35
ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310 Features Departments 8 Focus on White-collar Crime The Bank Secrecy Act 16 Police Practice The STARS Program Noble Cause Corruption and the Police Ethic By Bob Harrison Preferred Protocol for Death Notificaton By Brian J. Scott Self-directed Work Teams By Stephen M. Ramirez Investigative Detentions By Jayme S. Walker 1 11 26 August 1999 Volume 68 Number 8 United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, DC 20535-0001 Louis J. Freeh 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. Periodical 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 Managing Editor Kim Waggoner Associate Editors Glen Bartolomei Cynthia L. Lewis Bunny S. Morris Art Director Brian K. Parnell Assistant Art Director Denise K. Bennett Staff Assistant Linda W. Szumilo Internet Address [email protected] Cover photo © Don Ennis Send article submissions to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135. 25 Book Review Business and Crime Prevention Officers can make the death notification process less painful for themselves and for the surviving family members. Courts often consider the duration of an investigative detention when deciding whether a seizure can be justified on reasonable suspicion. Law enforcement officers must face a multitude of ethical dilemmas during the performance of their duties every day. 20 Self-directed work teams help agencies tap the talents of their employees and improve service to the community.

1 11 - LEB

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    19

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 1 11 - LEB

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

Departments

8 Focus on White-collar Crime The Bank Secrecy Act

16 Police Practice The STARS Program

Noble Cause Corruptionand the Police Ethic

By Bob Harrison

Preferred Protocol forDeath Notificaton

By Brian J. Scott

Self-directedWork Teams

By Stephen M. Ramirez

Investigative Detentions By Jayme S. Walker

1

11

26

August 1999Volume 68Number 8

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau ofInvestigation

Washington, DC20535-0001

Louis J. FreehDirector

Contributors' opinions andstatements should not be

considered an endorsement bythe FBI for any policy, program,

or service.

The Attorney General hasdetermined that the publicationof this periodical is necessary in

the transaction of the publicbusiness required by law. Use offunds for printing this periodical

has been approved by theDirector of the Office of

Management and Budget.

The FBI Law EnforcementBulletin (ISSN-0014-5688) is

published monthly by theFederal Bureau of Investigation,

935 Pennsylvania Avenue,N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodical postagepaid at Washington, D.C., and

additional mailing offices.Postmaster: Send addresschanges to Editor, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, FBI

Academy, Madison Building,Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Managing Editor

Kim Waggoner

Associate Editors

Glen Bartolomei

Cynthia L. Lewis

Bunny S. Morris

Art Director

Brian K. Parnell

Assistant Art Director

Denise K. Bennett

Staff Assistant

Linda W. Szumilo

Internet Address

[email protected]

Cover photo

© Don Ennis

Send article submissions to

Editor, FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy, MadisonBuilding, Room 209, Quantico,

VA 22135.

25 Book Review Business and Crime Prevention

Officers can make the death notificationprocess less painful for themselves andfor the surviving family members.

Courts often consider the duration of aninvestigative detention when decidingwhether a seizure can be justified onreasonable suspicion.

Law enforcement officers must face amultitude of ethical dilemmas during theperformance of their duties every day.

20Self-directed work teams help agenciestap the talents of their employees andimprove service to the community.

Page 2: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 1

n Plato’s The Republic, So-crates and Glaucon discuss theformation of a city that embod-

enemy? Today, U.S. societywrestles with the same unansweredquestion as its contemporary guard-ians, the police, attempt to interpretand enforce the law.

If the law represents an expres-sion of moral sentiment, then policeofficers stand as instruments of thatmorality. Although appearing asparamilitary organizations, modernpolice agencies actually performspecific functions within communi-ties through individual police offi-cers’ acting largely without super-vision or direct control. Unlike amilitary unit, which operates cohe-sively as a team, the cop on the beat

“The City’s Guardians must begentle toward their own peoplebut rough toward their enemies;otherwise, they will not wait forothers to destroy them; they willdo it themselves first.”1

—SocratesPlato’s The Republic

Iies justice. As their dialogue buildsthis city, the final element involvesselecting the guardians. Socrates’guardians would be keen of percep-tion, strong enough to subdue oppo-nents, and high-spirited in temper.At the same time, they would lovewisdom and learning so they couldtreat their own people gently. How-ever, the philosophers failed toaddress one question. Who woulddecide which individuals representthe guardians’ own and whichdeserve the rough treatment of an

Noble Cause Corruptionand the Police EthicBy BOB HARRISON, M.S.

Page 3: 1 11 - LEB

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

is left alone to make decisions re-garding who goes free and who be-comes subject to closer scrutiny.Society might regard the lone streetcop as its single most powerful indi-vidual. Consider that the policealone are charged with deprivingothers of their liberty and that it isillegal to resist their authority to doso. Neither the president nor a Su-preme Court justice can issue or ex-ecute a death warrant without priorreview, yet police officers have theauthority to employ readily avail-able lethal weapons to protect them-selves and the public they serve. Inmany cases, little conflict ariseswith regard to the propriety of po-lice actions. Society generally rec-ognizes the need for public safety,and few would disagree with theremoval of murderers, rapists, orother violent individuals. The issuebecomes more problematic when anattempt to service that desired endconflicts with the laws and regula-tions instituted to control the deci-sion of who represents the “enemy”of the law.

Echoing ancient Greek dia-logues, those who founded theUnited States as a constitutional re-public in which no person or groupcould rise to absolute power delib-erated at length on the ability ofgovernment to engage in punishingtransgressors without resorting totyranny.2 James Madison, the fatherof the U.S. Constitution, noted theproblematic issues of governancewhen he wrote, “In framing agovernment which is to be adminis-tered by men over men, the greatdifficulty lies in this: you must firstenable the government to controlthe governed; and in the next placeoblige it to control itself.”3 FromPlato to the modern day, this re-mains a vexing problem. In a de-mocracy, how can policing, as aninstitution, police itself, and howcan police officers maintain anappropriate balance between gov-erning others and controllingthemselves?

In contemporary American life,officers commonly face the di-lemma between following rules and

enforcing the law. Often, the resultconstitutes an individual utilitarian-ism, a sense of electing a course ofaction based on a self-perception ofwhat is good for the greatest num-ber. This personal interpretation ofthe law inevitably leads to questionsof conduct (the means: an officer’smethods to elicit cooperation fromanother) versus a desired outcome(the end: apprehension of the guiltyand protection of the community).For example, does an officer havethe duty to infringe on an in-dividual’s liberty for a laudable out-come? Should society excuse policeofficers for breaking fundamentallaws, not for personal gain but toserve a greater moral imperative?Is this “noble cause corruption”4

(i.e., illegal actions that violate therights of citizens for moral consid-erations) an unstated norm in policeconduct, or should an individual’sright to freedom from that be-havior be society’s paramountconsideration?

Policing and the Law in America

The police are the constitutedauthority for the use of force withinsociety.5 Although society has rec-ognized the need for a person orgroup to hold coercive power overothers since ancient times, currentpolice practices did not exist atAmerica’s founding.6 In fact, thefirst professional police agency inthe United States, modeled after theLondon Metropolitan Police, wasformed in New York in 1833. Inter-estingly, the use of the word “po-lice” to describe society’s guardianshas significant implications. For ex-ample, the word derives from theGreek polis and polites, meaning

If the lawrepresents an

expression of moralsentiment, then

police officers standas instruments of

that morality.

Chief Harrison leads the Vacaville,California, Police Department.

Page 4: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 3

“city/state” or “citizen.” In Scot-land, the term polis remains in useas a formal title for an officer of thelaw. Perhaps Ireland has the mostdescriptive term for a modern po-lice force, garda siochana, whichtranslates to “guardians of thepeace.” In many American commu-nities, the police are legally entitledpeace officers, an important distinc-tion when considering the policerole in the interpretation and appli-cation of the law.

Ideas from Plato and others ex-erted considerable influence overthe education of the Anglo-Euro-pean culture of America’s fore-bearers and shaped the law thatpolice officers uphold today. Also,Lockean and biblical traditions hada dramatic effect on the frameworkof American freedom and liberty.For example, Thomas Jeffersonwrote in the Declaration of Inde-pendence, “We hold these truths tobe self-evident, that all men are cre-ated equal, that they are endowedby their Creator with certain un-alienable Rights, that among theseare Life, Liberty and the pursuit ofHappiness,” a passage stronglysimilar to John Locke’s writingsthat government should protect“life, liberty, and property.”7 Al-though Jefferson did not attribute asignificant influence from Lockein the development of his writings,the impact of Locke’s theories isundeniable.8

While Jefferson regarded theBible as the ultimate source ofmoral guidelines,9 he also read-ily absorbed the ideas of theEnlightenment10 and of Locke’s Es-say Concerning Human Under-standing.11 In 1769, after being shutout of the Virginia Assembly for his

views regarding the immorality ofslavery, Jefferson sent to Englandfor a copy of Locke’s On Govern-ment.12 By 1773, Locke’s naturalrights theories had become as com-monplace for discussions as theEpistles of the apostle Paul.13

Jefferson’s foundation of Lock-ean individualism and moral certi-tude regarding the unalienablerights of the individual over that ofthe state inadvertently set the stagefor the tension between theindividual’s rights and the publicgood with which contemporary

negotiation, or goodwill can bringthe two into harmony and reconcili-ation. Officers thrust into arbitrat-ing between these conflicting goodsmay fall into corrupting the publictrust to which they are sworn, notfor personal gain or revenge but inan effort to fulfill a noble sentimentarising from the conflict endemic tothe human condition itself.

Societal Ends and Police Means

Imagine working as a police of-ficer assigned to investigate the kid-napping of an 11-year-old girl. Offi-cers have arrested a suspect whomay know of the girl’s where-abouts. Unless they elicit a quickconfession, the girl may die.

Under the law, the suspecthas an absolute right against self-incrimination. Officers may adhereto the law and respect the rights ofthe suspect, or use extralegal mea-sures to coerce the information theyneed to save a life. The dilemmabecomes which course of actionbetter serves the concept ofJeffersonian Happiness—that of re-specting the individual arrestee’srights or that of serving the greatergood by using formal authority toensure safety for the community.

Some police administratorswould assert that no dilemma ex-ists. Officers are sworn to upholdthe law, and illegal activity cannever be justified by an emotionalargument to the contrary. Other ad-ministrators would focus on the act,and not the outcome, as the gauge ofdesired actions. If the act could notbe applied in all circumstances(Immanuel Kant’s UniversalLaw),14 it should not be performed.

Judging from his writings, JohnLocke also might have been caught

“...how can policeofficers maintainan appropriate

balance betweengoverning othersand controlling

themselves?

”American police officers mustwrestle. Locke’s intent can be inter-preted to mean that the governmentassumes the power to decide whomto punish for transgressions to pro-tect property and ensure safety.This inference easily can lead po-lice officers into a dilemma of en-gaging in extralegal acts to servetheir perceived duty to the publicgood. No matter how mightily soci-ety may struggle to develop a legalsystem that serves justice, occa-sions inevitably will arise whereone undeniable good comes intoconflict with another undeniablegood, and no amount of effort,

Page 5: 1 11 - LEB

4 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

on the horns of this dilemma. Onone hand, he asserted that each manhas a property in his own person towhich no one has a right to but him-self, and that the chief purpose ofgovernment is to protect that prop-erty.15 For example, Locke main-tained that what individuals pro-duced through their own laborsbelonged to them and that the lawmust protect this property. At thesame time, he also contended thatman submits to the authority of thelaw to ensure that his property isprotected.16 According to Locke’sphilosophy, officers faced with thisdilemma could justify harsh actionsagainst criminals, similar to killingmurderers to deter others.17 Facedwith the opportunity to save a lifeand deter the offender, officerscould employ a true Lockean con-cept of policing to support the man-date of using any means necessaryto achieve the desired end. There-fore, officers unilaterally couldelect to take any measures neces-sary to serve the interests of society.

Further, officers who read JohnStuart Mill and ascribe to a moreutilitarian credo would have littletrouble justifying actions that sup-port the greater good.18 Using thegreatest happiness principle, theseofficers rationally could expect theviolation of a single individual’srights (the means) to promote agreater societal end, that of happi-ness for the greater number of indi-viduals. Of course, a true utilitarianview has little use for the resolutionof true moral dilemmas becausethe rights of the individual al-ways weigh less than those of thelarger group. Mill’s premise, how-ever, amounts to no more than a

justification for any action againstindividuals who are different, espe-cially if taken on behalf of the soci-etal or cultural majority.

What, then, should police offi-cers do when faced with violatingthe letter of the law in order to servea desired moral end? American tra-ditions formed from religious andclassical philosophy affirm theprinciple that each individual has aninnate worth and that police offi-cers cannot descend from reasonedpersuasion to aggravated coercionwithout losing a respect for the fun-damental rights of freedom and

it wrong and evil. Violationsof civil liberties and laws,violations of oaths of office,and abuses of authority andpower—all betrayals of publictrust—are wrong and cannotbe justified by any end.

