FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec01leb

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

Departments

9 Crime DataSerious Crime Figures

10 Focus on TechnologyFBI Laboratory Publications

12 Notable SpeechResponding to Terrorism

Gangs in Middle America By David M. Allender

Military Support of DomesticLaw Enforcement Operations

By David G. Bolgiano

1

December 2001Volume 70Number 12

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors' opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

endorsement by the FBI for any policy,program, or service.

The Attorney General has determinedthat the publication of this periodical is

necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use

of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved by the Director of theOffice of Management and Budget.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(ISSN-0014-5688) is published

monthly by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paidat Washington, D.C., and additionalmailing offices. Postmaster: Sendaddress changes to Editor, FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,

Madison Building, Room 209,Quantico, VA 22135.

EditorJohn E. Ott

Associate EditorsGlen BartolomeiCynthia L. LewisBunny S. Morris

Art DirectorDenise Bennett Smith

Assistant Art DirectorStephanie L. Lowe

Staff AssistantLinda W. Szumilo

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law Enforcement

Communication Unit,William T. Guyton, Chief.

Internet Address [email protected]

Cover Photo© Digital Stock

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBIAcademy, Madison Building, Room

209, Quantico, VA 22135.

Gang activity persists throughout theUnited States, even in the country'sheartland.

All law enforcement managers shouldbe familiar with the types of militarysupport available to them, as well assome of the legal restrictions imposedon that support.

16

15 Book ReviewControversial Issuesin Policing

25 2001 Subject Index

28 2001 Author Index

December 2001 / 1

n the past 30 years, changeshave occurred in how thepolice and the public view,

Gangs in Middle AmericaAre They a Threat?By DAVID M. ALLENDER

Idefine, and discuss gangs.1 In thelate 1960s and early 1970s, policein large cities generally acknowl-edged the existence of gang activitywithin their jurisdictions. Duringthe 1970s, the public was recover-ing from the Vietnam War and deal-ing with a wide variety of importantsocial issues and changes. Gangsand crime did not demand the sameattention as these other matters.

By the middle of the 1980s,however, the public became

increasingly concerned with safetyissues. The interest continued intothe 1990s, partially due to an agingpopulation. In response to the elec-torates’ concern, federal grant pro-grams and monies proliferated.Several of these projects, such asOperation Weed and Seed and theOffice of Community-Oriented Po-licing Services (COPS) antiganginitiative,2 had as a core ingredientthe need to control or dismantlecriminal street gangs. Increased at-tention and discussion also broughtnew legislation to deal with thegangs. Many states enacted statutes

to assist police and prosecutors andmandated that new police officersattending basic police academiesreceive at least a minimal amount oftraining in gang topics. Media inter-est mirrored audience appetite andboosted coverage of gang-relatedsubject matter. Increased reportingof such incidents had the effect ofmaking it appear that gang activitywas on the rise. But, is this truly thecase, especially in middle America?Are states, such as Indiana, “thecrossroads of America,”3 at risk ofbecoming infected with the gangmenace or has it occurred already?

© Mark C. Ide

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

An examination of gang history,gang migration, and gang structure,along with the efforts of law en-forcement to combat and preventgangs may provide some answers.In addition, a review of Indianapo-lis, Indiana’s experience with gangsillustrates how a “big small town”in the heart of the United States canbecome a new target for gangs fromother areas of the country.4

GANG HISTORYHistorical literature makes fre-

quent reference to groups that en-gaged in criminal activity. AncientEgyptians talked about bands ofrobbers who preyed upon thosetransporting goods along the cara-van routes. China had gangs whocommitted robberies and kidnap-pings for profit. Folklore romanti-cizes pirates on the high seas thatmade their living by murder, rob-bery, and kidnapping. According toHollywood and some authors, largenumbers of outlaw gangs populatedthe American West. As with the pi-rates, many of these outlaws be-came folk heroes. Endless examples

exist of gangs, bound togetherthrough the commission of criminalacts.

A well-documented gang casecomes from the British who, from1834 to 1848, were dealing withwhat they identified as a gang ofrobbers and murderers in Budhuk,India.5 Unable to deal with the gangbecause of its size and complexity,local authorities turned to the armyfor help. To gain control of the situ-ation, the government passed legis-lation prohibiting gang member-ship, associating with known gangmembers, and deriving profit from agang’s criminal activity. Themilitary convinced the governmentto pass additional laws allowing afederalist approach, including per-mission to house prisoners in jailsfar from the gang’s home territory.Extensive use of informants, work-ing for both pay and sentencingconsiderations, comprised a maincomponent of the successful effort.Interestingly, police investigatinggangs today deal with some of theproblems troops encountered dur-ing this operation.

America’s first identified gang,however, was formed in 1820 in theFive Points District of New YorkCity. Named the Forty Thieves, thegang operated along the water-front, engaging in acts of murder,robbery, assault, and other violentacts. Composed of recently arrivedIrish immigrants, the Forty Thievesrecruited a group of young imi-tators, who called themselves theForty Little Thieves. To completethe equation, a rival gang, theKerryonians, organized to ensurethat they got their share of the ill-gotten gains. This pattern repeateditself many times over the years.

The end of the Civil War sawlarge-scale criminal activity on thepart of a few veterans who hadtrouble returning to a peaceful soci-ety. Some of these men formedgangs to increase the profits fromtheir illegal actions, such as the in-famous brothers Jessie and FrankJames who recruited men, oftenboyhood friends or relatives, to as-sist them as they traveled to commitrobberies. Media reports often at-tributed crimes to the James Gangthat they could not possibly havecommitted due to the acts occurringgreat distances apart and on thesame day. Although authoritiesknew where the James family lived,they were unsuccessful in appre-hending the brothers. The gang fi-nally met its ruin through a coupleof events. The members venturedfar from their familiar territory inMissouri to commit a robbery inNorthfield, Minnesota. The robberywent awry and degenerated into arunning gun battle leaving severalresidents and holdup men dead orwounded. Captured gang membersreceived long prison sentences.

Without astandardized

reporting system,it proves impossible

to accuratelydetermine the level

of gang activity.

”Lieutenant Allender serves with theIndianapolis, Indiana, Police Department.

“

December 2001 / 3

Unrelated to the robbery, but notlong after, an associate murderedJessie. Faced with the loss of somany of the gang’s members, Franksurrendered to authorities. The gov-ernor of Missouri later pardonedFrank James, and he escaped pun-ishment for his criminal acts.

Moving from the notorious andinfamous to those with more in com-mon with gangs today, a 1927 studyof street gangs in Chicago6 identi-fied 1,313 active gangs in the city atthat time. The findings have a com-mon thread that links these histori-cal groups to present-day gangmembers. For example, many ofthose who formed or joined gangsfelt disenfranchised by society.Many members of Forty Thieves,comprised of recently arrived immi-grants, had problems adjusting to anew culture and experienced preju-dice due to their immigrant statusand ethnicity. In India, the gang’smembers had to live closely to-gether to avoid arrest. In time, therest of society would not acceptanyone tied to the gang. Thus, theyhad to remain within the group tosupport themselves. Pirates oftenwere seamen who had been shang-haied, escaped from authorities, orwere estranged in some mannerfrom a normal lifestyle. The James’brothers and their support system offriends and relatives felt strong re-sentment toward established au-thority because of their wartime ex-periences. More examples exist, butthe feeling of estrangement exhib-ited by these groups represents animportant theme. These same feel-ings often occur in modern gangs.The gang often exists prior to enter-ing into any type of profit-makingcriminal activity. The opportunity

to make money from crime comesabout because the gang exists. Thegang, with the exception of somedrug gangs, does not normally formto make money.

The world of outlaw motor-cycle gangs illustrates how the gangcame first and then the criminal ac-tions. Veterans returning fromWorld War II formed motorcycleclubs. While most were socialgroups, a few, such as the Hell’sAngels, began to engage in criminalactivities. As the Angels grew inpower and influence, rival gangs,such as the Pagans, Banditos, and

the Outlaws, formed in other partsof the nation. Because of their orga-nization, the motorcycle gangs con-trolled certain types of criminal ac-tivity within their areas ofdominance. Bikers, by their bylaws,actions, and appearance, seek toforce their members to remain out-side the mainstream of society. Indoing so, the leadership bonds themembership closer together as thegroup mentality becomes one of “usversus them.”

Ethnic gangs represent anotherillustration of gangs forming beforeany criminal activity takes place.Hispanic gangs grew in strengthand influence following the ZootSuit Riots of 1943. In California,

white, off-duty military personnelattacked Hispanic males who theyfelt were benefitting from the warwhile evading the dangers of com-bat. The physical danger from therioters, coupled with other acts ofprejudice and discrimination, causedthe Latino community to band to-gether more tightly. The criminal el-ement, usually present in everygroup of people, then took oversome of the gangs to further unlaw-ful enterprises.

