensure that team members become equally aware of all of the latest
developments and also keeps them thinking proactively.
NPPs also can serve as brief- ing documents for those negotia- tors who may relieve, or comple- ment, other negotiators during an incident. Responding negotia- tors then not only will have situa- tion boards, logs, and audio tapes but also NPPs to review to help them become fully informed more quickly, thus helping them have an immediate impact dur- ing an incident.
In addition to being a written reinforcement of the crisis nego- tiation coordinator’s oral brief- ing to the on-scene commander, NPPs also can enable the on- scene commander to brief those higher in the chain of command. Not only is this an additional burden removed from the on- scene commander but it also be- comes more likely that an accu- rate account of the negotiation posture is conveyed to higher authorities.
Last, NPPs clearly document the crisis negotiation team’s assessments and strategy rec- ommendations throughout entire incidents. This can prove inval- uable in cases where there is a difference of opinion during the conduct of a postincident cri- tique or in the event of subse- quent litigation proceedings.
What Is The Format?
This recommended format can serve as a guideline for
October 2003 / 29
Assessment
1. This is a hostage situation.
2. The subject is a career criminal with a violent past, but is not prepared, through either planning or experience, for this situation.
3. The subject appears confused, scared, and concerned for his own safety, despite stating that he is in control of the situation and “has a plan.”
4. The subject is using the children as protection from the police, not for bargaining.
5. The subject has not pressed for transportation or threatened his hostages; these both are positive signs.
6. Despite the presence of positive signs, the subject’s reference to “his plan,” without any reference to his future, seems to indicate the potential for suicide.
7. The crisis negotiation team assesses the threat level to the hostages as low. The team considers the subject a moderate suicide risk.
1. The subject remains in a private residence he entered 12 hours ago while fleeing from police. He possesses a 9-mm semiautomatic pistol.
2. The subject is keeping police at bay by holding two small children (ages 2 and 5), unrelated to him, as hostages. He has not threatened or harmed the children.
3. The subject demanded transportation only once, at the beginning of the siege, without setting any deadlines.
4. The subject’s telephone line was captured.
5. The subject refuses to exit the crisis site or to surrender.
Status
Recommendations
1. The crisis negotiation team should use active listening skills to build rapport and to explore the subject’s concerns and motivations.
2. While communicating with the subject, to encourage him to surrender, the team should attempt to downplay his crimes and to offer a scenario that would minimize his embarrassment.
3. The team should consider using an appropriate family member as a third-party intermediary, especially if the subject’s suicide potential increases.
4. The team should coordinate a food delivery to the subject to build trust and rapport and to allow the tactical team to gain a closer look at the crisis site.
5. Because the subject continues monitoring the news on television, incident command should send positive statements through the media regarding law enforcement’s commitment to reach a peaceful resolution.
6. A low SWAT team profile should be used at this time. The subject currently enjoys a significant amount of control and leverage based upon his use of the children as hostages.
This sample NPP, both easy to prepare and understand, demonstrates how crisis negotiation teams can format and use it in crisis situations.
Sample NPP
NPP - 2 Date Time
In this fictional hostage/barricade situation, several telephone contacts occurred between the crisis negotiation team and a male subject. These contacts occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.
30 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
preparing NPPs. It is easy both to prepare and understand. First, the upper right-hand corner of the paper should denote the num- ber of the NPP (e.g., NPP-1, NPP-2), along with the date and time the paper was prepared. This makes filing, retrieving, and reviewing the document easier. Second, the preamble to the body of the NPP should iden- tify the number of contacts, and the times of those contacts, that the position paper is based upon (e.g., The following status, as- sessment, and recommendations are based upon two telephone contacts (6 a.m. and 8 a.m.) with the subject).
Next, the body of the NPP is divided into three sections; this is where the status, assessment, and recommendations are out- lined. Concise, numbered bullets under each part are suggested, rather than a paragraph format.
Experience has shown that, dur- ing crisis situations, on-scene commanders are more apt to read, comprehend, and retain data in this simplified, user- friendly format.