• Attempts to revise regulationsand rules cannot eliminate aconflict in ideals. Althoughrevisions in the law can alterthe mechanics of account-ability, they cannot changeelements of the humancondition.

• Inflicting pain sadistically orwithout regret can never beexcused.20

Interestingly, Delattre com-ments that most thoughtful peoplewill come down on one side ofnoble cause corruption while ex-pressing a sympathy and respect forthose on the other side. He person-ally would not rule out the use ofphysical coercion to save a life;however, he then would immedi-ately report his actions to his agencyand resign his position of publictrust.

Is Delattre’s “act wrong, thenresign” resolution the best officerscan hope for to resolve the issue ofachieving desired ends? Does thehuman condition render somechoices as inevitable tragedies forthose unfortunate enough to have tomake them? Should the difficulty inarriving at a consensus regardingappropriate actions excuse thosewho have elected to put themselvesin positions of public trust? Unfor-tunately, the problem of ethics inpolicing is not solved readily by the“silver bullet” approach. Even if

“...does an officerhave the duty toinfringe on an

individual’s libertyfor a laudable

outcome?

”self-determination. The noble causecorruption concept of officers’ act-ing illegally, not for personal gain,but to fulfill moral obligations,stands as a testimony to the difficul-ties encountered by those entrustedwith the public’s safety. However,Edwin Delattre contends that endsdo not necessarily justify the meansand asserts that three basic consid-erations exist when contemplatingactions intended to serve a desiredend.19

• A good end cannot justify ameans in a context that makes

Page 6: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 5

officers know what is right, thatknowledge remains separate fromthe question of how much an indi-vidual is willing to pay to do theright thing. As appealing as it maybe to satisfy the emotional dilemmaby choosing the short-term solution,compelling arguments exist in favorof acting only in a manner thatserves the long-term interests ofsociety.

Restoring theWise Guardian

Although the dilemma of noblecause corruption appears superfi-cially problematic, in actuality, it isnot. On the surface, the issue ofsaving innocent lives and incarcer-ating those who have transgressedagainst society seems to constituteample justification for acts neces-sary to achieve that noble end. Froma relativist perspective, society’sguardians could rationalize anycircumstance to legitimize the bru-talization of another human being.To do so, however, denies basichuman rights and the concept ofequality upon which police officersbase their authority. Once equalityand confidence in the institution ofpolicing is eroded in the generalcommunity, the ability for govern-ment to fulfill its legitimate aimsalso becomes decimated.

Government refrains from co-ercion and intimidation to accom-plish its ends because the society itserves deserves a legal system thatremains consistently just. The con-venient deviance from the beliefthat each individual has worthproves a slippery slope from whichanyone concerned with justice maynot be able to escape. For every

instance where a dilemma mayoccur regarding competing nobleends, countless examples of policemisconduct under the guise of lawenforcement exist. In the majorityof cases, however, officers commit-ted these acts in the name of law andorder.

Unfortunately, contemporarypolicing in America contains manyexamples of conduct detrimentalto the profession and the commu-nity it serves. Because recent lawenforcement studies have shownthe existence of widespread per-jury, brutality, and other forms ofcorruption, judges, attorneys, ju-ries, and the public sometimes ques-tion police courtroom testimony.21

against defenseless individuals atthe end of a high-speed pursuit. Onboth occasions, the victims receivedpunishment without court review ora legitimate conviction for breakingthe law.

When officers use unlawfulmeans to gain a desired end, theydamage the system they represent.Beyond the damage to the justicesystem, however, officers who en-gage in illegal behavior denigratenot only the uniform of the guard-ian but also the individual within.The eventual result to society is aloss of confidence in those chargedwith the protection of others, lead-ing to a fraying of the tapestry ofthe culture that binds communitiestogether.

What can be done? Socrates’assertion that education of theguardians is essential remainsstrongly supported by modern lawenforcement scholars. A New Yorkcommission exploring tactics tocombat chronic corruption in theirdepartment recommended at least 1year of formal, general educationbeyond the high school level priorto police service. In California,however, of the 800 hours a newrecruit spends in basic academytraining, only a fraction deals withissues beyond basic skills. Most po-lice training academies devote littleclasswork to the broader under-standing of the police role in societyat a philosophical level. Many newofficers enter a culture where theyare taught to perceive anyone whois not a street cop as the enemy,including top law enforcementmanagers. Patrolling their beatslargely unsupervised, officers caneasily develop a sense of being the

For example, in one East Coast city,the term “testilying” is a code wordfor police perjury to obtain a con-viction. Also, excessive force forthe purpose of exacting “street jus-tice” is a problem noted in commis-sion reports from New York to LosAngeles. In California alone, theRodney King incident in 1991 re-played itself in 1996 in Riversidewhen officers used their batons

Page 7: 1 11 - LEB

6 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

lone crime fighter—heroes left torely on their own devices and skillsto get the job done. Added to this isthe fact that officers work within asystem of changing policies, con-flicting court rulings, and increas-ing scrutiny and distrust. Takentogether, these factors contribute tothe sense that the pedestal uponwhich society has placed justiceis showing cracks and erosion.

Without appropriately educating itsguardians regarding their roles andresponsibilities to the public theyserve, society could see the result ofthis subtle erosion in the eventualcollapse of the American justicesystem.

And what should this edu-cation encompass? Beyond lawsand procedures, the modern guard-ian should possess a sense of

integration with the larger fabric ofAmerican society. Moving from asense of individualism to the Sto-icism22 perspective might better re-flect the intent of Jefferson and oth-ers who founded the Americandemocracy. In other words, an indi-vidual who filters events through aStoic perspective would move froma judgment of how the world shouldbe to an acceptance of events as

Self (the individual police officer)

Individualism (role perception between individuals) Solicitude

Selfishness (perception of self in community) Civic Virtue

Lack of Equality (results of action to others) Equity

Injustice (results of action to society) Happiness

Noble Cause Corruption (end result) Justice

Two Paths to Resolving Ethical Conflicts

An understanding of the process of re-solving conflicts between individualism andthe common good may be a better way tounderstand possible resolutions between selfand others. Actions framed as noble causecorruption may arise from an individualisticperspective, versus a worldview of interde-pendency toward others. The individualisticpath leads inevitably to a sense of selfishnesswhen a concern for civic good is supplantedby an egocentric assessment of actions.Without respect for the worth of others, lackof equality will exist, creating a society wheregovernment actually produces injustice. Theend result will involve police officers who

engage in corrupt acts with impunity andwithout a sense of accountability to those theyserve.

However, the alternate path depicts offi-cers who perceive others in an interdependentmanner from a perspective of respect. Solici-tude on a personal contact level translates toa concern for civic virtue at the communitylevel, resulting in officers who treat othersequally. Consistent equitable action trans-lates to a general sense of satisfaction for thepolice, as well as for those they serve. In theend, a concern for civic virtue and happinessleads to true justice in the administration oflaw.

Page 8: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 7

being a part of the natural course ofhumanity. It does not mean that ex-ternal events will go well but that anindividual accepts these events,leading toward a fulfilled life. Inthis paradigm, the individual’s mo-tivation and action result from anintrinsic sense of worth, rather thana reaction to extrinsic influences.

Using the Stoic, or solicitous,path over the individualistic path todesign the education of police offi-cers will move their attitudes andperspectives from seeing actions asdistinct from one another to under-standing the civic good from a com-munity perspective. Officers whounderstand the role of the guardianwould prove far less likely to shirktheir duty to the longer perspectiveof upholding the basic tenets of theguardian.23 This education remainsnecessary, not only when officersenter the profession but alsothroughout their careers.

Conclusion

Law enforcement officers facedifficult decisions on a daily basis.Sometimes situations arise that re-quire them to weigh the laws theyare sworn to uphold against the lifeof an innocent victim. Such inci-dents force officers to confront thenoble cause corruption dilemma ofviolating fundamental laws to servea greater moral good. Officers needall of the assistance that police man-agers can provide to resolve theseethical quagmires.

Without a concerted educa-tional effort to turn the contempo-rary cop into Plato’s “lover of wis-dom,” society easily can envisionthe increasing dissatisfactioncaused by inappropriate actions by

law enforcement as a precursor tothe direction of American cultureitself. In constant contact withthose who commit crimes, officerswould do well to heed FriedrichNietzsche’s admonition that “who-ever fights monsters should see to itthat in the process he does not be-come a monster” and “when youlook long into an abyss, the abyssalso looks into you.”24 For society’ssake, police officers must take astep back from the abyss to reassesswho the enemies of the city are andto ensure gentle treatment of allwithin the city’s walls.

have all asserted the right to enforce adherenceto a stated or codified norm. In the 19thcentury, dissatisfaction over the use of themilitary in England for the role of civilgovernment enforcement led to the creation ofthe modern police model.

7 Fawn M. Brodie, Thomas Jefferson—An

Intimate History (New York: Bantam Books,1975), 145.

8 Charles Maurice Wiltse, The Jeffersonian

Tradition in American Democracy (ChapelHill, NC: University of North Carolina Press),45.

9 Ibid., 48.10 A philosophical movement of the 18th

century marked by a rejection of traditionalsocial, religious, and political ideas and anemphasis on rationalism.

11 Leonard Wibberley, Thomas Jefferson—

Revolutionary Aristocrat (New York: FranklinWatts, 1991), 40-41.

12 Supra note 7, 112.13 Supra note 7, 113.14 Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre

Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press,1981), 42-45.

15 John Locke, The Second Treatise on Civil

Government (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books,1986), 70.

16 Ibid., 69.17 Ibid., 12.18 John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

(NewYork: Prometheus Books, 1987), 16-17;Mill defines happiness, not in the hedonisticsense but as the pleasures of the intellect.

19 Supra note 2, 193.20 Supra note 2, 194-195.21 Commission Report for the city of New

York, July 1994, 37.22 A philosophy begun about 300 B.C.,

Stoicism holds that individuals should be freefrom passion, unmoved by joy or grief, andsubmissive to natural law.

23 The most relevant biblical reference isRomans 13:3-4, which reads, “Do you want tobe free from fear of the one in authority? Thendo what is right and he will commend you. Forhe is God’s servant to do you good. But if youdo wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear thesword for nothing. He is God’s servant, anagent of wrath to bring punishment to thewrongdoer.”

24 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and

Evil, trans. Walter Kaufman (NewYork:Vintage Books, 1989), 89.

“When officers useunlawful means togain a desired end,

they damage thesystem theyrepresent.

”Endnotes

1 Plato, The Republic, Book II, Great

Dialogues of Plato, trans. Philip Rouse (NewYork: Mentor Books, 1950), 172.

2 Edwin Delattre, Character and Cops

(Washington, DC: American EnterpriseInstitute, 1989), 16.

3 Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, andJohn Jay, The Federalist Papers, No. 47,Introduction by Clinton Rossiter (New York:Mentor Books, 1961), 301.

4 Supra note 2, 194.5 Supra note 2, 197.6 Plato wrote of the need for the guardians;

John Locke asserted that each man had the rightin the natural state to enforce conformanceupon others who transgressed on his property.Kings, property owners, and appointed servantsof a ruler or leader of most European cultures

Page 9: 1 11 - LEB

8 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

The Bank Secrecy ActA Powerful Weapon for

Law EnforcementBy Gary J. Kruchten, J.D., CPA

Focus on White-collar Crime

n The Fountain Pen Conspiracy, authorJonathan Kwitney suggests that the most power-

The Act

The Bank Secrecy Act requires that financialinstitutions, private businesses, and individualsdocument certain monetary transactions. In doing so,they alert law enforcement to possible criminalactivity. The act requires documentation in four keyareas.

• Financial institutions must retain records ofimportance to investigators, including signaturecards and checks and transactions into and out ofthe United States in amounts greater than$10,000.

• Financial institutions must report any currencytransactions exceeding $10,000 within 15 days ofthe transaction, using a Currency TransactionReport3 (CTR), form 4789.

• Any person with foreign bank or security accountbalances exceeding $10,000 must file a Report ofForeign Bank and Financial Account, commonlyreferred to as an F-Bar, with the Internal RevenueService (IRS) by June 30 of the year followingestablishment of the account.

Iful and untouchable criminals are not the ones whomake headlines in the paper or on the evening newsbut those hidden in the shadows who direct themovement of vast sums of money.1 Controlling themoney gives them their power and allows them toflourish long after their more visible associates havegone to prison.

Most criminal activity is motivated by an inordi-nate desire to accumulate wealth. Consequently, animportant element in the proof of almost every crimeis establishing that funds were transferred illegally tothe accused. Establishing who transferred the funds,to where, and by what means helps investigatorsprove criminal intent and often has a great impact ona jury’s determination of guilt or innocence.