Other ethnic groups, includingAsians, Italians, Jews, Jamaicans,and many others, formed gangs be-cause they too had to deal withprejudice and discrimination,which alienated them from main-stream society. The organizationsthey formed had varying degrees ofsophistication. Many of the groupsfaded away as the ethnic groups as-similated into mainstream culture.A lawful alternative for those thatcontinued to exist was the transitioninto social or fraternal organiza-tions, promoting cultural identityand positive civic actions. A smallpercentage mutated into criminalenterprises, which the media andentertainment industry often haveromanticized. The extreme exampleof this genre being the Italian Ma-fia, portrayed in a positive or hu-morous fashion in numerousmovies, television programs, adver-tising commercials, and even newsreports. The trend continues withthe influx of Russian immigrantsinto the United States. A small per-centage of these new arrivals arecriminals and gang members,dubbed the “Russian Mafia” by thepopular media. In short, the formulafor creating and maintaining gangsis not a new concept and is ongoing.

”Not all street

gangs exist to selldrugs or commit

criminal acts.“


The real problem facing law en-forcement is identifying the amountof criminal gang activity presentand limiting the damage thesegroups can do to society.

GANG MIGRATIONHow does the idea of establish-

ing a gang spread? Where do aspir-ing members get information onhow to form and structure the gang?Must gang members follow certainrules? How does a potential leaderpick and recruit followers? Arethere role models in this subculture?To understand the gang subculture,law enforcement officers, schooladministrators, social workers, andparents must become familiar withthe basic concepts that these ques-tions address.

Who Joins a Gang?Not all street gangs exist to sell

drugs or commit criminal acts. In-stead, young people normally seekgang involvement for some combi-nation of the following five reasons:

1) Structure: Youths want toorganize their lives but lackthe maturity to do so on theirown. The gang provides rulesto live by and a code ofconduct.

2) Nurturing: Gang membersfrequently talk of how theylove one another. This remainstrue even among the mosthardened street gangs. Theseyoung people are trying to filla void in their lives by substi-tuting the gang for the tradi-tional family.

3) Sense of belonging: Be-cause humans require socialinteraction, some young

people find that the gang ful-fills the need to be accepted asan important part of a group.

4) Economic opportunity:Gang members motivatedby this consideration aloneprobably would becomeinvolved in criminal activityanyway. Finding it hard todraw away from the lifestyle,but due to a lack of loyaltyfor the group, they oftenwill provide authorities withinformation in exchangefor some personal benefit.

members do one thing or another.To understand the gang operating inany given area, law enforcementagencies must determine what moti-vates the gang’s members and howthe gang leadership maintains au-thority over, and loyalty from, itsmembers.

At present, the most visiblecriminal street gangs operate in thenation’s inner cities. When depictedby either the news media or the en-tertainment industry, these groupshave almost exclusively youngblack or Hispanic males as mem-bers, often portrayed as violent andprosperous because of their in-volvement in the drug trade. In real-ity, not all street gangs are involvedheavily in drug trafficking; very fewstreet gang members are prosper-ous; and no shortage of white malegang members exists in inner-city,suburban, or rural areas. Moreover,females often join the gang subcul-ture for the same reasons males do.They may link themselves to amale-dominated gang, or, in somecases, form their own associations.The urban legend about prosperityhas grown, however, and manyyoung people see the street gangas a method of achieving bothfinancial and social success. Unfor-tunately, a few gangsters involvedwith street gangs are successful,both financially and socially. Theybecome role models to less fortu-nate young people who are short-sighted and fail to realize the dangerand the damage criminal gang activ-ity can do to them, their families,and their neighborhoods.

How Do Gangs Spread?Criminal street gangs can

spread by what some have labeled

5) Excitement: This oftenrepresents a motivation forsuburban and affluent youths.Gangs composed of thesetypes of individuals usuallyhave very fluid membership,with associates joining andleaving to be replaced byothers with a passing interest.Few young people that enter

into the gang subculture do so forevil or criminal reasons. They arelooking for something that they feelis lacking in their lives. For thisreason, gangs can form in any city,town, neighborhood, or region. Nohard-and-fast rule says that all gang

”

A new street gangoften will form because

young people havean interest in thegang lifestyle and

will look for sourcesof information.

“

December 2001 / 5

the “imperialist method.” A largestreet gang will dispatch membersto start a chapter in a new city orneighborhood to further some formof criminal activity. For example, in1999, the Indianapolis Safe StreetsTask Force concluded a multiyearinvestigation of a drug-dealing gangcalled the New Breed. This gangarrived as an established enterprisefrom Chicago and only allowed lo-cal residents to fill lower levels ofthe organization. Members wouldrotate between Chicago, Indianapo-lis, and at least six other cities. Thegroup had a set of rules and a beliefsystem, which they brought withthem. At the conclusion of the in-vestigation, 15 gang memberswere charged with federal drugtrafficking offenses, based oncrimes committed in Indianapolis.Numerous New Breed members op-erating in other cities were unaf-fected by this case.7 Two problems

benefit—the locals get a depend-able supply of product, and, in thisexample, the Four Corner Hustlersrealize a profit with minimal risk.Most prevalent in drug-dealing en-terprises, franchising also can in-volve such crimes as theft, forgery,or fencing stolen goods.

A new street gang often willform because young people have aninterest in the gang lifestyle and willlook for sources of information. Ifpossible, the curious will findsomeone who was, or claims tohave been, a gang member in an-other location (e.g., a young personwho recently moved into the areafrom a city, such as Chicago or LosAngeles). This person now be-comes the resident “gang expert,”and the gang will shape its structureand rules by this person’s informa-tion. In addition, gang members andtheir associates watch movies andtelevision programs depicting gang

arise from this type of gang move-ment. First, surviving gang mem-bers in other locations will, aftermodifying their methods, move tofill the void left by those arrested.Second, local residents who wereeither gang members or associateswill recreate the operation to takeadvantage of the available profits.Presently, both of these situationsmay be occurring in Indianapolis.

Another way an establishedstreet gang can spread its influencecan be referred to as “franchising.”Often done to realize a profit fromcriminal activity, this method callsfor an existing gang to contact localresidents and recruit them into theenterprise. If, for example, a Chi-cago-based gang, such as the FourCorner Hustlers, develops contactsthat they trust in Indianapolis, theymay work an arrangement to supplydrugs in exchange for a substantialshare of the profits. Both groups

Gangs and Security Threat Group Awareness: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/gangs/index.htmlCreated and maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections, this Web site contains informa-tion, photographs, and descriptions on a wide variety of gang types, including Chicago- and LosAngeles-based gangs, prison gangs, nation sets, and supremacy groups from many parts of theUnited States.

Gangs or Us: http://www.gangsorus.comA comprehensive Web site that offers a broad range of information, including a state-by-statelisting of all available gang laws, gang identities and behaviors applicable to all areas of the UnitedStates, and links to other sites that provide information to law enforcement, parents, and teachers.

Southeastern Connecticut Gang Activities Group (SEGAG): http://www.segag.orgA coalition of law enforcement and criminal justice agencies from southeastern Connecticut andNew England, this group provides information on warning signs that parents and teachers oftenobserve first, along with a large number of resources and other working groups that are part ofnationwide efforts to contain gang violence.

Some Gang Web Sites


”

The gang problemis not an exclusivelaw enforcementproblem nor canpolice deal with it

in a vacuum.

“

life from which they convert infor-mation for their purposes. Conver-sations with former gang membersrevealed that they also viewed tele-vision news reports, read news sto-ries, and watched reality-based tele-vision programs to see how gangsin other places operated. Finally,the Internet represents an importantsource for emerging gangs. Simplyby searching the word gang, the in-quirer can receive a wealth of Websites, as well as several chat roomsfor gang members. Such numerousand varied sources, many of whichgive conflicting information, ac-count for the wide diversity in streetgang structure and methods ofoperation.

GANG STRUCTURE

Just as there are numerousgangs for aspiring gangsters to imi-tate, uncounted sources of informa-tion exist on how to establish, struc-ture, and rule a street gang. EastCoast and Hispanic gangs generatesome interest, but the dominant in-fluences in the Midwest are fromthe West Coast, especially Los An-geles, and from the Chicago area.Observers also will encounter othertypes of criminal gangs throughoutthe area, including prison groups,outlaw motorcycle clubs, as well asAsian criminal enterprises and eth-nic street gangs. Perhaps, the mostrecognizable of these latter sets arethe outlaw bikers because of theirattire, community activities, andWeb sites. However, their sophisti-cation and secretive nature con-cerning their operations and struc-ture prevent the average street gangmember from obtaining enough in-formation to imitate them.

The Four NationsIn the 1980s, West Coast black

gangs formed two loose confedera-tions—the largest, the Crips, andtheir rivals, the Bloods. Contrary towhat many believe, there is neitherone Crip nor one Blood gang.Rather, numerous sets of each havejoined together to either protectthemselves or facilitate their crimi-nal activities. These represent twoof the Four Nations. The other twooriginate from Chicago. In the late1970s, a very large criminal streetgang, known as the Gangster Dis-ciples, formed a coalition with sev-eral other street gangs to maximize

The Indianapolis ConnectionIn Indianapolis, the West Coast

message from the Crip and BloodNations arrives through a varietyof mediums. Evidence shows thata few California area gang mem-bers have migrated to Indianapolis.Authorities speculate that thesegangsters came to the city to spreadtheir illegal enterprises. However,officials have not documented thisnor have they determined if thegangs sent these people to theMidwest or if the gangsters are act-ing from personal interests. Themore common means of transmis-sion for West Coast ideas andmodels come from the entertain-ment industry, including music art-ists who encourage violence andgang values; movies glorifyinggangs and their lifestyle; and books,television programs, the Internet,and the news media all publicizingthe gang subculture.