The status section should provide a summary of the current situation, based upon the most recent intelligence, along with the latest contacts with the sub- ject. The subject’s identity, weaponry, demands, and dead- lines, as well as the identity and welfare of the hostage or victim, are areas of interest. Brevity and accuracy are im- portant; too much data may be counterproductive.
In the assessment section, the crisis negotiation team should explain whether they are dealing with a hostage, nonhostage (bar- ricade with victims), lone barri- cade, or suicide situation. The team also should explain if the
subject seems capable of violent behavior (verbalized or not), ap- parent motivations, the per- ceived threat level (low, moder- ate, or high), demands, and subject-negotiator rapport.
Finally, in the recommenda- tions section, the crisis negotia- tion team should outline its ne- gotiation strategy recommenda- tions, emphasizing what it hopes to accomplish during its next contact. This section also is used in advising the on-scene com- mander that a command decision may be required before pursuing a specific strategy. The on-scene commander must give clear negotiation guidelines that the crisis negotiation team must follow.
Conclusion
Using negotiation position papers represents an excellent method for communicating the crisis negotiation team’s posi- tion during a hostage or barri- cade incident. NPPs complement verbal briefings provided to the command staff; they can provide invaluable assistance to the crisis negotiation team in effectively stating and defending its assess- ments and strategy recommen- dations to the on-scene com- mander. Further, NPPs can help the command, negotiation, and tactical components become equally well-informed during crisis situations.
Such critical incidents can prove highly stressful and
Subscribe Now
confusing; communication can become extremely difficult. NPPs can help bring structure and clarity to these situations. They serve the important pur- pose of making communication easier, even in some of the most difficult circumstances.
Endnotes 1 Active listening skills (ALS) are
effective in defusing strong emotions and restoring speakers’ emotional equilibrium. When listened to, speakers tend to listen to themselves more carefully and to evaluate and clarify their own thoughts and feelings. Listeners who use ALS demon- strate empathy, which enhances rapport with speakers and thus increases their
potential to influence speakers’ behavior. For additional information, see Stephen J. Romano, “Communication Survival Skills For Managers,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 2002, 14-16; and Gary W. Noesner and Mike Webster, “Crisis Intervention: Using Active Listening Skills in Negotiations,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 1997, 13-19.
October 2003 / 31
32 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
Author Guidelines
GENERAL INFORMATION
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is an official publication of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Frequency of Publication: Monthly. Purpose: To provide a forum for the ex-
change of information on law enforcement-related topics.
Audience: Criminal justice professionals, primarily law enforcement managers.
MANUSCRIPT SPECIFICATIONS
Length: Feature articles should contain 2,000 to 3,500 words (8 to 14 pages, double-spaced). Submissions for specialized departments, such as Police Practice and Case Study, should contain 1,200 to 2,000 words (5 to 8 pages, double- spaced).
Format: Authors should submit three copies of their articles typed and double-spaced on 81/2 - by 11-inch white paper with all pages numbered. When possible, an electronic version of the article saved on computer disk should accompany the typed manuscript.
Authors should supply references when quoting a source exactly, citing or paraphrasing another person’s work or ideas, or referring to information that generally is not well known. For proper footnote format, authors should refer to A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 6th ed., by Kate L. Turabian.
Writing Style and Grammar: The Bulletin prefers to publish articles in the third person (Point of View and Perspective submissions are exceptions) using active voice. Authors should follow The New York Public Library Writer’s Guide to Style and Usage and should study several issues of the magazine to ensure that their writing style meets the Bulletin’s requirements.
Authors also should contact the Bulletin staff for the expanded author guidelines, which contain
additional specifications, detailed examples, and effective writing techniques.
PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHICS
A photograph of the author(s) should accompany the manuscript. Authors can submit photos and illustrations that visually enhance and support the text. Black-and-white glossy prints (3- by 5-inch to 5- by 7-inch) reproduce best. The Bulletin does not accept responsibility for lost or damaged photos or illustrations.