However, developing financial evidence canchallenge investigators. The Bank Secrecy Act of1970,2 also known as the Currency and ForeignTransactions Reporting Act, represents an often-underused, but potentially very productive, source forwhite-collar crime investigators.

Page 10: 1 11 - LEB

• Individuals who transport more than $10,000 incurrency or certain monetary instruments into theUnited States from another country, or vice versa,must file a Currency Monetary Instrument Report(CMIR), form 4790, with the U.S. CustomsService.

To retrieve the information these reports provide,law enforcement officers can turn to the FinancialCrimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a division ofthe U.S. Department of the Treasury, which serves asan information clearinghouse for federal, state, andlocal law enforcement agencies. Each state has one ormore designated representatives, who act as officialliaisons with FinCEN and access its databases toobtain information for their state agencies. At thesame time, the FBI and other federal, non-TreasuryDepartment law enforcementagencies have representativesassigned to FinCEN who do thesame for investigators within theirrespective organizations.

The Database

FinCEN’s financial database4

contains a wealth of informationthat law enforcement can use inany criminal investigation wherethe suspects have access to largesums of money. For example,investigators might discover that asubject owns hidden domesticbank, brokerage, or insurance accounts. Or, theymight find information detailing when and where asuspect conducted currency transactions, descriptiveinformation concerning the suspect, and witnesses atthe financial institutions who could possibly identifythe suspect.

The Currency Transaction Reports filed in thedatabase since 1979 represent nearly 100 millionindividual transactions with a dollar value exceeding$5 trillion.5 Each of these CTRs provides the sourcedata for millions of records relating to individualcurrency transactions. Specifically, information fromthe CTR not only alerts investigators to transactionsexceeding $10,000, but it also can identify the indi-viduals involved and provide their social security

numbers, addresses, and businesses or professions.Other information revealed includes the date, time,location, and description of each transaction, as wellas the bank employee completing the form.

The Currency Monetary Instrument Reportidentifies individuals transporting more than $10,000in or out of the United States and reveals their pass-port numbers, home addresses, type of monetaryinstruments used, and the date and place the individu-als left or entered the United States. Finally, the F-Barpinpoints the name, address, and account number forthe foreign bank where an account exceeding $10,000was established, the date the account was opened, andthe individual or organization who opened it.

Like the National Crime Information Centerdatabase, or any other computerized source of infor-

mation, not every inquiry intoFinCEN produces useful informa-tion. However, a positive searchcan save hundreds of hours ofinvestigative time. For example,several years ago, federal agents inthe Midwest investigated a sub-stantial money-laundering caseinvolving the proceeds from thesale of cocaine. Investigators usedwiretaps and surveillance andinvested many hours into theinvestigation to identify thefinancial institution and theaccounts the subjects used to

transfer millions of dollars in illicit drug proceeds.Later in the investigation, the agents contactedFinCEN and obtained, in a very short period of time,the same information. Had they contacted FinCENearlier they could have saved substantial investigativetime and resources. Still, in cases such as this, wheresurveillance or other investigative techniques havelinked suspects with a particular financial institution,contacting FinCEN in order to review CTRs or otherreports can establish the identity of suspects andreveal other vital information.

Conclusion

The mission for any criminal investigationremains to gather evidence that will establish the truth

...an important elementin the proof of

almost every crimeis establishing that

funds were transferredillegally to the accused.

August 1999 / 9

Page 11: 1 11 - LEB

of the matter. Yet, many crimes, particularly white-collar offenses, require that investigators follow along, complex trail of large currency transactions togather critical evidence. Fortunately, the BankSecrecy Act of 1970 requires the documentation ofcertain financial transactions, and the FinancialCrimes Enforcement Network serves as a clearing-house for the reports that provide evidence of thesetransactions.

Currency Transaction Reports, Currency Mon-etary Instrument Reports, and Reports of ForeignBank and Financial Accounts can help investigatorsidentify individuals who handle large sums of moneyboth in the United States and abroad. In doing so, theymay uncover the fruits of illicit activity. Althoughcriminal kingpins historically have hidden behindtheir low-level associates, investigators can use theresources of the Bank Secrecy Act to bring theseoffenders out of the shadows and into the light ofjustice.

Mr. Kruchten, a former special agent assigned to theInvestigative Training Unit at the FBI Academy, now servesas a law enforcement consultant.

Endnotes

1 Jonathan Kwitney, The Fountain Pen Conspiracy (New York:Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1973).

2 Title 12. U.S.C. § 1829(b), October 6, 1970; regulations for the actare found at 31 C.F.R., § 103, et seq.

3 Casinos must file a similar report, known as a Currency TransactionReport by Casinos.

4 FinCEN has access to a number of databases, which fall into threegeneral categories: financial, commercial, and law enforcement. Thefinancial database contains information required by the Bank SecrecyAct, as well as IRS form 8300, Reports of Cash Payments Over $10,000Received in a Trade or Business; the commercial database retrievesinformation from such sources as Dun and Bradstreet and Lexis-Nexisand provides a variety of personal and business information, includingaddresses, real estate transactions, and business affiliations; the lawenforcement database draws information from a number of state andfederal law enforcement agency databases. FinCEN also maintains itsown database to log inquiries it receives and to record the results of itsdatabase searches in order to share the information with other agencies.

5 FinCEN financial database.

T he FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin staff invitesyou to communicate with us via e-mail. Our

Internet address is [email protected] would like to know your thoughts on

contemporary law enforcement issues. Wewelcome your comments, questions, and

suggestions. Please include your name,title, and agency on all e-mail

messages.Also, the Bulletin is available

for viewing or downloading on anumber of computer services,as well as the FBI’s home page.The home page address ishttp://www.fbi.gov.

The Bulletin’sE-mail Address

10 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Page 12: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 11

have some very bad newsto tell you. Your son wasinvolved in an automo-

improperly. Surviving family mem-bers never get over the tragedy; theysimply continue their lives with theevent now a part of their personalhistories. Accepting death when itresults from natural causes is diffi-cult enough. However, sudden, un-expected deaths from suicides, ho-micides, or fatal accidents canoverwhelm the surviving family.

Experts have found that theofficer’s role in delivering the deathnotification greatly affects the di-rect level of devastation and distresssuffered by the receivers. More-over, the stress of the situation im-pacts not only the loved ones but themessenger, as well. Officers can

lessen the negative, stressful im-pact on themselves and the receiv-ers of such painful news by fol-lowing some simple, yet proven,procedures.1

KNOWINGWHAT TO EXPECT

Individuals learning of thedeath of a loved one may react inmany ways as profound emotionssurface. Denial, anger, hysteria,fainting, physical violence, shock,indifference, amnesia, and hostilityrepresent typical responses. Somevariables that affect the type anddegree of reaction include the inten-sity of the event (i.e., accidental

“Ibile accident and was killed.” Nolaw enforcement officer ever wantsto say these words to a parent. How-ever, although tragic and emotion-ally charged, death notifications re-main one of the most importantnonenforcement functions that of-ficers perform. While most officershope they never will have to deliversuch a message, they should preparethemselves for the possibility.

Survivors remember the mo-ment of death notification for therest of their lives, sometimeswith pain and anger if handled

PreferredProtocol

for DeathNotification

By BRIAN J. SCOTT

© S

teve D

avis

Page 13: 1 11 - LEB

12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

versus violent death), the survivor’scapacity to comprehend what hashappened, and the survivor’s equi-librium, or ability to deal with atraumatic situation.

Even when survivors do not ex-hibit an immediate response, offi-cers must consider the death notifi-cation process a crisis. Mostsurvivors find themselves numb andunable to understand what theyshould do next. Some survivorshave said that they felt as if theevent was a dream and not reallyhappening. Others said they felt asif they were floating outside theirbodies watching the events unfoldor described themselves as goingcrazy and losing control.2 Theseemotions are normal and survivorsneed to express them, but becausesurvivors do not understand thesefeelings, they become fearful. Theyneed a calm and reassuring author-ity figure to help them restore con-trol over their lives and make suchdecisions as naming a supportiveindividual to contact or selecting a

funeral home. Law enforcement of-ficers can help survivors meetthese needs through humane, pa-tient, professional, and compas-sionate communication.

MAKING THENOTIFICATION

Officers should follow a basicplan when making death notifica-tions. First, they should obtain asmuch information as possible aboutthe victim and the circumstancessurrounding the death. Next, theyshould decide how they will presentthe information and what they willsay. Finally, they should notify thesurvivors in person, never over thetelephone, and as soon as possible.

Gathering All of the Information

First, officers should ascertainas much information as possibleabout the victim, including thedeceased’s name, age, address, andmarital status. Then, officers shouldgather critical details about theincident in order to answer the

survivors’ immediate questions andconcerns. Officers who werepresent at the scene can providevaluable information to notifyingofficers. By providing such details,officers can help family membersaccept the loss of their loved one.Finally, officers should know whothe survivors can contact for furtherinformation (e.g., hospital, coron-er’s office, or officers assigned tothe case).

Deciding WhoTakes the Lead

Because survivors may experi-ence severe emotional or physicalreactions, including hostility to-ward the notifiers, at least two offi-cers or one officer and a civilian(e.g., a religious representative,family physician, medical exam-iner, or close friend) should notifythe next of kin. Also, experiencednotifying officers have found that afemale-male team often proves ben-eficial, especially when dealingwith multiple survivors of bothsexes.

Before arriving at the survi-vors’ location, the notifying teamshould decide who will speak firstand what they will say. If either ofthe notifiers knows the family, thatindividual should take the lead inthe conversation.3

Delivering the News

Once officers have positivelyidentified the deceased and knowthe preliminary details surroundingthe death, they should notify thesurvivors as expeditiously as pos-sible. First and foremost, officersmust notify survivors in person,never by telephone. Moreover,officers never should broadcast

...sudden,unexpected deaths

from suicides,homicides, or fatal

accidents canoverwhelm the

surviving family.

Officer Scott serves with the Burlington, Wisconsin,Police Department and the Wisconsin State Fair Police.

Page 14: 1 11 - LEB

details of such incidents over theradio due to the existence of moni-toring scanners. During such griev-ous moments, surviving loved onesneed a human presence to help themcope with the shock and proceedwith the necessary arrangements. Ifthe next of kin resides outside theirjurisdiction, officers should contactlocal authorities to assist with thenotification.

Notifying officers should iden-tify themselves, present their cre-dentials, and ask to enter the resi-dence. Officers never should makedeath notifications on the doorstep.Officers should have the survivorssit down and then verify that theyare addressing the intended receiver(e.g., parent, spouse, or other emer-gency contact). Officers should of-fer to tell children separately if theadult receiver wishes.

If at the survivor’s place of em-ployment, officers should ask tospeak to the supervisor and deter-mine the availability of the indi-vidual they need to notify. Officersshould not divulge details regardingthe purpose of their visit. Theyshould ask the employer to provide

a private area for the notification.Officers should offer to transportsurvivors home or to the hospital orcoroner’s officer to identify or viewthe victim.

While medical facilities gener-ally have established proceduresand trained staff to handle thesesituations, notifying officers mayassist by finding a private, quietarea and seating the survivors. Of-ficers should have the attendingphysician, in a clean uniform, avail-able to address any medical issues,including restrictions concerningphysical contact with or the condi-tion of the body, which may affectthe survivors’ decisions to view thedeceased. Officers must realize thatdenying survivors the act of view-ing the deceased is not an act ofkindness. Most survivors want tosee their loved ones; officers shouldallow this if possible.

Regardless of the location, of-ficers should relay the death notifi-cation in clear, direct, and under-standable terms. Officers shouldbegin by stating, “I have some verybad news to tell you” or some-thing similar. This statement gives

survivors a crucial opportunity toprepare for the shock. After all, thepresence of police officers alreadyhas alerted them to the possibility ofa problem. Next, officers should ex-plain what happened, avoiding suchvague expressions as “passedaway...was lost...didn’t make it.”Instead, they should use plain lan-guage, such as “Your wife was in-volved in a train accident and waskilled” or “Your brother had a heartattack at his work and died.” Whileofficers would like to soften thenews with a more indirect ap-proach, they must realize that itonly makes the situation more con-fusing, and worse, may imply afalse sense of hope. Typically, sur-vivors appreciate a compassionate,yet direct explanation. Also, offi-cers always should refer to the vic-tim by name, never by such terms as“body” or “corpse.” Finally, offi-cers should answer any questions—including where the body is located,how it will be released and trans-ported to a funeral home—andwhether an autopsy is needed, asfully and in as much detail as pos-sible. If survivors ask questions to

• Always make the notification promptly andin person.

• Always try to have a two-person notificationteam.

• Always make the notification in private andwith the receiver seated.

• Always remember that shock is a medicalemergency.

• Always refer to the victim by name.

Death Notification Overview

• Always offer to contact a support personand stay with the survivor until that personarrives.