Many Indianapolis residentslook to Chicago for important le-gitimate influences, such as busi-ness, cultural pursuits, and sportsteams. Many people have friendsand relatives living in the Chicagoarea and frequently travel betweenthe cities. With these active meth-ods of communication present, in-formation concerning the gang sub-culture often occurs by word ofmouth. The closeness enables Chi-cago gangs to exert a measure ofcontrol over some of those operat-ing in Indianapolis. For these rea-sons, the Folk and People Nationsdominate the Indianapolis ganglandscape, confirmed by area streetgang graffiti almost exclusivelycomposed of Chicago-area gangnames and symbols.

drug profits and protect their mem-bers from violence perpetrated byrivals. The consolidation calleditself the Folk Nation. Other gangsets in Chicago felt the need to forman alliance to ensure their share ofthe drug market. Led by the ViceLords and the El Rukins, this banddubbed themselves the People Na-tion, thus creating the big four streetgang nations, in no particular orderof influence, the Crips, Bloods,Folks, and People.

December 2001 / 7

GANG PREVENTIONAND INTERVENTION

Before addressing ways of han-dling the gang problem or prevent-ing the formation of such groups,authorities need to determine theprevalence of gangs in America andwhether their number is on the rise.However, for a variety of reasons, itis difficult, if not impossible, toprove that criminal street gang ac-tivity is on the increase in theUnited States. Confusion resultsfrom the lack of a clear definition ofwhat constitutes a gang, past andpresent denial by both law enforce-ment and other officials about gangactivity, no baseline data to deter-mine what gangs did in the past, anda myriad of reporting problems.Several sources suggest that gangactivity declined in the 1970s. Thebasis for this claim appears to restwith the lack of information pub-lished on gangs during that decade.Without a standardized reportingsystem, it proves impossible to ac-curately determine the level ofgang activity. What is observable,however, is the growing publicappetite for information on crime,in general, and gangs, in particu-lar. For example, a 5-year study(1990 through 1994) conducted inRochester, New York, attributed 86percent of youth violence in thatcity to individuals involved with thegang subculture. The same studycontended that gangs controlled themajority of drug trafficking withinRochester. Gary and other Indianacities advance the same theory.8

Upon considering these responses,it becomes clear that gangs are areal problem, even though the ac-tual extent remains unknown. The

question then becomes how can agang be effectively dismantled orcontrolled? More important, par-ents, teachers, law enforcementofficials, and social workers want toknow how to discourage youngpeople from joining a gang and howto disengage them from the gangsubculture once they becomeinvolved.

Prevention MethodsAn educated group, with di-

verse talents and responsibilities,working together constitutes thefirst ingredient to an effective gangprevention program. The gangproblem is not an exclusive law en-forcement problem nor can policedeal with it in a vacuum. Important

lifestyle. These alternatives shouldvary and include educational pro-grams, social interaction, recre-ational activities, and employmentopportunities. Obviously, the provi-sion of these services will take co-operation among families, localschools, government-funded socialservices, area businesses, religiousorganizations, and other neighbor-hood resources.

Unfortunately, most communi-ties do not become interested ingang prevention until one or moregangs appear in the area. Becauseparents and teachers usually havethe first interaction with new gangmembers and their sets, they needto educate themselves on whatsigns and behavior changes indicategang membership. Police need tobe aware of the indicators and thetypes of criminal activity of localgang sets. They must scrutinizeincidents involving gangsters to seeif arrests or enhanced charges basedon criminal gang activity are appro-priate. Officers need to alert pros-ecutors when a gang member isarrested or if a crime is gang re-lated. Prosecutors then have thenecessary tools that will enablethem to effectively present the caseto the court. Sentencing for thosegangsters convicted of crimes caninclude orders forbidding associa-tion with other gang members,counseling designed to discouragegang participation, anger controlclasses, and, when appropriate,drug counseling.9

Intervention Strategies

Law enforcement agenciesmust structure their efforts to com-bat active criminal street gangs

factors that influence people to en-ter the gang subculture are not en-forcement issues. Boredom, a needfor attention, a desire for structure,and the yearning to feel importantare not areas that police have thetools to deal with effectively.Society must provide young peoplewith meaningful alternatives thatwill draw them away from the gang


based on the targeted gang set. Noprogram imported from anotheragency will prove effective withoutmodification. Each gang set has adifferent level of member dedica-tion based on how strongly mem-bers have bought into the belief sys-tem that provides the basis for thegang. No two criminal street gangscommit exactly the same crimes.Police need to make cases based onthe offenses in their jurisdiction andnot try to follow another agency’ssuccess story too closely. Police ad-ministrators must keep in mind thatthe experts on area gangs are theuniform officers and detectives whodeal with them on a day-to-day ba-sis. To develop an effective plan,the intelligence possessed by de-partmental personnel represents avital component. To learn how toapply the information already intheir possession, managers need tostudy the psychology behind gangmembership. Officers then shouldreview a number of different suc-cessful programs to gain ideas onwhat might work for them.

The first step in planning a re-sponse is to determine if there is aproblem. A group of young peoplewho decide to call themselves agang and then engage in disruptivebehavior in the classroom, but stopshort of criminal activity, are notyet a police problem. Due to recentevents around the country, how-ever, some school officials maypanic and request police interven-tion. The law enforcement agencymust identify what they are dealingwith.

One popular method employedby many agencies is the SARAtechnique: scanning, analysis,response, and assessment. After

identifying the problem (scanning),the planners must decide what com-bination of ideas will be most effec-tive (analysis). Implementation ofthe plan follows (response). Thelast step (assessment) is not de-signed to be the final ingredient inthe plan. The planners must reviewwhat approaches were used, whatworked, what did not work, andthen decide if the problem was re-solved. If the problem was not re-solved, the planners go back to theoriginal step and start over. Agen-cies can complete this process asmany times as necessary until thegang ceases to be a problem.

training programs geared to meetthe needs of different audiences areavailable. Funding sources cansometimes be found to providetraining for educators and officers.For example, Indiana schools havea small amount budgeted for train-ing to help stop school violence,and some law enforcement grantsprovide training for officers in-volved with gang investigations.

CONCLUSION

No city, town, or neighborhoodis totally immune from the threat ofgangs. The first step in prevention isfor those in authority to study theunderlying reasons for gang forma-tion—structure, nurturing, need tobelong, economic opportunity, andexcitement. If communities meetthese needs, gangs will have a hardtime establishing a foothold. How-ever, once gang involvement is sus-pected, authorities must take time tostudy the situation to determine theextent and type of problem theyneed to deal with. A variety of so-cial and law enforcement agenciesneed to become involved in the dis-cussion process from the beginning.Police and community membersneed to arrive at a consensus of howserious the gang problem is andthen work together to combat anycriminal activity.

The police must act as the pointgroup to bring an operating criminalstreet gang under control. Officersmust target the gang in a variety ofways, including the criminal activi-ties normally associated with thegang. Less apparent, but just as im-portant, is the need to deal withother criminal and antisocialactions on the part of gang mem-bers. Officers also should develop

In addition to law enforcementintervention, the entire social struc-ture must deal with the underlyingissues. A working partnership mustform to handle the problems facedby the youthful offenders who makeup the gang. Many informationalsources exist that can provide guid-ance on where and how to deal withthe criminal street gang member.The working group would do wellto investigate as many sources aspossible, including the Internet,government reports, news stories,and other publications. A number of

”

Society must provideyoung people

with meaningfulalternatives that willlead them away from

the gang lifestyle.

“

strong working relationships withprosecutors and probation officersso that, when arrested, gang mem-bers receive special attention andappropriate sentences. Finally, astandardized reporting system tocapture the true extent of gang ac-tivity in America remains a goalthat all concerned citizens shouldwork toward. Protecting thisnation’s youth from the dangers ofgang involvement requires the ef-fort of all facets of the society. IfAmerica’s heartland is facing thethreat of gangs, the entire country isat risk.

Endnotes

1 The author based this article on hisexperience investigating gang-related cases andon information he and his fellow officers havegathered for presentations to the law enforce-ment community and the general public,contained in a department training guide.

2 Weed and Seed has existed since 1991 as acomprehensive effort between law enforcementand health and human services to prevent anddeter crime in high-risk areas. COPS began asa 6-year, $9 billion federal initiative designedto spur the hiring of more police and promotecommunity policing.

3 The state motto of Indiana.4 Indianapolis, the capital of Indiana, has a

population of approximately 750,000 and hoststhe annual Indianapolis 500 auto race,considered the largest 1-day event in the world.

5 Lieutenant Colonel W.H. Sleeman,Report on Budhuk Alia Bagree Decoits andOther Gang Robbers by HereditaryProfession and on the Measures Adopted bythe Government of India for Their Suppres-sion (Calcutta, India: J.C. Sherriff, BengalMilitary Orphan Press, 1849).

6 Frederic M. Thrasher, The Gang: The FullOriginal Edition (Peotone, IL: New ChicagoSchool Press, 2000).

7 David M. Allender, “Safe Streets TaskForce: Cooperation Gets Results,” FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, March 2000, 1-6.

8 U.S. Department of Justice, National DrugIntelligence Center, National Street GangSurvey Report (Johnstown, PA, 1998).

9 Lisa A. Regini, “Combating Gangs: TheNeed for Innovation,” FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, February 1998, 25-31.