PUBLICATION
Judging Manuscripts: The Bulletin judges articles on relevance to the audience, factual accuracy, analysis of the information, structure and logical flow, style and ease of reading, and length. The Bulletin generally does not publish articles on similar topics within a 12-month period or accept articles previously published or currently under consideration by other maga- zines. Because it is a government publication, the Bulletin cannot accept articles that advertise a product or service.
Query Letters: Authors may submit a query letter along with a 1- to 2-page outline before writing an article. Although designed to help authors, this process does not guarantee acceptance of any article.
Author Notification: The Bulletin staff will review queries and articles and advise the authors of acceptance or rejection. The maga- zine cannot guarantee a publication date for accepted articles.
Editing: The Bulletin staff edits all manu- scripts for length, clarity, format, and style.
SUBMISSION
Authors should mail their submissions to: Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Bldg., Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135; telephone: 703-632-1952; fax: 703-632-1968; e-mail: leb@fbiacademy.edu.
The Bulletin Notes
Law enforcement officers are challenged daily in the performance of their duties; they face each challenge freely and unselfishly while answering the call to duty. In certain instances, their actions warrant special attention from their respective departments. The Bulletin also wants to recognize those situations that transcend the normal rigors of the law enforcement profession.
Officer Raterman
Early one morning, Officer Max Raterman of the Owego, New York, Police Department was dispatched to a structure fire. Upon arrival, Of- ficer Raterman observed smoke and flames surging from a three-story building that housed 12 apartments on the second and third floors. Over the next few minutes, Officer Raterman made several trips into the build- ing trying to wake occupants and assist them to safety. Shortly after fire department personnel arrived, Officer Raterman exited the building and maintained crowd control until other officers arrived. Once the fire was suppressed many hours later, Officer Raterman entered the building with a fire investigation team to try to determine the origin of the fire. Officer Raterman’s diligence and courage saved many lives and made dealing
with this tragedy more manageable for the victims.
Officer Wannow
Officer Steven Wannow of the Hartford, Wisconsin, Police Department responded to a call of a missing 16-year-old male. The missing individual, possibly considered endangered due to his diabetic condition, was missing from his place of employment after leaving work on foot. After taking the initial call, Officer Wannow began to search the immediate and adjacent areas on foot. Officer Wannow also alerted the local hospital of the situa- tion. After searching for nearly one and one-half hours, and with darkness approaching, Officer Wannow found the subject lying on his back and unresponsive. Officer Wannow called for rescue personnel and
administered first aid that revived the victim to a level of consciousness. The subject was treated at a local hospital where personnel credited Officer Wannow’s quick response and ability to recognize serious life-threaten- ing symptoms with potentially saving the victim’s life.
Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be based on either the rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s) made at unusual risk to an officer’s safety. Submissions should include a short write-up (maximum of 250 words), a separate photograph of each nominee, and a letter from the department’s ranking officer endorsing the nomination. Submissions should be sent to the Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.
Periodicals Postage and Fees Paid Federal Bureau of Investigation ISSN 0014-5688
U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Periodicals Postage and Fees Paid Federal Bureau of Investigation ISSN 0014-5688
U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20535-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
At the center of the patch of the Winslow Township, New Jersey, Police Department is a circle, bisected by the Egg Harbor River. Sur- rounding the river is a cattail, symbolizing the wetlands habitat that prevails in and around the river basin, and an orchard, representing the area’s strong agricultural tradition. The bottom of the circle features the year Winslow Township was incorporated, 1845.
The patch of the St. Helena, California, Police Department depicts alternating rows of green vineyards and golden wild mustard, with a cluster of dark wine grapes and green leaves on the left side of the patch. The background features the mountains that rise on each side of the Napa Valley. This patch honors St. Helena’s role as the center of this premium wine-growing region.
Patch Call
- Features
- Departments
- Strategies to Avoid
- Bulletin Reports
- Canines and
- Book Review
- Perspective
- Negotiation Position Papers
- FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
- The Bulletin Notes