• Always use clear, plain language.

• Always provide the next of kin with theprocedures for obtaining the victim’spersonal effects; never deliver these items atthe time of notification.

• Always be compassionate.

August 1999 / 13

Page 15: 1 11 - LEB

14 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

which officers do not know the an-swer, officers should admit theirlack of knowledge and offer to findout.

During the notification process,officers never should offer falsehope, try to talk the survivors out oftheir grief, impose their own reli-gious beliefs, or say they under-stand how the survivors feel, unlessthey have experienced a similar in-cident. Further, many survivorshave indicated that an appropriateexpression of condolence similarto “I’m sorry this happened” provesmore helpful than such intendedcomforting statements as “It wasGod’s will” or “She led a full life.”

Most important, officers al-ways should allow ample time toprovide information, support, anddirection to survivors. They never

should notify the survivors and thenleave. This confuses most survivorsand makes them feel abandoned.Officers can help survivors begin tomove through the grieving processby providing some immediate di-rection, such as offering to contact afriend or family member, and stay-ing with the survivor until this indi-vidual arrives.

Notifying officers never shouldbring any of the deceased’s clothingor other personal effects with themat the time of the notification. Be-cause survivors need time to acceptthe victim’s death, immediatelyseeing tangible reminders of the de-ceased can prove devastating. Sur-vivors often require several days oreven weeks before they can acceptthe victim’s belongings, but eventu-ally they may want all of them.

Therefore, officers should let survi-vors know how to recover thesebelongings. Many departmentsstore these items until survivors canaccept them. Most important, offi-cers never should store or subse-quently deliver these belongingsin trash bags. Officers should re-main sensitive to the survivors’feelings and use boxes, paper wrap-ping, or other more appropriatecontainers.

INSTITUTINGFOLLOW-UP CONTACT

Depending on the survivors’emotional state, officers may wantto wait a few days before providinginformation concerning benefitsavailable to families of homicidevictims through victim compensa-tion funds. Most states have theseprograms and administer themthrough their offices of attorneysgeneral. Funded by fines and penal-ties paid by criminals, these pro-grams include compensation formurder-scene cleanup, counselingservices, funeral and burial ex-penses, and loss of financial supportfor the family of the deceased.While these funds never can erasethe painful memories of the inci-dent, they can assist in the survi-vors’ recoveries and help ease fi-nancial burdens.

Officers should keep survivorsnotified of the progress of the case,if the death resulted from violence.Officers should advise these survi-vors of their right to file a victimimpact statement, which assists thecourt in sentencing the perpetratorin the event of a conviction. Offi-cers also should inform survivorsof any support groups or counsel-ing services available in their

Victim Assistance Resources

• Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)U.S. Department of Justice810 7th St., NWWashington, DC 20531202-616-3574http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc

• Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD)P.O. Box 541688Dallas, TX 75354-1688800-438-MADDhttp://www.madd.org

• National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA)1757 Park Rd., NWWashington, DC 20010-2101202-232-6682 or 800-TRY-NOVAhttp://www.try-nova.org

Page 16: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 15

communities and encourage survi-vors to contact the employee assis-tance program where they work.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement officers oftenenter their profession to help othersand improve life in their communi-ties. Bringing tragic and painfulnews to the citizens they havesworn to protect and serve stands asone of the most difficult tasks anyofficer has to face. However, estab-lished procedures and guidelinescan help officers handle death noti-fications in a professional, compas-sionate, and sensitive manner.

Knowing the reactions that sur-vivors may exhibit upon learning ofa loved one’s death, obtaining cru-cial information about how thedeath occurred, and deciding aheadof time how they will deliver thepainful news provide officers with aplan that can lessen the distress forthe receivers and for themselves.Officers also should remember thatthe courage and strength of charac-ter they need to face the daily chal-lenges of their profession includenot only physical bravery but alsoemotional fortitude and compas-sionate resolve, especially in han-dling death notifications.

Endnotes

1 The author gratefully acknowledges theCrime Victim Assistance Division of the IowaDepartment of Justice and Concerns of PoliceSurvivors for their invaluable assistance.Officers may want to contact the Associationfor Death Education and Counseling inHartford, CT, at 860-586-7503 or at its Website, http://www.adec.org, for additionalinformation.

2 R. Moroni Leash, Death Notification, A

Practical Guide to the Process (Arkansas City,KS: Gilliland Printing, 1994), 97-115.

3 David W. DeRevere, Wilbert A.Cunningham, Tommy Mobley, and John A.Price, Chaplaincy in Law Enforcement: What It

Is and How to Do It (Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas, 1989), 54.

• American Association of Suicidology:for family and friends of a suicide victim;National headquarters: 4201 ConnecticutAve., Suite 30, NW, Washington, DC 20008;for local chapter referrals, call 202-237-2280;http://www.suicidology.org

• Compassionate Friends: for parents whohave lost a child and surviving siblings;National headquarters: P.O. Box 3696,Oak Brook, IL 60522-3696; for local chapterreferrals, call: 630-990-0010;http://www.compasionatefriends.org

• The Dougy Center: for children ages 3-12and teens who have lost family members;P.O. Box 86852, Portland, OR 97826;503-775-5683, http://www.dougy.org

• Alliance for Children and Families: abereavement counseling referral network;11700 West Lake Park Drive,Milwaukee, WI 53224;800-221-2681 or 414-359-1040;http://www.alliance1.org

Bereavement Resources

• Fernside, A Center for Grieving Children:for children ages 3-17 who have lost familymembers; 2303 Indian Mound Ave.,Cincinnati, OH 45212; 513-841-1012;http://www.fernside.org

• Parents of Murdered Children and OtherSurvivors: for surviving family and friendsof victims of violent crime;National headquarters: 100 East 8th St.,Suite B-41, Cincinnati, OH 45202;for local chapter referrals, call: 513-721-5683

• AAARP Widowed Persons Service: asupport service for persons who have lost aspouse; National headquarters: 601 E St.,NW, Washington, DC 20049; for localchapter referrals, call: 202-434-2277; http://www.aarp.org/griefandloss/organizations.html

Resources obtained from R. Moroni Leash, Death Notifica-tion, A Practical Guide to the Process (Arkansas City, KS:Gilliland Printing, 1994), 253-256; and Kenneth Doka andJoyce Davidson, eds., Living with Grief: Who We Are, HowWe Grieve (Hospice Foundation of America, 1998).

Page 17: 1 11 - LEB

16 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Police Practice

et in; hurry. Don’t worry; I know yourparents.” An unknown adult male

Further, a review of the department’s activity logsrevealed several other types of troubling off-campusencounters, including adult men exposing themselvesto students or talking to them in sexually suggestiveor threatening ways. The department decided on acooperative, proactive effort—modeled on an existingcollaborative alliance involving the police, theprobation department, and the school system—todecrease these threats to the community’s children asthey travel to and from school.

THE MODEL COLLABORATIVE EFFORT

Since 1993, the Fresno Police Department, theFresno County Juvenile Probation Department, andthe Fresno Unified School District have institutedpolice-probation teams at each of the area’s eight highschools and six middle schools to reduce juvenilecrime and improve school safety. Previously, thesethree agencies, although usually dealing with thesame “problem” students, engaged in minimalcollaboration. For example, school staff wouldsummon police officers to the campus when crimesoccurred. Officers would make arrests or issuecitations as appropriate and send their reports to theprobation department, which would make recommen-dations to the juvenile court and supervise assignedprobationers. Over time, the need to work togetherbecame apparent and led to the creation of the police/probation/school alliance and the formation of police-probation teams on school campuses.

These teams consist of a police officer andprobation officer sharing an office on school cam-puses. However, the partnership involves much morethan simple colocation. The team becomes an integralpart of the campus environment by forming bondswith students and forging professional workingrelationships with school staff members. Each teamprovides uniform patrol, holds citation hearings,supervises students on probation, imposes informalprobation sanctions, and investigates crime. Theschool district provides office space, furniture,telephones, shared funds for a computer, and parkingfor a patrol car. During the first 5 years of this pro-gram, crime on school campuses declined at anunprecedented rate. For example, the number of gunsdiscovered on Fresno high school campuses dropped

The STARS ProgramStudents Travelingand Arriving SafelyBy Dennis Bridges

“Guttered these words in an attempt to lure a fifth-gradegirl into his pickup truck near a Fresno, California,elementary school last year. Fortunately, the young-ster screamed and ran, prompting the suspect to speedaway. The next day’s local newspaper recounted theyoung girl’s brush with danger and related fourprevious attempted abductions of young students. Thearticle also noted several recent incidents involvingstudents robbed of their backpacks at gunpoint.

These high-profile incidents of students accostedas they traveled to and from school garnered a gooddeal of media coverage that marred an overall reduc-tion of crime and disorder in the Fresno school systemfor the 1997/98 school year. Even though the FresnoUnified School District has nearly 80,000 studentsand Fresno a population of over 400,000, the FresnoPolice Department could not allow even a smallnumber of such incidents to continue unchecked.

© Virginia M. Fitzpatrick

Page 18: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 17

98 percent, from 49 in the 1992/93 school year toonly 1 in 1997/98; batteries against teachers wentdown 71 percent, from 55 to 16; and the number ofarrests of nonstudents for loitering on or aroundschool campuses decreased 91 percent, from 986 to89, over the 5-year period. With these successes as afoundation, the police/probation/school alliance usedthe police-probation team concept as a model totackle the problem of safeguardingstudents going to and from school.

THE STARS PROGRAM

The approach to increasingoff-campus student safety beganwith a simple theory—the morepeople actively looking out forchildren as they walk to and fromschool, the better. Based on thispremise, the police/probation/school alliance developed theStudents Traveling and ArrivingSafely Program (STARS). Itencompasses seven core compo-nents and actively involves not only police, probation,and school district personnel but also parents, stu-dents, neighborhood residents, firefighters, cityemployees, and other volunteers.

Parent Patrols

Parents, wearing distinctive vests while walkingor driving their vehicles (clearly marked with STARSmagnetic placards), patrol the streets near schools,looking for suspicious individuals or vehicles. Thesevolunteers do not take enforcement action or placethemselves in danger. They use their personal cellulartelephones to contact police or school-issued radios tocontact school staff when necessary.

Student Awareness

Students themselves must become aware of thedangers they may encounter when traveling to andfrom school. Police personnel teach students to walkwith other students when possible, remain alert forsuspicious vehicles and individuals, take safe routesinstead of shortcuts, and report suspicious activityto school officials or police. The training alsoencourages students to pay attention to the well-being

of fellow students. Also, students provide a greatportion of the necessary feedback about the STARSProgram to school officials and the police.

Safe Houses

Several years ago in an effort to expand its publicservice role in the community, the Fresno Fire Depart-ment created the program A Friend Is Waiting. The

program involves residents offer-ing their homes as a place of safetyfor children who are in distress ordanger until police arrive. Adistinctive decal in the frontwindow identifies the residencesas safe houses. Fire stations andcommercial operations also act assafe houses. The police departmentscreens all volunteers and mem-bers of their households or busi-nesses before the fire departmentdesignates the locations as safehouses.

City Employees

Fresno municipal employees, such as sanitationworkers and bus drivers, routinely drive in neighbor-hoods around schools. They receive training to act as“eyes and ears” for police, who instruct them to reportany suspicious activity. Demonstrating intergovern-mental cooperation, Fresno’s 500 local postal carriersalso receive this training and actively participate inthe program. Additionally, city bus drivers receiveradio broadcasts of suspects and suspect vehiclesinvolved in crimes against schoolchildren, whichsignificantly increases the chances of locating theseindividuals.

Citizens on Patrol

The police department deploys its highly success-ful Citizens on Patrol through school neighborhoodsduring peak student travel times. For the past 2 years,the department has offered graduates of its 16-weekCitizen’s Police Academy an additional 5-weektraining course in first aid, defensive driving, com-munication procedures, and other police nonenforce-ment skills. These uniformed volunteers, oftenretired individuals, drive marked patrol cars (older,

Students themselvesmust become awareof the dangers they

may encounterwhen traveling toand from school.

Page 19: 1 11 - LEB

18 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

out-of-service police vehicles equipped with amberinstead of red and blue overhead lights) and assistpolice officers through such activities as directingtraffic at accident scenes, patrolling parks and shop-ping malls to deter crime, and helping with theSTARS Program. The volunteers take no enforcementaction but report suspicious activity via their policeradios. The program has proven so effective that thedepartment has included additional depreciated patrolvehicles in its annual budget. Discretionary fundingfrom the local city council and donations from thecommunity have provided other equipment andsupplies for the program.

School District Personnel

Staff, teachers, student safety assistants, andparent volunteers position themselves at the perimeterof the school grounds as studentsarrive and leave school. They notonly observe events occurring onschool property but also watchnearby streets for possible prob-lems. School staff members lendvests and school radios to theparticipating parent volunteers.