Crime Data

Serious Crime Figures Remain Relatively Unchanged

According to preliminary statistics released bythe FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)

Program, the Crime Index, composed of murder,forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, bur-glary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft, wasrelatively unchanged from 1999 figures.

Compared with data from the previous year,these preliminary figures indicate that violentcrime totals remained relatively unchanged withan increase of 0.1 percent, and property crimetotals showed virtually no change.

In the violent crime category, murder de-clined 1.1 percent and robbery registered a 0.7percent decrease. Forcible rape and aggravatedassault figures indicated an increase of 0.7percent and 0.4 percent, respectively. In theproperty crime category, burglary decreased 2.1percent from 1999 figures. Motor vehicle theftincreased by 2.7 percent, and larceny-theftincreased 0.1 percent when compared to 1999data. Arson registered a decline of 0.6 percent.

Regionally, law enforcement agencies in theNortheast and Midwest reported decreases in the

Crime Index total with declines of 2.4 percent and1.1 percent, respectively. In the West, a 1.1percent increase was registered and a 1 percentincrease was noted in the South. A comparison of2000 and 1999 data showed that violent crime fell1.7 percent in the Northeast and 0.7 percent in theMidwest. A 1.2 percent increase in violent crimewas recorded in the West and an increase of 0.7percent in the South. In both the South and theWest, a 1 percent increase in property crimes wasnoted.

Among cites, those with populations of 50,000to 99,999 registered the largest decrease, 1.1 per-cent, in Index crime. Cities with populations of25,000 to 49,999 and 100,000 to 249,999 recordedthe greatest increase, 0.5 percent. Compared withthe 1999 figures, data for 2000 showed that theCrime Index increased 0.7 percent in suburbancounties and decreased 0.8 percent in ruralcounties.

For the complete preliminary annual UniformCrime Report press release, access the FBI’s Website at http://www.fbi.gov.

December 2001 / 9

he FBI Laboratory’s Forensic Science Informa-tion Resource System staff writes, edits, andT

publishes information to foster communicationbetween international forensic scientists; to provideforensic science information to law enforcement,crime scene investigators, legislators, and the generalpublic; and to promote the work of the personnel inthe FBI Laboratory.

Three of the publications include the Handbookof Forensic Services, Forensic Science Communica-tions, and the FBI Laboratory 2000. These publica-tions may be viewed on the FBI Web site (http://www.fbi.gov). Between April 1, 2001, and June 30,2001, Forensic Science Communications received13,176 visits while the Handbook of Forensic Ser-vices incurred 27,675 visits. The FBI Laboratory2000 has had 7,670 visits since it was uploaded onMay 29, 2001.

Handbook of Forensic ServicesThe Handbook of Forensic Services (formerly

the Handbook of Forensic Sciences) was rewrittenand published in 1999. The purpose of the Handbookis to provide guidance and procedures for safe andefficient methods of collecting and preserving evi-dence and to describe the forensic examinationsperformed by the FBI Laboratory.

The Handbook is divided into five sections.1) “Introduction” details the availability of thelaboratory services, which include forensicexaminations of evidence and expert witnesstestimonies.

2) “Evidence Submission” lists the proceduresrequired to request evidence examinations and topackage and ship evidence to the laboratory.

3) “Examinations” describes the types of evidenceexaminations provided and specific evidencecollection and preservation techniques.

4) “Crime Scene Safety” provides familiarity ofthe hazards, safety precautions, and safe workpractices. This section also provides training onapplying these principles.

5) “Crime Scene Search” outlines the stepsnecessary to process a crime scene.

The Handbook is available in—

• a pocket-sized paper format;

• a CD-ROM format; and

• an on-line format that may be viewed on the FBIWeb site at http://www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/handbook/intro.htm.Copies of the paper and CD-ROM versions of the

Handbook of Forensic Services may be purchased byreferencing number S/N 027-001-00080-7 and con-tacting the Superintendent of Documents at—

U.S. Government Printing OfficeP.O. Box 371954Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954Telephone: 202-512-1800; Fax: 202-512-2250Web site: http://www.bookstore.gpo.gov

Forensic Science CommunicationsForensic Science Communications (FSC) is an on-

line, peer-reviewed forensic science journal publishedquarterly by FBI Laboratory personnel. This journal isa means of communication between forensic scien-tists, permitting information of value and interest tobe rapidly disseminated among scientists and otherinterested persons.

FSC may be viewed free on-line at http://www.fbi.gov/programs/lab/fsc/current/teaser.htm. To

Focus on Technology

FBI Laboratory PublicationsBy Colleen Wade, M.L.S.

© PhotoDisc


receive notification when quarterly issues of FSC areposted, contact the staff by e-mail at [email protected].

The July 2001 issue of FSC contains four re-search articles, guidelines for two scientific workinggroups, an update of FBI forensic training, lists ofmeetings and employment opportunities, and a linksfeature. Instructions for submitting manuscripts maybe viewed at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/instaus/htm.

Submissions to FSC may be in the followingforms:

• “Letter to the Editor”: A brief communicationpresenting new technical information, discussinga previously published paper, or requestinginformation.

• “Review Article”: A basic introduction andoverview of new scientific methods and areas offorensic research or interest.

• “Research Paper or Feature Article”: An in-depthdiscussion of current methods and specificaspects of various procedures or instrumentation.

• “Technical Article”: A step-by-step description ofspecific analytical procedures, detailing the mate-rials and methods used and evaluating the results.

• “Technical Note or Case Report”: A new applica-tion of an existing technique or instructivefindings in an unusual case.

• “Book Review”: A summary and analysis of abook or publication.

• “Meetings and Job Opportunities Sections”:Information about professional meetings andjob opportunities in forensic science may besubmitted to the staff by e-mail at [email protected] posting in FSC.Manuscripts and other information relating to the

journal may be sent to:

Dr. Dwight E. Adams, EditorForensic Science CommunicationsFederal Bureau of InvestigationJ. Edgar Hoover Building, Room 3865935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20535-0001Fax: 202-324-4323E-mail: [email protected]

FBI Laboratory 2000The FBI Laboratory’s report for the year 2000

highlights several laboratory initiatives and outlines avision to guide future efforts to provide the broadestrange of scientific and technical services to the lawenforcement community. As with any summary,however, this report presents merely a glimpse of thelaboratory’s full range of capabilities and the accom-plishments of its dedicated staff. The FBI Laboratory2000 may be viewed on-line at http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/labannual00.pdf.

Ms. Wade works as a managing editor for the ForensicScience Training Unit of the Laboratory Division at FBIHeadquarters in Washingon, D.C.

The FBI Laboratory is scheduled to move into this new,463,000-square-foot facility at the FBI Academy inQuantico, Virginia, in June 2002.

December 2001 / 11

12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

one person has come up to me and said, “You hada relatively short honeymoon.’’ That would beaccurate.

Before I go further, I thank you for your leader-ship—Mayor Morial of New Orleans, Louisiana;Mayor Menino of Boston, Massachusetts; MayorGarner of Hempstead, New York; and ExecutiveDirector Cochran of the U.S. Conference of May-ors—for having the foresight and the wisdom to callthis important meeting and for giving me the opportu-nity to join with you today.

I thank all of you for the outstanding leadershipthat you are providing to your cities and to our coun-try. At this pivotal—I think it is fair to say—momentin history, you have been towers of strength in yourcommunities. Particularly, I thank you for the extraor-dinary support, cooperation, and guidance that youhave provided to the FBI during these past 6 weeks.

This morning, I want to let you know how deeplycommitted the FBI is to working with you to ensurethe safety and security of your communities now andin the future. The FBI is pouring its heart and soul intothe investigation of the September 11 attacks. Everyresource that can be deployed is being deployed.Every person who can be utilized is being utilized. Wenow have well over 7,000 FBI personnel involved, andthat’s about 1 in 4 of our employees. We are examin-ing every scrap of evidence. In fact, we have gath-ered, sometimes working on hands and knees in therubble and mud of crash sites, more than 3,700separate pieces of evidence. This is easily the largestand most comprehensive investigation in our history.

Beyond the investigation itself, our overridingpriority right now is prevention, making sure thatterrorists do not succeed in striking America andAmerica’s cities again. Now, it may well be overlyoptimistic to think that every single attack can beprevented. But, we can certainly give it everything wehave got, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We at the FBI are not new to prevention. Withyour help, over the last few years, we have had

Notable Speech

Director Mueller deliveredthis speech at the Mayors

Emergency, Safety, andSecurity Summit, U.S.

Conference of Mayors inWashington, D.C., on

October 24, 2001.

successes. An example, perhaps, would be 2 yearsago when we foiled a plot to blow up a gas tank inSacramento, perhaps saving as many as 12,000 lives.But, historically, we have been better at tracking downterrorists after the fact than at stopping them in theirtracks before they strike. We have, in the past, notalways aligned our resources, our strategies, and ourskills specifically toward prevention, to the degree thatthey are now so aligned.