Police Officers

Police officers give specialattention to the streets nearschools, as well as to school andcity bus stops, at the beginning andend of the school day. Officersalso make safety presentations to parents, students,city departments, and civic groups to encourageprogram participation.

Start-up Costs

Once the alliance brought together these sevenelements, it set out to ensure that the community didnot view this new approach to off-campus studentsafety as a temporary program but rather as anongoing collaborative effort. Also, the alliance knewthat the program could not become dependent uponfunding sources. If that happened, the alliance wouldneed to focus on budgetary concerns instead of itsprimary mission of child safety. Therefore, thealliance implemented the STARS Program with

minimal start-up costs and virtually no ongoing costs.The program requires only a minimum of law en-forcement staff time for training parent patrols, schoolstaff members, city and postal workers, and students.Also, equipment such as parent patrol vests andmagnetic car placards require minimal investments,which can be offset with donations from civic organi-zations and parent clubs or through purchases byinterested volunteers.

Community Support

Partly because of the cost-effectiveness of theprogram but mainly because this effort increases childsafety, the alliance easily enlisted the support of cityemployees, postal workers, school staff members, andparents. Moreover, school staff members played a keyrole in informing students and their parents about the

program and the opportunity toparticipate, as well as identifyinggroups of parents interested informing parent patrols. Officersassigned to each school’s neigh-borhood provided training andinformative handouts to thevolunteers, students, and teachersat presentations arranged by schoolstaff members.

Representatives of each of theseven components introduced theSTARS Program to the communityat a news conference. Localtelevision stations and the leading

local newspaper delivered upbeat reports on this newcommunitywide effort and expressed their support forthe program. Positive exposure continues throughnews releases announcing success stories or publiciz-ing the program’s growth. This media attentionreplaces the previously negative coverage given tothe attempted abductions and armed robberies ofstudents.

Moreover, while the Fresno Police Departmenthad a lead role in this safety effort, the school districtaccepted responsibility for generating and managingstaff, student, and parent involvement. Because theschool district has over 90 schools, the police depart-ment could not possibly administer the program eachday at every school.

...the allianceimplemented the

STARS Program withminimal start-up

costs and virtuallyno ongoing costs.

Page 20: 1 11 - LEB

Program Assessment

Representatives from school student bodies,parent groups, and the police/probation/schoolalliance regularly meet to assess the effectiveness ofthe program and make any suggested improvements.These representatives also work together to recruitvolunteers to become part of the parent patrols ormake their homes available as safe houses. Thisassessment process keeps the joint efforts strong andunited in their goal to increase the safety of thecommunity’s children as they travel to and fromschool. Moreover, this collaboration of multiple workgroups, parents, students, and other volunteers doesnot view itself as a short-term effort but as a renewedcommonsense approach to ensuring the well-being ofFresno’s schoolchildren.

CONCLUSION

For the past 5 years, the Fresno Police Depart-ment, the Fresno County Probation Department, andthe Fresno Unified School District have collaboratedsuccessfully to dramatically decrease crime andincrease on-campus student safety. Now, with mini-mal start-up costs and virtually no ongoing expendi-tures, they have employed the same multiagencyapproach to keep students safer as they travel to andfrom school by creating the Students Traveling andArriving Safely Program. While the program involvespublic safety agencies and the school system, the truestars of the program are the schoolchildren and theconcerned citizens who give their time and efforts.Such committed involvement sends a clear message tothe criminals who prey on students and to the school-children themselves that the students’ welfare is ofparamount concern to the entire community.

Other law enforcement agencies may haveencountered similar problems in their communitiesand need to find cost-effective solutions. They maywant to consider bringing together local organizationsand work groups, providing appropriate training, andcreating a similar synergistic effort for the safety oftheir communities’ schoolchildren.

Lieutenant Bridges serves with the Fresno, California,Police Department.

Wanted:Photographs

he Bulletin staff isalways on the lookoutT

for dynamic, law enforce-ment-related photos forpossible publication in themagazine. We are interestedin photos that visually depictthe many aspects of the lawenforcement profession andillustrate the various taskslaw enforcement personnelperform.

We can use either black-and-white glossy or colorprints or slides, although weprefer prints (5x7 or 8x10).Appropriate credit will begiven to contributing photog-raphers when their workappears in the magazine. Wesuggest that you send dupli-cate, not original, prints aswe do not accept responsibil-ity for prints that may bedamaged or lost. Send yourphotographs to:

Brian Parnell, ArtDirector, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin,FBI Academy, MadisonBuilding 209, Quantico,VA 22135.

August 1999 / 19

Page 21: 1 11 - LEB

20 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

n 1829, after 7 years of failedefforts, Robert Peel finallysucceeded in creating the Lon-

Community Policing and Prob-lem Solving (COPPS) representstoday’s version of Peel’s vision. Al-though just as Peel’s model did,COPPS has its detractors, most lawenforcement agencies recognize itsvalue. Unfortunately, many policeorganizations have become top-heavy and reactionary. The hierar-chical, authoritarian managementsystem inherent in most policeagencies has become a roadblockon the journey toward innovative,problem-solving policing.

Organizations that discoverhow to tap their employees’ com-mitment and capacity to learn at alllevels can excel in the future.2 The

current law enforcement climatedemands that police agencies be-come learning organizations; theymust be proactive and adopt a holis-tic, or “systems thinking,” approachto problem solving. Yet, when de-partments become compartmental-ized, subcultures can develop alongsuch job functions as management,patrol, and other specialties, limit-ing communication, problem solv-ing, and learning.3

The ability to innovate in boththe technical and organizationalarenas remains crucial to effective-ness.4 When law enforcement orga-nizations operate ineffectively,communities suffer. Centralized,

Self-directed Work TeamsBy STEPHEN M. RAMIREZ, M.S.

Idon Metropolitan Police.1 As hasoften been the case throughout his-tory, individuals of vision who in-novate and create what others thinkhas no value must suffer through thebirth of that vision. Peel’s years ofpersistence led to a professional po-lice force in which the public andpolice work together to address thecommunity’s public safety and se-curity concerns. Yet, along withPeel’s vision of community-basedpolicing came the paramilitary or-ganizational structure that headopted.

Page 22: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 21

hierarchical management structuresdo not support fast-paced inno-vation. Decentralized, nonhierar-chical organizations dedicated tothe well-being and growth of em-ployees, as well as to success, dosupport learning and innovation.5 Astudy known as the Hawthorne ex-periment proved that when manage-ment pays attention to employees,productivity increases.6 Thus, whenemployees have a say in the work-place, motivation and productivityrise. Unfortunately, law enforce-ment’s management structure doesnot support high employee involve-ment in workplace decisions. Incontrast, self-directed work teamsdo.

SELF-DIRECTEDWORK TEAMS

A self-directed work team con-sists of a group of highly trainedindividuals with the responsibilityand authority for completing a well-defined project.7 Self-directed workteams are not temporary. They rep-resent a new way of doing businessin which top management basicallyleaves the teams alone as long asthey meet or exceed establishedgoals. This autonomy takes full ad-vantage of all of the team members’talents, skills, abilities, ideas, andexperiences.8 Executives of team-based organizations retain their au-thority over strategies, but theteams assume control over tactics.9

Self-directed work teams usu-ally are responsible for a workprocess that delivers a product orservice to a customer.10 Lawenforcement’s customers includenot only the communities they aresworn to serve but also the

nation, which suffers from theeffects of crime and social decayin communities.

THE VALUE OFSELF-DIRECTEDWORK TEAMS

In today’s dynamic environ-ment, self-directed teams possessmany advantages. With the freedomto make decisions and act on them,self-directed work teams can iden-tify opportunities, find solutions,and implement actions quickly, thusgiving their organizations greaterflexibility.11 Police departmentsthat support effective communitypolicing and problem solving mustremain flexible.

Self-directed work teams repre-sent an important part of anorganization’s overall strategy for anumber of reasons. First, those clos-est to the work know best how toperform and improve their jobs.Second, most employees want tofeel “ownership” in their jobs, thatthey are contributing to the organi-zation in a meaningful way. Finally,the autonomy teams enjoy provides

opportunities for empowermentthat individual employees usuallydo not have.12 The empowermentemployees feel motivates them toperform and increases customersatisfaction.13 In a law enforcementagency, this translates into iden-tifying and resolving communityproblems. Ultimately, law enforce-ment’s customers, community resi-dents, feel safe and secure becausethey are.

PREPARING FORSELF-DIRECTEDWORK TEAMS

Self-directed work teams arenot ends in themselves; instead,they represent the means by whichagencies achieve other organiza-tional goals.14 As such, the imple-mentation of a self-directed team-based management structure shouldbe tied to clear organizationalneeds. Thus, during the first step inthe planning process, senior man-agement must analyze the agency’scurrent and probable organizationalneeds,15 attempting to answer thefollowing questions:

Self-directed workteams take

advantage ofemployees’ talents,

skills, abilities, ideas,and experiences.

Chief Ramirez leads the St. Mary’s UniversityPolice Department in San Antonio, Texas.

Page 23: 1 11 - LEB

22 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

1) Is the agency as efficientand effective as it needs to beto succeed over the nextdecade?

2) What level of employeeinvolvement does the agencyhave currently?

3) Would more commitmentand involvement from employ-ees improve the agency’seffectiveness?

The answers to these questionswill help senior management deter-mine whether and how self-directedwork teams would help the agencyachieve its goals.16 Perhaps moreimportant, senior leaders must as-sess honestly their ability to masterand apply the hands-off leadershipstyle that self-directed work groupsrequire. Indeed, in order for self-directed teams to succeed, the se-nior leadership of the agency mustcommit to and support the concept17

and make sure that the organ-ization’s policies, procedures, andculture do, as well. If self-analysisindicates an organizational needand readiness, then implementationmay begin.18

IMPLEMENTING SELF-DIRECTED WORK TEAMS

The implementation process in-cludes the selection of teams andmembers, as well as the training ofthose members. An “environmentalscan,” which includes surveys, fo-cus groups, and other information-gathering techniques, can identifywhat the agency’s customers expectand help management determinewhat teams they should create.19

For example, holding focus groupsin the community helped the St.Mary’s University Police Depart-

ment discover that residents did notfully appreciate or understand whatthe department does. Deciding thecommunity and the departmentwould benefit from increased com-munication and interaction, the de-partment established a work team todesign and manage a bimonthlynewsletter, “Code 3.” Containingeverything from crime preventiontips to information on new depart-ment programs to guest columns bymembers of the community, thenewsletter keeps residents informedand increases interaction betweenthe department and the community.

After deciding what teams theagency requires, the steering com-mittee focuses on determining howthe teams will function. This meansdeciding what management and ad-ministrative responsibilities theteam will perform;21 establishingroles and responsibilities for teamleaders, members, facilitators, andtechnical support members; and de-signing the work-flow process. Thework-flow process includes every-thing from meeting schedules toevaluation procedures. After de-signing the team and establishingwork flow, the committee can be-gin recruiting and selecting teammembers.

SelectingTeam Members

The steering committee can usevarious instruments to assess andselect team members. In a large de-partment, application forms andpersonal references can yield basicinformation on candidates but can-not provide enough information onthose elements of ability and atti-tude that represent critical require-ments for effective team member-ship. Thus, the steering committeemust devise other methods to deter-mine whether employees possessthe ability to make decisions andassume responsibility for the com-plete work product.

Three methods include targetedinterviewing, cognitive ability tests,and technical skills test. Targetedinterviews attempt to reveal if can-didates have the general skills andpersonality that match the team re-quirements. Cognitive ability andtechnical skills tests use a writtenexamination to pinpoint more spe-cialized skills.

“One survey of self-directed work teams

discovered thatinadequate trainingproved the greatest

hindrance to effectiveteam performance.

”Designing the Team

Depending on the size of theagency, a steering committee mayoversee the design process. Thesteering committee should includesenior managers, police union lead-ers, functional or human resourcemanagers, and line leaders. Man-agement expert Stephen R. Coveypoints out that the working systemin the United States focuses on indi-vidualism, not synergy and teamwork.20 The members of the steer-ing committee must overcome thismind-set and break free from myo-pic thinking.

Page 24: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 23

Training the New Team

Even the most sophisticated se-lection instruments cannot guaran-tee the success of the team, and themanagement of any organizationnever should turn over managerialresponsibilities to a group unpre-pared to communicate effectively,resolve conflicts, or solve prob-lems.22 One survey of self-directedwork teams discovered that in-adequate training proved the great-est hindrance to effective teamperformance.23

Training should help teammembers develop technical, admin-istrative, and interpersonal skills.24

Managers should follow a few keyprinciples when designing andimplementing team-based trainingprograms. First, the curriculumshould reflect the uniqueness ofeach team’s needs. A modular ap-proach with custom-made units, ormodules, can provide the righttraining at the appropriate time.Modules can be basic and inter-changeable or specialized for oneteam only. Next, during training,the whole team should work to-gether to understand and improvetheir relationships and processes.Allowing team members to attendseparate training sessions wouldforgo this important interaction. Fi-nally, relatively short, but frequent,training sessions that spread thelearning process over time provemore effective than longer sessionsthat attempt to teach students every-thing all at once.25

CONCLUSION

Self-directed work teams takeadvantage of employees’ talents,skills, abilities, ideas, and experi-

ences. As a result, they represent themost advanced form of worker em-powerment and can help policeagencies more effectively reachtheir organizational goals.