A few weeks ago, we established at FBI head-quarters a terrorist prevention task force made up ofrepresentatives of a dozen different agencies. Its goalis to identify and stop future terrorists acts withproactive investigations and to attempt to predict andto prevent future scenarios. The work of this group,for example, led us to heighten sensitivities on cropdusters in the latter part of September. We have hadin the past and do today have 35 joint terrorist taskforces located in your cities and in other cities acrossthe country. Those task forces are working hard togather intelligence and pursue any hint of a lead thatmight help us identify terrorists or their associates.We also have beefed up our resources overseas,where many of the leads have taken us and wherewe’re getting some outstanding cooperation fromGreat Britain, Germany, France, Spain, and a numberof other countries.

We also are working with you and other col-leagues at the federal, state, and local level to shore up

Responding to TerrorismBy FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III

A s Mayor Marc Morial indicated, I started asFBI director on September 4. More than

December 2001 / 13

security at critical public events and to protect criticalinfrastructures, like water and transportation systems.We are assessing threats in real time and providingwarnings to your cities and to the nation. I must tellyou that the threat level remains very high. Moreattempts and possible attacks are a distinct possibility.This possibility requires all of us to continue walkingthe fine line of staying alert on the one hand, withoutcausing undue harm on the other hand.

Clearly, we are deeply con-cerned about the growing wave ofanthrax attacks and related inci-dents. At this point, it is not clear ifthe few confirmed anthrax expo-sures were motivated by organizedterrorism, but these attacks wereclearly meant to terrorize a countryalready on the edge. We areresponding swiftly to each andevery incident. By way of back-ground, we usually are involved in250 assessments and responsesrelating to weapons of massdestruction a year. We have hadmore than 3,300 in just the past 3 weeks alone,including 2,500 involving suspected anthrax incidents.Even though most turn out to be false alarms orhoaxes, we are taking each report seriously, as I knoweach of you in your cities are doing also. And, thosewho are pulling pranks and hoaxes won’t find oursevere response to those all that funny.

Our work in these investigations, of course, hasbeen supported at every turn by you and your col-leagues across the nation, as well as by a host offederal, state, and even international partners. Fromthe first moment that I joined the FBI several weeksago, one of my highest priorities has been to improveour working relationship with you, with electedleaders, and with law enforcement partners around theworld. And, the events of September 11 have onlystrengthened my resolve in that regard. From myexperience, I am now even more convinced that noone institution is strong enough to tackle the challengeof terrorism alone. No one agency or entity at anylevel, whether it be federal, state or local, has thelength or the breadth of talent and expertise. We must

work together. Law enforcement, quite simply, is onlyas good as its relationships.

These past 6 weeks have given me a goodopportunity to see how well our FBI supports you andyour cities, and I have seen encouraging signs. I knowthat many of our special agents in charge, or SACs,are reaching out and keeping you involved and in-formed. But at the same time, I heard that there aresome areas where lines of communication are not as

open as they should be, where weare keeping you at arm’s length,and where we are not affordingyou the level of support youdeserve.

As soon as I heard of theseissues, I reached out to key lawenforcement leaders and askedthem to educate me on their issuesand their concerns. I asked them togive it to me straight, and they did.

Building on these initial conver-sations, I held a series of meetingslast week with representatives ofthe major city chiefs, the Interna-

tional Association of Chiefs of Police, and the NationalSheriff’s Association, and along with the attorneygeneral, had met with a number of other similar lawenforcement associations. The meetings were helpful,open, candid, and, I think, productive.

What we heard will likely be familiar to many ofyou. We heard that the FBI is not always calling onyour local police professionals to track down leads;that we are sometimes not following up quicklyenough on leads that come to us that involve yourcities; that you need information digitally, if at allpossible; that the FBI is not giving you specific enoughinformation on threats; and that we are even withhold-ing information.

Let me clarify the last point, the point aboutspecific information on threats and withholdinginformation. The FBI is not withholding significantinformation due to security concerns. The fact ismuch of the information we have can be released tolaw enforcement. But, the fact is also that often, onmost occasions, our information is simply not asspecific or developed as we would all like it to be.

“

”

...I want to let youknow how deeply

committed the FBI isto working with youto ensure the safetyand security of your

communities....


One issue that has come up is our ability todistribute to your law enforcement agencies what wecall the watch list. The issue was raised as to why itcould not be put into NCIC and distributed to youdigitally. We now have done that. We have added thatwatch list to the National Crime Information Centerlist, or NCIC. But, by the same token, we often do nothave much more than names or aliases. As we getconfirmed photos or other information, we will addthem to the system.

There is another point I dohave to emphasize, and that is,when it comes to the electronicarena, the FBI often is far behindyou and your colleagues. Overhaul-ing our electronic infrastructure is amajor priority for us, one that weare addressing now.

Beyond these few clarifica-tions, I must say that many of theconcerns that I have heard werevalid, and we are stepping forwardto address them. I have asked thespecial agents in charge in citieswhere we do not already have ajoint terrorism task force to get oneup and running quickly. While thesetask forces are not a panacea, they do break downstereotypes and communications barriers, moreeffectively coordinate leads, and help get the rightresources in the right places.

In short, they are an excellent tool for melding ustogether in ways that make information sharing a non-issue. I have also asked the SACs to coordinate leadswith local law enforcement wherever and wheneverpossible. I have invited law enforcement leaders toidentify individuals, two or more, who can work withus in our Strategic Command Center at FBI headquar-ters on the national investigation. And, I have askedthat representatives be added to our prevention taskforce. I also am exploring with the leaders of lawenforcement the possibility of establishing a workinggroup composed of officials from the FBI and locallaw enforcement that could identify other specificissues and find workable solutions.

These are some initial first steps and more willfollow. Some issues may need to be addressedthrough legislation. As we move through this process,I only ask that you please bring any problems or issuesto our attention. I want to know what you’re experi-encing, how the FBI is treating you, and you can beassured that we will, and I will, respond.

In the coming months, we will continue our workto strengthen and modernize the FBI. We had somechanging to do before September 11, and that need

has only intensified since thetragedy of that date. We at theFBI, as well as state and local lawenforcement, clearly have got tobecome more proactive and moreprevention oriented. We need to beable to look down the road 5 or 10years and gauge what is comingand start adapting now. We havegot to look closely at our skill setsto see if they are tracking wherewe need to be to cope with the21st century and crime in the 21stcentury. We have got to rebuild ourelectronic infrastructure anddigitize our information systems.And, of course, we have got to

continue building a stronger, more seamless, and moresupportive relationship with you and with law enforce-ment and with emergency responders nationwide.

These are my priorities for the coming months,and I welcome any advice and insight you might have.I welcome and appreciate your continuing support. Asdifficult and as trying as these times are, I have agreat deal of confidence and optimism about thefuture. We will get through this challenge as we’vegotten through every other. We will get through it byleaning on each other, by falling back on our bedrockvalues, and by tapping into the deep reservoir ofdetermination, strength, and courage that existsthroughout America. Together, I am confident that wecan keep our cities safe and strong and continue tomake our country a shining example of freedom forthe world. I thank you and bless you and the cities forwhich you are responsible.

“

”

Together, I amconfident that we

can keep our citiessafe and strong and

continue to makeour country a

shining example offreedom for the

world.

December 2001 / 15

Book Review

Controversial Issues in Policing by JamesD. Sewell, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights,Massachusetts, 1999.

In a comprehensive and straightforwardapproach, Controversial Issues in Policingpresents debates on 15 critical issues facing everyU.S. law enforcement agency. These debatescome from professional practitioners and acade-micians, who are among the world’s most presti-gious, knowledgeable, and experienced contri-butors, serving in direct and associated lawenforcement positions with different backgroundsand perspectives on the issues that personnelencounter.

On presenting the issues and professionalassessments, each debate consists of an introduc-tory note by the editor followed by an initialdebate discussion, with a “yes and no” responseon the issue, and two subsequent rejoinders to theprevious practitioner and academician writing thedebate response. The rejoinders are supported bypenetrating questions—some answered, some leftfor agencies to answer—and a conclusion sectionon each critical debate. All of the issues containkey information, and many apply directly to lawenforcement.

The author divides the book into four mainparts. The first part addresses issues of lawenforcement agencies and their legal framework,involving the Fourth Amendment and the Exclu-sion Rule, civil and criminal forfeiture of property,and a police officer bill of rights. Part two placesemphasis on police executive contracts andwhether law enforcement officers need a collegedegree. The third part entails the issues of ethicalproblems in policing, the paramilitary structure,and police agencies and pursuits. The last partdeals with community-oriented policing, citizenreview boards, and the media. Two prominent

issues include police pursuits, where a majordepartment reduced its pursuits by 82 percentafter adopting a “violent felony only” pursuitpolicy, and a critical review of law enforcement’sparamilitary structure.

Readers will find the book thought provoking,with evolution and devolution on the information inthe debates that prove appropriate to today’s lawenforcement society. Members of the law en-forcement community and other sectors of thecriminal justice system should keep an open mindas to what the contributing experts presentthrough the debates and their rejoinders of theissues. These readers should seize the opportunityto review and use, as appropriate, the key infor-mation presented in the debates and rejoinders toassist in initially developing, or strengtheningexisting, departmental policies, procedures, andpractices to help in overall improvement.

Controversial Issues in Policing presents“hot-button” issues that will appeal to a diverseaudience, including most levels of the criminaljustice community. Interested readers could rangefrom street officers and their ranking personnel,attorneys, legislators, and members of variousnational associations to graduate and undergradu-ate university programs and training curriculumdevelopers at local, state, and federal law enforce-ment academies. Overall, the book contains amultitude of professional information on criticalissues in policing.

Reviewed byLarry R. Moore

Certified Emergency ManagerInternational Associationof Emergency Managers

Knoxville, Tennessee

Legal Digest

ilitary support of domes-tic law enforcement, es-pecially in the counter-

be familiar with some of the legalrestrictions imposed on this supportby, most notably, the Posse Comita-tus Act (PCA).

There are specific circum-stances when the military may becalled upon to directly perform do-mestic law enforcement duties.Generally, this occurs when themilitary responds under any of thevarious civil disturbance statutes in-voked by the president to support arequest from a state, enforce federalauthority, or protect constitutionalrights.3 The PCA does not apply tothe use of the military to quell dis-ruptions to the public order during


Mdrug arena,2 has steadily increasedover the past 20 years despite theominous-sounding penalties ofthe Posse Comitatus Act of 1878that created a general prohibitionagainst using military personnel incivilian law enforcement. In lightof the recent terrorist attacks onAmerica, this support undoubtedlywill increase. Local, state, and fed-eral law enforcement communitiesshould be aware of the most com-mon types of military support avail-able to them. They also should

Whoever, except in cases andunder circumstances expresslyauthorized by the Constitution orAct of Congress, willfully usesany part of the Army or Air Forceas a posse comitatus or other-wise to execute the laws shallbe fined under this title or impris-oned not more than 2 years, orboth.


—Posse ComitatusAct of 18781

Military Support of DomesticLaw EnforcementOperationsWorking WithinPosse ComitatusBy DAVID G. BOLGIANO, J.D.

© Mark C. Ide

December 2001 / 17

such civil disturbances. Addition-ally, the military will be called uponto provide personnel and equipmentfor certain special support activi-ties, 4 such as domestic terroristevents involving weapons of massdestruction. This article does notaddress the laws implicated undersuch limited and special circum-stances, but reviews potential legalissues arising out of law enforce-ment’s interface with the military inmore common day-to-day missions.

Law enforcement agenciesmost likely will encounter militarysupport in counterdrug operations,training, disaster assistance, orsearch and rescue missions. Someactivities, such as counterdrug op-erations, are planned. Others ariseout of some exigency. If time andcircumstances permit, however, it ishighly recommended that the lawenforcement agencies involved de-velop a memorandum of under-standing (MOU) between them-selves and the supporting militarydepartment. At a minimum, thisdocument should state what supportis being provided, who pays for thesupport, and the nature and durationof the support.5

The MOU, as well as the opera-tional deployments themselves,should be guided by the legal pa-rameters surrounding such activi-ties. The first step in defining suchparameters is to review the scopeand nature of the PCA.

UNDERSTANDING THEPOSSE COMITATUS ACT

To Whom the PCA AppliesBy enacting the PCA, Congress

sought to terminate the prevalent

use of federal soldiers in civilianlaw enforcement roles in the Southduring the Reconstruction Periodfollowing the American Civil War.Today, the PCA is viewed as aprophylaxis against direct militaryinvolvement with civilian lawenforcement activities. In otherwords, police officers protect thepublic safety by investigating crimi-nal activity while the military fightsthe U.S. battles against hostileenemies.

The PCA, however, does notprohibit all military participationwith civilian law enforcement. Thekey to understanding the PCA is torecognize to whom it applies andwhat military missions it impacts.Law enforcement authorities seek-ing assistance from the militaryshould understand the PCA and ap-plicable case law, as well as theimplementing regulations pub-lished by the secretary of defenseand the secretaries of the militarydepartments.

Often times, for instance, whenthe military support comes fromNational Guard units acting in theirTitle 32 (state) capacity,6 the PCAdoes not apply, and there is noneed to perform a PCA analysis.This is why the National CommandAuthority (NCA) directed NationalGuard assets in their Title 32 status,rather than active forces, to providesupplemental security at civilianairports in response to the recentterrorist attacks. Reservists, on theother hand, are always subject toPCA restrictions when performingtheir military duty. The first hurdle,therefore, is determining whether ornot the PCA applies to the type orcategory of military force lendingsupport. If the military support anagency receives comes from mili-tary units to which the PCA applies,the agency should take steps to en-sure that the MOU acknowledgesthis fact and contains provisionsto preclude potential PCA viola-tions. In weighing the application

“

”

Law enforcementagencies most likely

will encounter militarysupport in counterdrug

operations, training,disaster assistance,

or search andrescue missions.

Mr. Bolgiano, the senior attorney in the Office of ChiefCounsel of the DEA, also serves as a deputy staff judge

advocate of the 175th Wing, Maryland Air National Guard.


of the PCA, civilian leaders, work-ing in conjunction with their mili-tary counterparts, should considercertain factors.

The PCA applies to—• active duty personnel in the

Army, Air Force,7 Navy andMarines;8

• armed forces reservists onactive duty, active duty fortraining, or inactive duty fortraining;

• National Guard personnel infederal service (Title 10status); and

• civilian employees of theDepartment of Defense (DoD)when under direct commandand control of a militaryofficer.9

The PCA does not apply to—

• members of a military servicewhen off duty and acting in aprivate capacity. (Members arenot acting in a private capacitywhen assistance to law en-forcement officials is renderedunder the direction or controlof DoD authorities;10)

• members of the NationalGuard when not in federalservice;

• members of a reserve compo-nent when not on active duty,active duty for training, orinactive duty for training; and

• members of the Coast Guardduring peacetime.11 (Hence,the requirement for the U.S.Navy in the performance of itscounterdrug missions to haveCoast Guard law enforcementdetachments board suspectvessels and effect arrests.12)

If it is determined that the PCAapplies to the category of militaryunit providing support to a law en-forcement agency, the next issue isto understand the limitations on thetype and circumstance of the mis-sion. In other words, what militaryoperations are covered or pro-scribed by the PCA?

military personnel is “active” or“passive.”14 An example of activeparticipation is a military memberassuming an undercover role or ef-fecting an arrest. Passive participa-tion is exemplified by the military’sconduct of area surveillance or theproviding of transportation or train-ing. The more active the militarymembers’ participation becomes,the more likely such participationviolates the PCA. The second test iswhether use of the armed forcespervades the activities of civilianlaw enforcement officials. 15 Inother words, are the military mem-bers expected to perform traditionalpolice investigative or enforcementroles? If so, then the PCA may pre-clude such activity. The final analy-sis is whether military personnelsubject citizens to the exercise ofmilitary power that is regulatory,proscriptive, or compulsory (apower compulsory in nature is onethat exerts some coercive force).16

For instance, if the use of the mili-tary would subject civilians to mili-tary judicial and administrativesanctions, such use probably vio-lates the PCA.

When the PCA Does Not Apply

The PCA does not apply whenactions further a military or foreignaffairs function of the UnitedStates. This sometimes is known asthe “Military Purpose Doctrine.”The primary purpose must be tofurther the military interest. Thecivilians may receive an incidentalbenefit. Such military purposesinclude the following:

• Investigations and otheractions related to enforcementof the Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ).17

”...National Guardpersonnel serve

in a supportrole to the law

enforcement agency.

“What PCA and DoDImplementation RegulationsProscribe

PCA and DoD implementionregulations proscribe direct law en-forcement assistance, including—

• interdiction of a vehicle,vessel, aircraft, or other similaractivity;

• a search or seizure;

• an arrest, apprehension, stopand frisk, or similar activity;and

• use of military personnel forsurveillance or pursuit ofindividuals, or as undercoveragents, informants, investiga-tors, or interrogators.13

There are three separate teststhat courts apply to determinewhether the use of military person-nel has violated the PCA. The firsttest is whether the action of the

December 2001 / 19

• Investigations and otheractions that are likely to resultin administrative proceedingsby DoD, regardless of whetherthere is a related civil orcriminal proceeding.

• Investigations and otheractions related to the com-mander’s inherent authority tomaintain law and order on amilitary installation or facil-ity.18 Civilians may be de-tained for an on-base violationlong enough to determinewhether the civilian authoritiesare interested in assuming theprosecution.19

• Protection of classifiedmilitary information orequipment.

• Protection of DoD personnel,DoD equipment, and officialguests of the DoD.

• Such other actions that areundertaken primarily for amilitary or foreign affairspurpose.

Where the PCA Applies

The PCA only applies withinthe territorial limits of the UnitedStates. A 1989 Department of Jus-tice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counselopinion concluded that the PCAdoes not have extraterritorial appli-cation.20 Some courts also haveadopted the view that the PCAimposes no restriction on use ofU.S. armed forces abroad, notingthat Congress only intended to pre-clude military intervention in do-mestic affairs.21 Note, however, thatDoD policy22 applies the PCA to allU.S. forces wherever they maybe. In the case of compelling and

extraordinary circumstances, how-ever, the secretary of defense mayconsider exceptions with regard toactions outside the territorial juris-diction of the United States.