The implementation of workteams requires a change in organi-zational philosophy from hierarchi-cal authoritarianism to self-direc-tion. Senior management mustsupport and deliver the directive for

this organizational culture shift.With a strong commitment andadequate planning, police leaderscan ensure that the movement toself-direction becomes a harbingerof the future.

Endnotes

1 K. Peak and R. Glensor, Community

Policing and Problem Solving: Strategies

and Practices (Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1996), 2.

W. Dick and L. Carey, The Systematic Design of Instruction(Tampa, FL: Harper Collins, 1990).

K. Fisher, Leading Self-directed Work Teams: A Guide toDeveloping New Team Leadership Skills (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1993).

J. Gillette and M. McCollom, Groups in Context: A NewPerspective on Group Dynamics (Lanham, MD: UniversityPress of America, Inc.).

P.S. Goodman and Associates, Designing Effective WorkGroups (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986).

P.K. Kelly, Team Decision-making Techniques (Irvine, CA:Chang, 1996).

J.L. Lundy Teams: How to Develop Peak PerformanceTeams for World-class Results (Chicago: Dartnell, 1994).

S.B. Merriam and R.S. Caffarella, Learning in Adulthood: AComprehensive Guide (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991).

H. Robbins and M. Finley, Why Teams Don’t Work: WhatWent Wrong and How to Make It Right (Princeton, NJ:Peterson’s/Pacesetter, 1995).

E.H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).

For Further Reading

Page 25: 1 11 - LEB

2 P.M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art

and Practice of the Learning Organization

(New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990), 4.3 E.H. Schein, “Three Cultures of Manage-

ment: The Key to Organizational Learning,”Sloan Management Review 38, no. 1 (1996): 9.

4 Ibid., 17.5 Supra note 2, 15.6 E. Mayo, The Social Problems of an

Industrial Civilization (Boston: HarvardUniversity Press, 1945), 69-84.

7 T. Owens, “The Self-managing WorkTeam: A New Approach to Frontline Manage-ment,” Small Business Reports 16, no. 2(1991): 53; and M. Piczak and R. Hauser,“Self-directed Work Teams: A Guide to

Implementation,” Quality Progress 29, no. 5(1996): 81.

8 R.Y. Chang and M.J. Curtin, Succeeding

As a Self-managed Team (Irvine, CA: Chang,1994), 5.

9 Supra note 7 (Owens), 54.10 R. Wellins, W. Byham, and J. Wilson,

Empowered Teams: Creating Self-directed

Work Groups That Improve Quality, Productiv-

ity, and Participation (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991), 3.

11 Ibid., 10-13.12 Ibid., 12.13 Supra note 7 (Owens), 56.14 Supra note 10, 83.15 Supra note 7 (Owens), 56-60.

16 Supra note 7 (Owens), 56-57.17 Supra note 7 (Piczak and Hauser), 83-84.18 Supra note 7 (Owens), 56-57.19 Supra note 10, 83.20 S.R. Covey, “Unstoppable Teams,”

Executive Excellence 13, no. 7 (1996): 7-8.21 Supra note 8, 40-47.22 M. Donovan, “The First Step to Self-

direction Is Not Empowerment,” Journal for

Quality & Participation 19, no. 3 (1996):64-66.

23 Supra note 10, 163.24 Supra note 22, 65.25 Supra note 22, 65.

24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Query Letters: Authors may submit aquery letter, along with a detailed one- totwo-page outline before writing an article.This is intended to help authors but does notguarantee acceptance of the article.

Author Notification: Receipt of manu-script will be confirmed. Notification ofacceptance or rejection will be sent follow-ing review. Articles accepted for publica-tion cannot be guaranteed a publicationdate.

Editing: The Bulletin reserves the rightto edit all manuscripts for length, clarity,format, and style.

Submission

Authors may contact the police trainingcoordinator at the nearest FBI field officefor help in submitting articles, or manu-scripts may be forwarded directly to:Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, LawEnforcement Communication Unit, FBIAcademy, Quantico, VA 22135.

Manuscript Specifications

Length: 2,000 to 3,500 words or 8 to 14pages.

Format: All manuscripts should bedouble-spaced and typed on 8 1/2- by 11-inchwhite paper. All pages should be numbered,and three copies should be submitted forreview purposes. When possible, an elec-tronic version of the article saved on com-puter disk should accompany typed manu-scripts.

Publication

Basis for Judging Manuscripts: Manu-scripts are judged on the following points:Relevance to audience, factual accuracy,analysis of information, structure and logicalflow, style and ease of reading, and length.Favorable consideration cannot be given toan article that has been published previouslyor that is being considered for publication byanother magazine. Articles that are used toadvertise a product or a service will bereturned to the author.

Author Guidelines

Page 26: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 25

Book Review

Business and Crime Prevention, edited byMarcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke, CriminalJustice Press, New York, 1997.

During the 1960s, police agencies in theUnited States became seriously involved incrime prevention programs. However, therelationship between the business communityand law enforcement agencies has not been assuccessful in reducing business-related crimes.The police and the business community havereacted to crime using different perspectivesthat, in turn, have stifled progress in reducingbusiness-related crimes.

In more recent years, with the popularizationof community policing, many police depart-ments have prioritized crime prevention. Evenafter emphasizing this issue, some agencies stillhave not taken a serious look at the problems ofcrimes against businesses. Community policingefforts regularly center on residential communi-ties and neighborhood problems. Varying policesupport can negatively affect the businesscommunity professionals in their efforts toprotect themselves against crime, and in somecases, the criminal justice system has abandonedbusinesses in a political effort to control onlythose crimes that more directly affect the generalpublic (i.e., voters).

Business and Crime Prevention is an editedtext that has successfully gathered severalpertinent articles from crime prevention experts.These articles directly affect the manner inwhich criminal justice and business profession-als view crime problems facing the businesscommunity today (e.g., crime preventiontechniques).

In the introduction, the editors demonstratethe need for cooperation among criminologists,business chief executive officers, and practicingbusiness managers. If criminologists and busi-ness leaders join hands in this effort to reducecrime, “both fields will be served, as willsociety.”

This text will benefit criminologist and busi-ness professionals, as well as police executives

and crime prevention specialists. Today, policeexecutives and managers are held to a muchhigher standard regarding basic job knowledge.To achieve success, executives and managersmust remain well-versed on all police-relatedtopics, from domestic violence to the Fair LaborStandards Act to less lethal use-of-force optionsto crime prevention.

Business and Crime Prevention summarizessome of the most important studies and contem-porary thoughts on these crimes. It presents up-to-date information with real-world implicationsand covers tips on how law enforcement agen-cies can build improved relationships withbusinesses. This text attempts to instruct busi-nesses how to protect themselves against crimeand addresses the various ways that law enforce-ment can respond to their needs. The bookdetails the business industry’s perspective oncrime prevention, giving a clearer understandingof what factors motivate businesses and why.Most businesses do not stress crime prevention;they remain more interested in their profit andloss ratio. For this reason, many police agenciesencounter problems when trying to motivatebusiness owners to develop crime preventionstrategies. This book reveals the impact oftechnology on crime and business, delves intobusiness liability issues, as well as the insuranceindustry and its affect on crime prevention, andaddresses the private security sector and itseffects on business crime prevention.

This text seeks to bridge the communicationgap between criminologists and the businesscommunity, resulting in benefits to their rela-tionship. Criminal justice professionals inter-ested in keeping abreast of the information curveare strongly encouraged to make this book a partof their libraries.

Reviewed byChief Kenneth Sissom

Merriam Police DepartmentMerriam, Kansas

Page 27: 1 11 - LEB

Legal Digest

26 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

he “seizure” of a person hasbeen defined by the U.S.Supreme Court as govern-

interference with a person’s libertyinterest, the greater the factualpredicate an officer must have tobelieve that an offense has beencommitted.

In Terry v. Ohio,2 the U.S. Su-preme Court stated that “in deter-mining whether the seizure andsearch were unreasonable our in-quiry is a dual one—whether theofficer’s action was justified at itsinception, and whether it was rea-sonably related in scope to the cir-cumstances which justified the

interference in the first place.”3

This article reviews case law,4 inwhich courts specifically have ad-dressed the question of the durationof an investigative detention in de-termining whether a seizure has be-come a de facto arrest and focuseson detentions of persons or itemstaken from the immediate posses-sion of a person. The focus ofcourts’ analyzing such cases in-cludes the actual duration of the de-tention, the actions taken by the of-ficers in the case, the actions takenby the subject in the case, the ac-tions the officers could have takenin the case, and how diligently theofficers pursued their investigation.Absent the existence of probablecause, if a de facto arrest has oc-curred, or an item is taken from theimmediate possession of a personon a nontemporary basis, the sei-zure will be found to be unreason-able. Detentions of items not in theimmediate possession of a person ormade at the border are beyond thescope of this article.5

U.S. SUPREMECOURT CASES

The Supreme Court has ad-dressed the issue of the duration ofan investigative detention most di-rectly in United States v. Place,6

and United States v. Sharpe.7 InPlace, the Court concluded for thefirst time that officers temporarilycould detain luggage for exposureto a trained drug detection dog onthe basis that there was a reason-able, articulable suspicion that theluggage contained contraband. Of-ficers observed Place acting suspi-ciously in the ticket line at the Mi-ami airport and approached him.The police asked to see Place’s

Tmental interference with a person’sfreedom of movement throughmeans intentionally applied.1 An of-ficer making an arrest must haveprobable cause, while an investiga-tive detention only requires reason-able suspicion. The degree of inter-ference with a person’s libertyinterest defines the type of FourthAmendment seizure that has oc-curred. The greater the police

InvestigativeDetentionsHow Long Is Too Long?By JAYME S. WALKER, J.D.

Page 28: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 27

ticket and asked him if he wouldallow them to search his checkedluggage. The officers noticed thatthe address tags on Place’s bags didnot match. While Place consentedto a search, the officers decided notto search the bags because of theimminent departure of Place’sflight. Further investigation by theofficers revealed that neither ad-dress listed on the luggage tags ex-isted and that Place had given theairline a third address. The officerscalled ahead to DEA agents atLaGuardia Airport and told themwhat they had learned about Place.

When Place arrived in NewYork, two agents approached himand began to ask him questions.Place told the agents that he knewthey were cops the minute he sawthem, and that in Miami, he hadbeen surrounded by police who hadsearched his bags. After Place re-fused to consent to a search of hisbags, the agents told him that theywere detaining them. The agentsgave Place a phone number wherehe could reach one of the agents.Place left the airport. The agentstook the bags to be sniffed by atrained drug dog at Kennedy Air-port. The drug dog alerted to thepresence of contraband inside oneof the bags 90 minutes after theagents had taken the bags fromPlace. The agents obtained a searchwarrant, opened the bag to whichthe dog had alerted, and found co-caine inside.

The U.S. Supreme Court ad-dressed a number of issues in Place,including whether Terry principlescould be applied to the warrantlessseizure of luggage. The Court con-cluded that “when an officer’s ob-servations lead him reasonably to

believe that a traveler is carryingluggage that contains narcotics, theprinciples of Terry and its progenywould permit the officer to detainthe luggage briefly to investigatethe circumstances that aroused hissuspicion, provided that the investi-gative detention is properly limitedin scope.”8

The Court also discussed howlong the item was detained, statingthat the brevity of the seizure is animportant factor in concludingwhether a seizure can be justifiedon mere reasonable suspicion.9 Inevaluating the 90-minute detention,the Court stated that “[t]he length ofthe detention of respondent’s lug-gage alone precludes the conclusionthat the seizure was reasonable inthe absence of probable cause.”10

The Court also indicated that “inassessing the effect of the length ofthe detention, we take into accountwhether the police diligently pursuetheir investigation.”11 The Courtconcluded that the agents failed todiligently pursue their investigationbecause they knew when Placewould arrive at LaGuardia andthey did not arrange for additional

investigation at that location despitehaving the time. In the final analy-sis, even though the Court found the90-minute detention of Place’s lug-gage without probable cause suffi-cient to render the seizure unreason-able, the Court declined to adopt anoutside limitation on the duration ofan investigative detention. TheCourt chose to leave the duration ofa detention of property taken from aperson’s immediate possession tobe determined on a case-by-casebasis.12

Two years after Place, the U.S.Supreme Court again addressed thequestion of the duration of an inves-tigative detention in United Statesv. Sharpe.13 In Sharpe, a DEAagent, while patrolling a coastalroad in an area under surveillancefor suspected drug trafficking, no-ticed a car and a truck with a campershell traveling in tandem. The agentalso noticed that the truck appearedto be heavily loaded and the win-dows were covered with cloth. Theagent followed the vehicles forabout 20 miles and decided to callthe highway patrol for assistance inmaking an investigative stop. After

”Ms. Walker serves as a legal instructor andattorney for the DEA at the FBI Academy.

In most cases involvinginvestigative detentions

lasting only a fewminutes, courts will notfind the duration of the

detention to beunreasonable.

Page 29: 1 11 - LEB

28 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

a highway patrol officer caught upto the procession of vehicles, thetruck and car turned and drove 55 to60 miles per hour down a camp-ground road where the speed limitwas 30 miles per hour. After thevehicles returned to the highway,the officer motioned for the cardriver to pull over. The agent radi-oed local police for additional helpand remained with the stopped carwhile the officer continued on andeventually pulled over the truck.

Shortly thereafter, two backupofficers arrived at the car's location.The agent then drove to the scene ofthe stopped truck, arriving approxi-mately 15 minutes after the officerhad pulled it over. After the truckdriver refused the agent’s request tosearch the vehicle, the agent went tothe rear window of the camper,where he smelled marijuana. Heopened the camper and found mari-juana inside.

In determining whether the stopwas reasonably related in scope tothe circumstances that justified it,the Court stated that while it maysometimes be difficult to distin-guish between an investigative stopand a de facto arrest, there is “norigid time limitation on Terrystops.”14 One highly relevant factorin assessing a detention’s durationis “whether the police diligentlypursued a means of investigationthat was able to confirm or dispeltheir suspicions quickly, duringwhich time it was necessary todetain the defendant. A court mak-ing this assessment should take careto consider whether the police areacting in a swiftly developing situa-tion, and in such cases, the courtshould not indulge in unrealisticsecond guessing.”15

The Court concluded that theagent in Sharpe pursued the investi-gation in a reasonable manner. Dur-ing the detention of the truck driver,the agent obtained the assistance oflocal police to continue the deten-tion of the occupants of the car.Upon arrival of the local police, theagent immediately went to the loca-tion of the stopped truck. Oncethere, the agent proceeded to look atthe driver’s license and papers and,immediately after being denied con-sent to search, went to the back of

whether an investigative detentionhas become a de facto arrest, or, inthe case of an item taken from theimmediate possession of a person, anontemporary seizure. In somecases, courts have found that theduration of an investigative deten-tion, standing alone, transformedthe detention into one requiring theexistence of probable cause. Inother cases, courts have determinedthat while the investigative deten-tion was not too long, the detentionbecame a de facto arrest for otherreasons and, therefore, requiredprobable cause.

InvestigativeDetention Too Long

In Place, the U.S. SupremeCourt found that the 90-minute de-tention of Place’s bag was sufficienton its own to render the seizure un-reasonable. In United States v.Puglisi,17 the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Eleventh Circuit found the140-minute detention of a bag be-longing to an airline traveler toolong. In Puglisi, a DEA agent ob-served Puglisi arrive in Atlanta fol-lowing a flight from Ft. Lauderdale.Puglisi made eye contact with theagent, then walked further down theconcourse, turned, and looked at theagent. After Puglisi checked in forhis connecting flight to Las Vegas,the agent obtained the ticket Puglisihad used to check in for his flightand retrieved his airline reservationrecord. The record indicated thatPuglisi had reserved his one-wayflight at 1 o’clock that morning, hadleft no call-back number, and hadpaid for his ticket. The agent ap-proached Puglisi as he stood near aninformation counter and began totalk with him. The agent learned

“...courts faced withinvestigative

detentions that haveexceeded 90 minutesbased on reasonablesuspicion...generally

have held suchseizures to beunreasonable.

”the truck to see whether the vehiclewas overloaded. The court furtherexplained that while the agent pro-ceeded to expeditiously conduct theinvestigation, the delay in the casewas caused by the truck driver’scontinuing on after the car had beenpulled over.16

How Long Is Too Long?

In both Place and Sharpe, theU.S. Supreme Court provided guid-ance regarding how to assesswhether an investigative detentionis too long. Lower courts consider anumber of factors in determining

Page 30: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 29

that the name on Puglisi’s ticket anddriver’s license did not match.While Puglisi agreed to be frisked,during which the agent found noth-ing, he refused to consent to asearch of his checked bag. Theagent wrote down the bag claimnumber and left the area, approxi-mately 4 minutes after initially ap-proaching Puglisi.

Using the claim check numbercopied from Puglisi’s ticket folder,the agent found the bag and, at 9:17a.m., instructed an airline employeeto remove the bag from the cart itwas on. The agent took the bag toPuglisi and asked him again if hewould consent to a search. Puglisirefused to let the agent search thebag, at which point the agent de-tained the bag, told Puglisi hewould be letting a drug dog sniff it,and watched Puglisi board hisflight. The agent took the bag to thepolice office and called for a drugdog. Because the dog handler had todrive to pick up the dog and thendrive to the airport, the dog did notarrive at the airport until 11:27 a.m.Ten minutes later, the dog alerted toPuglisi’s bag. By this time, 140minutes had elapsed from the timethat the agent initially had seizedthe bag from the luggage cart. Uponobtaining a search warrant, theagent opened the bag and found co-caine inside. He placed the defen-dant under arrest later the sameafternoon.

Puglisi moved to suppress thecocaine found in his bag. The trialcourt denied Puglisi’s motion andfound him guilty after a bench trial.On appeal, Puglisi argued, amongother things, that the agent’s con-tinued possession of his bag re-quired probable cause because it

constituted an unlimited seizure.The appellate court agreed withPuglisi’s argument, stating that“140 minutes, combined with theintrusiveness on Puglisi’s right topossession of the bag, rendered thisseizure unreasonable under thestandards set forth in Terry andPlace.”18 Other courts faced withinvestigative detentions that haveexceeded 90 minutes based on rea-sonable suspicion of an individualor items seized from an individualgenerally have held such seizures tobe unreasonable.19

last longer than a few minutes butare less than the 90 minutes dis-cussed by the Court in Place.21

For example, in United States v.Frost,22 the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Third Circuit concluded thatan 80-minute detention of an airlinepassenger’s suitcase did not consti-tute an unreasonable seizure. InFrost, two detectives observedFrost deplane from a Ft. Lauderdaleflight. He carried no luggage andhad bulges in the pockets of hisjeans. He went into a rest room foronly 15 seconds, exited, and lookedaround as if attempting to noticewhether he had been followed. Hepersistently tugged down on hisT-shirt as if trying to conceal some-thing he carried and had an object inhis back pocket that appeared to becigarette rolling papers.

When detectives decided to ap-proach Frost, he became increas-ingly nervous as the conversationwith the detectives continued, andhe contradicted himself in his re-sponses to their questions. The de-tectives asked Frost what the bulgeswere in his pockets. Frost voluntar-ily reached into his pockets andpulled out rolls of cash in mostlytens and twenties, totaling over$3,000. At 5:27 p.m., the detectivesasked Frost to accompany them1,500 feet to the airport police sta-tion. Frost agreed to go while one ofthe detectives went to get his suit-case. At 5:40 p.m., the detective ar-rived at the station with the suitcase.Frost identified the suitcase as his,claimed he did not know how a pad-lock got on it, and refused to con-sent to a search of the bag. At 5:55p.m., the detectives told Frost thatthey were going to have a dog sniffthe bag. At 6 p.m., the detectives

InvestigativeDetention Reasonable

In Sharpe, the U.S. SupremeCourt found that the detention ofSharpe for 20 minutes, given theexisting circumstances, did not con-stitute a de facto arrest made with-out probable cause and did not vio-late the Fourth Amendment. In mostcases involving investigative deten-tions lasting only a few minutes,courts will not find the duration ofthe detention to be unreasonable.20

Difficult questions arise, however,with investigative detentions that

© Mark Ide

Page 31: 1 11 - LEB

30 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

“...the duration of aninvestigative detention

may...make it ade facto arrest, which,

if made withoutprobable cause, is

unreasonable.

called for a drug dog, checkedFrost’s identification, and told himthat he could go. A few minutesafter Frost left, the drug dog arrivedand subsequently alerted to the cashfrom Frost’s pockets but not thesuitcase. The officers obtained asearch warrant and found cocaineduring their search of Frost’s bag.

Frost pled guilty after the trialcourt denied a motion to suppressthe cocaine discovered in his bag.On appeal, Frost argued, in part,that the 80 minutes the detectivestook to have his luggage inspectedby a drug sniffing dog was too longand exceeded the limits of an inves-tigative detention.

The appellate court distin-guished the Frost case from Placeby noting that the 90-minute delayin Place resulted from a lack of dili-gence by the police in failing toarrange to have a drug dog in placeat La Guardia, knowing that a sub-ject they suspected of having con-traband would be arriving fromFlorida, and to communicate toPlace what they were going to dowith his luggage and how he couldget it back. The Frost court foundthat in contrast to the actions of theagents in Place, the actions of thedetectives in Frost were diligent insummoning the dog and givingFrost receipts for his items and in-structions on how to retrieve them.In addition, the court believed 1hour to transport a drug dog to theairport at 6 p.m. was reasonable.23

Investigative DetentionBecomes a De Facto Arrest

In Florida v. Royer,24 the U.S.Supreme Court held that during theapproximately 15 minutes thatelapsed from the time detectives

The detectives approachedRoyer and asked if he would speakwith them. Royer handed his ticketand driver’s license to the detec-tives. The detectives noted that theticket bore the name “Holt” and thedriver’s license the name “Royer.”The detectives kept the ticket andlicense as they continued talkingto Royer, who became more vis-ibly nervous as the conversationcontinued.

The detectives asked Royer tocome with them to a small room 40feet away. Royer went with the de-tectives without responding. Thedetectives retained Royer’s ticketand driver’s license. One of the de-tectives, without Royer’s consent,retrieved Royer’s bags from the

airline and brought them to theroom. The detectives asked Royer ifhe would consent to a search of thebags. While Royer said nothing inresponse, he took out a key and un-locked one of the suitcases, inwhich the detectives found mari-juana. Royer claimed to not knowthe combination to the lock on thesecond suitcase but stated that hedid not have a problem if the detec-tives opened the bag. The detectivesopened the bag, found more mari-juana inside, and arrested Royer.

In discussing the nature of thedetective’s conduct in Royer, theSupreme Court stated that “[i]t isthe State’s burden to demonstratethat the seizure it seeks to justify onthe basis of a reasonable suspicionwas sufficiently limited in scopeand duration to satisfy the condi-tions of an investigative seizure.”25

The Court agreed that the bounds ofan investigative stop had been ex-ceeded by the “confinement” thatwent beyond a limited restraint aspermitted by Terry and that, there-fore, Royer’s consent to a search ofthe bag was tainted.26 The Courtfound that:

What had begun as a consen-sual inquiry in a public placehad escalated into an investi-gatory procedure in a policeinterrogation room, where thepolice, unsatisfied withprevious explanations, soughtto confirm their suspicions.The officers had Royer’sticket, they had his identifica-tion, and they had seized hisluggage. Royer was neverinformed that he was free toboard his plane if he so chose,and he reasonably believedthat he was being detained. At

approached Royer in the airport un-til the discovery of drugs in his suit-case, an arrest without probablecause had occurred. In Royer, de-tectives observed Royer’s appear-ance, luggage, and mannerisms anddecided to watch him more closely.Royer purchased a one-way ticketto New York and put name tags onhis bags that contained the name“Holt” and “La Guardia.”

Page 32: 1 11 - LEB

August 1999 / 31

least as of that moment, anyconsensual aspects of theencounter had evaporated, and...[a]s a practical matter, Royerwas under arrest.27

Significantly, the Court charac-terized the actions of the officers asmore intrusive than necessary andpointed out that if the officers hadreturned Royer’s ticket and driver’slicense and told him he was free toleave, that “might have obviatedany claim that the encounter wasanything but a consensual matterfrom start to finish.”28 Additionally,the Court noted that there was noindication that security or safetyconcerns prompted the officers tomove the location of the encounterto the office.