COUNTERDRUGOPERATIONS

Both active component and Na-tional Guard personnel supportcounterdrug operations. This effortis coordinated through the Office ofthe Defense Coordinator for DrugEnforcement Policy and Support(DEP&S), located within the Office

tive component assets. As a generalrule, using National Guard assetsprovides law enforcement agencieswith greater flexibility. This is truefor a number of reasons. Eventhough federally funded, NationalGuard units performing such mis-sions are not in Title 10 (federal)status, and are not subject toPCA.24 National Guard personnelconducting counterdrug missionsare protected under the FederalTorts Claim Act25 even though theyare not in a federal status. By inter-nal policy, however, NationalGuard personnel still are precluded,except in exigent circumstances,from direct participation in arrest-ing suspects, conducting searches,or becoming involved in the chainof custody of evidence.26 The fol-lowing is a list of some, but not all,of the missions the secretary of de-fense has approved for federal fund-ing to provide counterdrug supportto the National Guard:

• Linguist support providesnonevidentiary transcription/translation of audio/videotapes, seized documents, andother information media(active/real-time conversationmonitoring or direct participa-tion in interrogations is notallowed.

• Communications supportprovides personnel to es-tablish, operate, and maintaincommunications stations,bases, and equipment insupport of law enforce-ment agency counterdrugoperations.

• Domestic cannabis suppres-sion/eradication operationssupport.

of the Assistant Secretary of De-fense for Special Operations andLow Intensity Conflict.23 Law en-forcement agencies are especiallyinterested in counterdrug supportbecause interagency reimbursementgenerally is not required.

Available support differs be-tween the active component and theNational Guard, as do the rules gov-erning their use. Generally, localand state jurisdictions will havemost of their interface with NationalGuard assets, while federal agen-cies primarily will be the link to ac-

© Wilmore, Kentucky, Police Department


• Transportation support pro-vides transportation (aerial,maritime, or ground) of lawenforcement personnel/equipment, persons in lawenforcement custody, seizedproperty or contraband as partof on-going, time-sensitivecounterdrug operations, whensecurity or other special cir-cumstances reasonably neces-sitate National Guard support.

• Surface reconnaissanceincludes reconnoitering orperforming area observationby land or water to detect andreport illegal drug activitiesthat include cultivated mari-juana, suspected isolated drugtrafficking airstrips, drug dropzones, illegal drug laborato-ries, and suspicious aircraft,watercraft or motor vehicles.

• Aerial reconnaissance con-ducts reconnaissance/observa-tion of airspace, maritime orsurface areas (land andinternal waterways of theUnited States and its territo-ries) for illegal drug activities,which include, but are notlimited to, cultivation ofmarijuana or delivery ofillegal drugs.

• Educational institution de-mand reduction supportsupports community basedactivities that focus on educa-tional institutions, or otherwisehave an educational institutionas the primary sponsor, and areprimarily designed to educate,train, or otherwise preventdrug abuse.

• Leadership developmentsupports camps, retreats,seminars, and programs notprimarily associated witheducational institutions thatfocus on developing drugabuse prevention leadershipskills in youth and adults.

time to “consult the rules” beforemaking an immediate, sometimeslife or death, decision.

The question of whether or notNational Guard personnel should bearmed also is a question to be re-solved prior to the beginning of anoperation. The adjutant general(TAG) of each state has the author-ity, after conducting a mission riskassessment, to allow support per-sonnel to be armed. In addition tothe military’s rules and criteria gov-erning this decision,27 law enforce-ment agencies must ensure thattheir leaders are fully briefed on thecapabilities, training, and limita-tions of the military personnel inthis regard. The MOU shouldclarify these issues both to enhanceinteroperability and to ensure allpersonnel understand the restric-tions placed on the military mem-bers. Plainly stated, military mem-bers are not to be used as extramuscle for raids or as primary back-up for any mission. A militarymember’s inherent right of self-de-fense in exigent circumstancesshould not be interpreted as provid-ing that same member with law en-forcement capacity.

Active component militaryforces generally support federallaw enforcement agencies, althoughthe provisions of the National De-fense Authorization Act that pro-vide the primary authority for DoDsupport to counterdrug operationsalso lends support to local and stateagencies. Military assets for thesupport of counterdrug activities ofany federal, state, or local agencyare available by request, and suchmissions are also coordinatedthrough DEP&S.

”

Law enforcementpersonnel

always shouldbe present

whenever thepossibility of

an enforcementaction may arise.

“It must be emphasized that Na-

tional Guard personnel serve in asupport role to the law enforcementagency. Any operational plan orMOU never should directly in-volve National Guard personnel intraditional law enforcement duties,such as arrests, raids, or search andseizures.

Because states have differentlegal standards governing the use offorce, it is important to incorporatethe correct rules into any MOU.Understanding what rules apply iscritical. More important, these rulesshould be incorporated into trainingregimens for the officers, agents,and military personnel actually de-ploying. Once involved in an opera-tion, the operators will not have

December 2001 / 21

Active component support in-cludes transportation of personnel;establishment and support of basesof operations within or outside theUnited States; counterdrug training;command and control assets; thedetection, monitoring, and commu-nications of movement of air andsea traffic within 25 miles of, butoutside, the geographic boundariesof the United States; and aerial andground reconnaissance.28 Again, themilitary should not be involved indirect enforcement duties. Law en-forcement personnel always shouldbe present whenever the possibilityof an enforcement action may arise.

GENERAL SUPPORTMilitary assistance other than

counterdrug support includes, but isnot limited to, military training, di-saster assistance, and search andrescue operations. Although certainrestrictions apply to each type ofassistance, the following discussionsets forth the dominant areas ofconcern.

TrainingIn order to avoid potential vio-

lations of the PCA, the DoD prohib-its its personnel from providing ad-vanced military training to civilianlaw enforcement agencies. Suchtraining includes high-intensitytraining that focuses on tactics,techniques, or procedures requiredto apprehend, arrest, detain, or seizea criminal suspect when the poten-tial for a violent confrontation ex-ists.29 Again, the focus is on directlaw enforcement-type duties.Specifically prohibited is any typeof sniper training, close quartersbattle/close quarters combat (CQB/

CQC) training, and military opera-tions in urban terrain (MOUT) ex-ercises. There are limited excep-tions to this rule,30 primarily forcounterdrug and special operationsforces.

Civilian law enforcement agen-cies may, however, use militaryranges for firearms training.31 Addi-tionally, military personnel are al-lowed to train federal, state and lo-cal law enforcement personnel inthe operation and maintenance ofequipment, including equipmentprovided to civilian law enforce-ment by the military.32

collection, analysis, and dissemina-tion of domestic counterintelli-gence operations. Extreme caremust be exercised whenever intelli-gence information is collected,compiled, or disseminated by mili-tary personnel.

In addition to the overarchingpolicy concerns protected by theserules, the fact remains that the mili-tary generally is not concernedabout the preservation of evidence:victory in warfare is its primaryconcern, not the successful criminalprosecution of miscreants.

Despite the general proscrip-tion against using military intelli-gence in domestic support oper-ations, Title 10, Section 371, U.S.Code does allow for the transfer ofinformation acquired in the normalcourse of military operations to ci-vilian law enforcement agencies. Inother words, if military personnelobserve suspicious activity duringtheir normal duties, they may, asany concerned citizen, pass such in-formation on to the appropriate lawenforcement agency. In fact, themilitary is encouraged to providelaw enforcement officials any infor-mation collected during the normalcourse of military operations thatmay be relevant to a criminal viola-tion. Moreover, law enforcementofficials may accompany regularlyscheduled military training flightsas observers. Further, military intel-ligence organizations can providelaw enforcement agencies withmaps, terrain analysis, and damageassessment. These are distinctionswith an important difference. Thewillful use of the military to gatherintelligence information withinU.S. borders is impermissible, and

Intelligence GatheringIn addition to the general pro-

scriptions of the PCA, DoD serviceregulations implementing Execu-tive Order 12333 prohibit militaryintelligence personnel from collect-ing, retaining, or disseminating in-formation about the domestic ac-tivities of U.S. citizens, residentaliens, or domestic associations orcorporations.33 The FBI, as opposedto the military or CIA, is the leadfederal agency responsible for the

© U.S. National Guard


great care must be exercised in theplanning of joint military-civilianlaw enforcement operations to en-sure that this does not occur.

Disaster Assistance

The president may determinethat a natural catastrophe such asa hurricane, earthquake, flood,drought, or fire, may warrant disas-ter assistance. Under the StaffordAct, the president may direct fed-eral agencies, including the DoD, toprovide personnel, equipment, sup-plies, facilities, and technical advicein support of disaster relief.34 Themilitary may be called upon underthree differing scenarios: 1) apresidential declaration of amajor disaster; 2) a presidentialorder to perform emergencywork essential for the preser-vation of life and property; and3) a presidential declaration ofan emergency. The first twoscenarios may occur upon re-quest of the governor of an af-fected state when a disaster isof such severity and magnitudethat it is beyond the capabilitiesof the state and local govern-ments. Upon the request of thegovernor of Florida, this authoritywas invoked in 1992 as the result ofthe damage caused by HurricaneAndrew. Federal assistance canunilaterally be invoked by a presi-dential declaration of an emer-gency. No state request is required.Under such circumstances, thepresident may determine that theemergency involves a subject areain which the United States exer-cises exclusive or predominant re-sponsibility and authority. This au-thority was invoked in response to

Hurricane Floyd and the Okla-homa City bombing. The FederalEmergency Management Agency(FEMA) becomes the lead federalagency under such circumstances.