CONCLUSION

This article has addressed therole of the duration of an investiga-tive detention of a person or an itemtaken from the immediate posses-sion of a person in determiningwhether it has become a de factoarrest requiring probable cause.While the U.S. Supreme Court hasrefused to adopt an outside limit onthe duration of an investigative de-tention, a number of conclusions re-garding this issue can be made.First, the duration of an investiga-tive detention may, standing alone,make it a de facto arrest, which ifmade without probable cause, is un-reasonable. Second, while Placedoes not state that a detention can-not last longer than 90 minutes,courts deciding cases involving in-vestigative detentions of 90 minutesor more have generally found themto be unreasonable in the absenceof probable cause. Third, and inkeeping with Place, the two most

frequently examined questions bycourts when assessing the durationof an investigative detention arehow diligently the police pursuedtheir investigation and what infor-mation is given to subjects regard-ing the detention of any items takenfrom their possession. The reason-ableness of the duration of an inves-tigative detention is dependentupon the steps taken by the police toquickly confirm or dispel the suspi-cion that initially justified the de-tention. With respect to whether thepolice acted with diligence, courtshave found the following factorssignificant: whether the questions

registration check;38 whether theofficers knew of the subject’s ar-rival in advance;39 and the length ofdelay resulting from officers await-ing the arrival of officers with spe-cialized experience.40 Finally, evenif the duration of an investigativedetention is short, it may be invalidif other factors exist that make it ade facto arrest, and there is no prob-able cause.

Endnotes1 Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593,

597 (1989).2 392 U.S. 1 (1968).3 Id. at 19-20.4 Some states have statutes that address the

permissive length of a detention. See, e.g., DEL.CODE ANN. tit. 11 § 1902 (1998); WIS. STAT. §968.24 (1998). See also Dix, Nonarrest

Investigatory Detentions in Search and Seizure

Law, 5 Duke L.J. 849 (1985) (a comprehensivediscussion of investigative detention issues).

5 See, e.g., United States v. Van Leeuwen,

397 U.S. 249 (1970) (parcel); United States v.

Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)(border).

6 462 U.S. 696 (1983).7 470 U.S. 675 (1985).8 462 U.S. 696, 706 (1983).9 Id. at 709.10 Id.11 Id.12 This statement also applies to the

temporary detention of persons. In Place, theCourt stated that “when the police seize luggagefrom the suspect’s custody, we think thelimitations applicable to investigativedetentions of the person should define thepermissible scope of an investigative detentionof the person’s luggage on less than probablecause.” Id. at 708-09.

13 470 U.S. 675 (1985).14 Id. at 685.15Id. at 686-87 (citations omitted).16 Id.17 723 F.2d 779 (11th Cir. 1984).18 Id. at 783.19 See, e.g., United States v. $191,910.00 in

U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994)(125-minute detention was unreasonable);United States v. Codd, 956 F.2d 1109 (11thCir. 1992) (detention of subject for 2 1/2 hourswas unreasonable); United States v. Scales, 903F.2d 765 (10th Cir. 1990) (6 1/2-7-hour

asked were related to the justifica-tion for the detention;29 the numberof people or items involved in thedetention;30 whether the police im-mediately called for a drug dog;31

the length of the delay in waiting fora drug dog;32 subjects claiming thatthey do not know each other;33 re-turning the subject to the scene;34

tracking down the subject’s mis-leading stories;35 the subject’s eva-sive answers to questions;36 the of-ficer awaiting backup while alonelate at night with belligerent sub-jects;37 computer problems during a

© K.L. Morrison

Page 33: 1 11 - LEB

32 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

detention of bag prior to dog alert wasunreasonable); United States v. Cagale, 849F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1988) (90-minute detentionof bag prior to dog alert was unreasonable);Moya v. United States, 761 F.2d 322 (7th Cir.1984) (3-hour detention of bag prior to dogsniff was unreasonable); United States v.

Sanders, 719 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1983) (3-hourdetention of subject and luggage while agentsobtained dog to sniff bag was unreasonable).Cf. United States v. Hodoyan-Palacios, 993 F.Supp. 789, 793 (S.D.Cal. 1998) (2-hourdetention found reasonable. The court statedthat “Governmental agents rarely confront sucha high-level dangerous situation where analleged assassin of a large criminal organizationpresents such an immediate potential threat topublic safety and welfare.”); United States v.

$28,980.00 in U.S. Currency, 786 F. Supp. 899(D. Ore. 1990) (90-minute detention notunreasonable).

20 See, e.g., United States v. Simpson, 992F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (10-minutedetention was reasonable); United States v.

Bell, 892 F.2d 959 (10th Cir. 1989) (5-minutedetention was reasonable); United States v.

Hanson, 801 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1986) (5-10-minute detention was reasonable).

21 In the following cases the duration of thedetention was found to be reasonable: United

States v. Villa-Chaparro, 115 F.3d 797 (10thCir. 1997) (43-minute detention); United States

v. McCarthy, 77 F.3d 522 (1st Cir. 1996) (75-minute detention); United States v. Vega, 72F.3d 507 (7th Cir. 1995) (62-minute detention);Allen v. City of Los Angeles, 66 F.3d 1052 (9thCir. 1995) (24-minute detention); Baker v.

Monroe Tp., 50 F.3d 1186 (3d Cir. 1995) (15-minute detention); United States v. White, 42F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 1994) (80-minute detention);United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8thCir. 1994) (1-hour detention); United States v.

Robinson, 30 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994) (20-minute detention); United States v. Medina,992 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1993) (30-60-minutedetention); United States v. McFarley, 991 F.2d1188 (4th Cir. 1993) (38-minute detention);United States v. Withers, 972 F.2d 837 (7th Cir.1992) (15-20-minute detention); United States

v. Glover, 957 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1992) (30-minute detention); Courson v. McMillian, 939F.2d 1479 (11th Cir. 1991) (25-minutedetention); United States v. Hooper, 935 F.2d484 (2d Cir. 1991) (30-minute detention);United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463 (9thCir. 1991) (30-minute detention); United States

v. Nurse, 916 F.2d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (20-30-minute detention); United States v. Winfrey,915 F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1990) (10-15-minute

detention); United States v. Sullivan, 903 F.2d1093 (7th Cir. 1990) (45-minute detention);United States v. Tavolacci, 895 F.2d 1423(D.C. Cir. 1990) (10-15-minute detention);United States v. Cooper, 873 F.2d 269 (11thCir. 1989) (35-minute detention); United States

v. Teslim, 869 F.2d 316 (7th Cir. 1989) (25-minute detention); United States v. Hardy, 855F.2d 753 (11th Cir. 1988) (50-minutedetention); United States v. Knox, 839 F.2d 285(6th Cir. 1988) (30-minute detention); United

States v. Rutherford, 824 F.2d 831 (10th Cir.1987) (1-hour detention); United States v.

Alpert, 816 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. 1987) (50-minute detention); United States v. Quinn, 815F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1987) (25-minute detention);United States v. Erwin, 803 F.2d 1505 (9th Cir.1986) (45- minute detention); United States v.

Davies, 768 F.2d 893 (7th Cir. 1985) (45-minute detention); United States v. Borys, 766F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1983) (75-minute detention);United States v. Ogden, 703 F.2d 629 (1st Cir.1983) (30-40-minute detention); United States

v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1982) (10-12-minute detention); United States v.

Richards, 500 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1994)(detention of slightly over 1-hour);United States

v. Borrero, 770 F. Supp. 1178 (E.D. Mich.1991) (70-minute detention); United States v.

Campbell, 627 F. Supp. 320 (D. Alaska 1985)(57-minute detention). Cf. United States v.

Acosta-Colon, 157 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1998) (30-minute detention too long where no investiga-tory action pursued by officers to confirm ordispel their suspicion); United States v.

Babweh, 972 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1992) (40-minutedetention too long); United States v. Kennedy,573 F.2d 657 (9th Cir. 1978) (45-minutedetention too long); United States v. Jennings,468 F.2d 111 (9th Cir. 1972) (30-minutedetention too long); State v. Kirby, 744 P.2d146 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987) (30-minute detentiontoo long).

22 999 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1993).23 Id. at 742.24 460 U.S. 491 (1983).25 Id. at 500.26 Id. at 501. Other courts also have found

detentions of arguably reasonable duration to beunreasonable because they had become de facto

arrests for which no probable cause existed.See, e.g., United States v. Obasa, 15 F.3d 603(6th Cir. 1994); Peterson v. City of Plymouth,

Minn., 945 F.2d 1416 (8th Cir. 1991);Minnesota v. Blacksten, 507 N.W.2d 842(Minn. 1993) (detention for over 1-hour becamea de facto arrest).

27 Id. at 503.28 Id. at 504.

29 See, e.g., United States v. Davies, 768F.2d 893 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1982). Cf.

United States v. Babweh, 972 F.2d 30 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Kennedy, 573 F.2d 657(9th Cir. 1978).

30 See, e.g., Baker v. Monroe Tp., 50 F.3d1186 (3d Cir. 1995); United States v. Ogden,703 F.2d 629 (1st Cir. 1983).

31 See, e.g., United States v. Villa-Chaparro,115 F.3d 797 (10th Cir. 1997); United States v.

Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1994);United States v. Glover, 957 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Tavolacci, 895 F.2d1423 (D.C. Cir. 1990); United States v. Hardy,855 F.2d 753 (11th Cir. 1988).

32 See, e.g., United States v. Villa-

Chaparro, 115 F.3d 797 (10th Cir. 1997);United States v. Bloomfield, 40 F.3d 910 (8thCir. 1994); United States v. McFarley, 991F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v.

Glover, 957 F.2d 1004 (2d Cir. 1992); United

States v. Nurse, 916 F.2d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1990);United States v. Tavolacci, 895 F.2d 1423(D.C. Cir. 1990); United States v. Hardy, 855F.2d 753 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v.

Quinn, 815 F.2d 153 (1st Cir. 1987); United

States v. Borys, 766 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1983).33 See, e.g., United States v. Knox, 839 F.2d

285 (6th Cir. 1988).34 See, e.g., United States v. Medina, 992

F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1993).35 See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 30

F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994).36 See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 30

F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994); United States v.

Richards, 500 F.2d 1025 (9th Cir. 1994).37 See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 30

F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 1994).38 See, e.g., Courson v. McMillian, 939 F.2d

1479 (11th Cir. 1991).39 See, e.g., United States v. Hooper, 935

F.2d 484 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v.

Alpert, 816 F.2d 958 (4th Cir. 1987); United

States v. Campbell, 627 F. Supp. 320 (D.Alaska 1985). Cf. United States v. $191,910.00

in U.S. Currency, 16 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 1994);Moya v. United States, 761 F.2d 322 (7th Cir.1984).

40 See, e.g., United States v. Winfrey, 915F.2d 212 (6th Cir. 1990).

Law enforcement officers of other thanfederal jurisdiction who are interested inthis article should consult their legaladvisors. Some police procedures ruledpermissible under federal constitutional laware of questionable legality under state lawor are not permitted at all.

Page 34: 1 11 - LEB

The Bulletin Notes

Law enforcement officers are challenged daily in the performance of their duties; they face eachchallenge freely and unselfishly while answering the call to duty. In certain instances, their actionswarrant special attention from their respective departments. The Bulletin also wants to recognizetheir exemplary service to the law enforcement profession.

Parole Agent Gerardi

On their way to make anarrest, Agents Robert Collins,Harry Pagano, and John Gerardiof the Pennsylvania Board ofProbation and Parole witnessed acar spin out of control on aslippery, wintry road, roll overseveral times, and finally restupside down on the shoulder ofthe road. Agents Collins andPagano approached the car whileAgent Gerardi called the

Lycoming County Emergency Services Center. Agent Pagano dropped to his stomach in the fuel-drenched mud and observed the unconscious driver hanging upside down in his seat belt, gasping forbreath and bleeding from his ear. Agent Pagano turned off the ignition, cradled the victim to soften hisfall, unhooked the seat belt, and lowered the victim onto the inverted roof. After determining that thevictim was breathing regularly, Agent Collins applied a compress to stop the loss of blood from thevictim’s head injuries. After medical technicians arrived, the agents assisted the state police by lightingflares and directing traffic around the accident scene. The actions of these agents clearly went beyondthe call of duty.

Parole Agent Collins Parole Agent Pagano

Sergeant Lawrence A. Stefanski of the Oswego,Illinois, Police Department was dispatched to a pond inOswego, Illinois, where two youths had fallen throughthe ice. One boy, 60 feet from the shore, was crying andscreaming. The other boy, about 10 feet farther away,assured that he was okay and able to keep himself afloat.Oswego Police Department’s Detective Dwight Bairdarrived, and both officers broke through the 2-inch-thickice using their hands, forearms, elbows, and chests. Theofficers reached the closest boy just as he went com-pletely under the water. Sergeant Stefanski grabbed theboy’s coat and then went under the water. He resurfaced

and, with two broken ribs, swam to shore with the boy holding onto his neck. Detective Baird tied anextension cord around his waist, swam to the second boy, and grabbed him. Both Detective Baird andthe boy were pulled ashore by other officers and paramedics. Due to Sergeant Stefanski’s and DetectiveBaird’s acts of heroism, two young lives were saved.

Sergeant Stefanski Detective Baird

Page 35: 1 11 - LEB

PeriodicalPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of Investigation935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Subscribe Now