FEMA has established a fed-eral response plan for the effectivedelivery of federal assistance as theresult of any disaster or emergencydeclared under the Stafford Act.Local and state law enforcementagencies’ requests for assistanceare coordinated through a state co-ordinating officer to FEMA. FEMA,or its designee, will determine howto fulfill the request. It is importantto recognize and to follow the estab-lished chain of command to ensure

only to incidents near a military in-stallation and when time does notpermit approval from higher author-ities. In light of the ever-increasingadvancements in communicationtechnology, such exigencies havebecome rare occurrences.

The use of force during disasterrelief operations can become a sen-sitive issue. Disaster relief opera-tions, by their very nature, generallydo not implicate serious force pro-tection issues. Nevertheless, it mustbe emphasized that the active dutymilitary forces rely upon federal, lo-cal, and state law enforcement orthe National Guard for force protec-tion. Local and state law enforce-

ment has primary responsibilityfor maintaining law and order.

Search and RescueOperations

The military traditionallyhas supported civilian searchand rescue (SAR) activities. Inaddition to the U.S. CoastGuard, U.S. Air Force andU.S. Army aviation assetsmost often provide support.Such support includes theaerial drop of medicine, emer-

gency supplies, and livestock feed;aeromedical evacuation of the sick,injured, and stranded; and the trans-port and guidance of rescue parties.

Local military commandersmay provide SAR assistance whenimmediate action is required to savehuman lives, to prevent humansuffering, or to mitigate major de-struction of property. This authority,however, is limited to the immediateexigency. Direct requests for SARassistance from civilian authoritiesshould be directed to the Air Force

the manageable and timely process-ing of requests for assistance.

Obviously, there are some situ-ations that may require the immedi-ate response of a military com-mander. A military unit may pro-vide immediate response whenimminently serious conditionsresulting from any civil emergencyor attack exist that require actionto save lives, prevent human suffer-ing, or mitigate great property dam-age.35 This authority, however, isshort-lived. Generally, it is applied

© Mark C. Ide

December 2001 / 23

Rescue Coordination Center(AFRCC).

CONCLUSION

The Posse Comitatus Act doesnot preclude all joint military/lawenforcement agency operations. Tothe contrary, where allowable, suchoperations are fruitful, providingrelevant training and assistance toall participants. Most important,such operations help serve thepublic, especially at times when thepublic needs additional governmen-tal support.

Endnotes1 18 U.S.C. § 1385.2 In 1999, Congress appropriated $725

million for Department of Defense support ofcounterdrug operations. This figure rose to$869 million in 2001. See National DefenseAppropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-259, 114 Stat. 656, 672 (2000).

3 Title 10, Chapter 15 of the United StatesCode, entitled “Insurrection,” allows the use offederal forces to restore order during time ofcivil disturbance. See Domestic OperationalLaw (DOPLAW) Handbook for JudgeAdvocates, pp.52-56, Center for Law andMilitary Operations, U.S. Army The JudgeAdvocate General’s School, Charlottesville,VA, April 15, 2001.

4 Counterterrorism (See PresidentialDecision Directive 39, U.S. Policy onCounterterrorism (June 21, 1995)(classifiedSECRET), support to U.S. Secret Service (SeeU.S. Department of Defense Directive3025.13), or special events like the Oympics,Presidential Inaugural events, or wildfiresuppression.

5 Too often, poorly written and incompleteMOUs from previous missions have made theirway around the e-mail circuit. Please usecaution when using another’s MOU.

6 National Guard units, when not perform-ing a Title 10 (Federal) mission, are under thecontrol of the individual states and thegovernors. This is commonly referred to asTitle 32 status.

7 Most courts interpreting the PosseComitatus Act have refused to extend itsterms to the Navy and Marine Corps. See

United States v. Mendoza-Cecelia, 736 F.2d.1467 (11th Cir. 1992); United States v. Yunis,924 F.2d 1086 (D.C. Cir. 1991); UnitedStates v. Roberts, 779 F.2d 565 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 839 (1986).

8 10 U.S.C. § 375 directed the Secretaryof Defense to promulgate regulationsforbidding direct participation “by a memberof the Army, Navy, Air Force, or MarineCorps in a search, seizure, arrest, or othersimilar activity.” This was done so inDepartment of Defense Directive 5525.5.Therefore, the proscription has beenextended by regulation to the Navy andMarine Corps.

9 Department of Defense Directive5525.5, Encl. 4. See also Army Regulation500-51, para. 3-2; SECNAVINST 5820.7B,para. 9b(3).

(1977); United States v. McArthur, 419 F.Supp. 186 (D.N.D. 1975); United States v.Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 891, 895-6 (D.D.C. 1988).

17 United States v. Thompson , 33 M.J. 218(CMA 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074(1992).

18 Eggleston v. Department of Revenue, 895P.2d 1169 (Colo. Ct. App 1995); Harker v.State, 663 P.2d 932 (Alaska 1983); Anchoragev. King, 754 P.2d 283 (Alaska Ct. App. 1988).

19 Applewhite v. United States, 995 F.2d997 (10th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S.1190 (1994).

20 Memorandum, Off. Legal Counsel forGeneral Brent Scowcroft, 3 Nov. 1989. Thisopinion also states the restrictions of 10 U.S.C.§§ 371 - 381, specifically 10 U.S.C. § 375,also were not intended to have extraterritorialeffect.

21 United States v. Cotton, 471 F.2d 744 (9th

Cir. 1973); Chandler v. United States, 171 F.2d921 (1st Cir. 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918(1949); D’Aquino v. United States, 192 F.2d338 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 935(1952). (Note: both Chandler and D’Aquinoinvolved law enforcement in an area of militaryoccupation.) But see United States v. Kahn, 35F.3d 426, 431 n. 6 (9th Cir. 1994) (In a caseinvolving the applicability of the PCA to Navyactivities in support of maritime interdiction ofa drug-smuggling ship, the governmentmaintained the PCA had no extraterritorialeffect. While the court stated that issue had notbeen definitively resolved, it did state that 10U.S.C. §§ 371-381 did “impose limits on theuse of American armed forces abroad.”)

22 Department of Defense Directive 5525.5.23 DOPLAW Handbook, supra note 4 , p.

31.24 Gilbert v. United States , 165 F.3d 470,

473-74 (6 th Cir. 1999); United States v. Benish,5 F.3d 20, 25-26 (3rd Cir. 1993).

25 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680.26 National Guard Bureau Regulation 500-2,

National Guard Counterdrug Support, para.2-1e (March 31, 2000) defines “exigentcircumstances” as situations where immediateaction is necessary to protect police officers,National Guard personnel, or other personsfrom death or serious injury; to prevent the lossor destruction of evidence; or to prevent theescape of a suspect already in custody.

27 Id, para. 3-6, sets forth the trainingand other regulatory requirements applicableto armed National Guard members oncounterdrug missions.

28 This authority, while not specificallycodified, can be found in Section 1004 of the

10 Id; see also SECNAVINST 5820.7B,para. 9b(4)); Air Force Instruction 10-801.

11 14 U.S.C. § 2. Jackson v. Alaska, 572P.2d 87 (Alaska 1977).

12 This requirement also is mandated by 10U.S.C. § 379.

13 Department of Defense Directive 5525.5,Encl. 4, para. A.3.

14 United States v. Red Feather, 392 F.Supp. 916, 921 (W.D.S.D. 1975); United Statesv. Yunis, 681 F. Supp. 891, 892 (D.D.C. 1988);United States v. Rasheed , 802 F. Supp. 312 (D.Hawaii 1992).

15 Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Bacon, 851 F.2d 1312(11th Cir. 1988); United States v. Hartley, 796F.2d 112 (5 th Cir. 1986); United States v.Hartley, 678 F.2d 961, 978 (11th Cir. 1982),cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1170 (1983); UnitedStates v. Hitchcock , 103 F. Supp. 1226(D.Hawaii 1996).s

16 United States v. Kahn , 35 F.3d 426 (9th

Cir. 1994); United States v. Casper, 541 F.2d1274 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 30 U.S. 970

”The military

traditionally hassupported civiliansearch and rescue(SAR) activities.

“


This article provides a general overviewof the important law surrounding lawenforcement’s interaction with the military.It is not intended to be a legal authority orreference for law enforcement managers,but rather a review that encouragesresponsible synergy between civilian lawenforcement agencies and the military.Finally, law enforcement managers shouldalways consult with their legal advisorsprior to implementing an MOU or anyoperation with the military.

National Defense Authorization Act in allyears from 1991 to 2002. See also 10U.S.C.A. § 374.

29 Memorandum, Deputy Secretary ofDefense, DoD Training Support to U.S. CivilianLaw Enforcement Agencies, (June 29, 1996).

30 The U.S. Army Military Police Schoolis authorized to continue training civilian lawenforcement personnel in the CounterdrugSpecial Reaction Team Course, the Counter-drug Tactical Police Operations Course, and theCounterdrug Marksman/Observer Course. Onan exceptional basis, the Commander-in-Chief,U.S. Special Operations Command mayapprove such training by special operationsforces. Id.

31 10 U.S.C. § 4309.

32 10 U.S.C. § 373.33 Executive Order (EO) 12333, United

States Intelligence Activities (December 4,1981); Department of Defense Directive5240.1R, Procedures Governing the Activites ofDod Intelligence Components That AffectUnited States Persons (December, 1982).NOTE: These proscriptions do not apply whenthe military is performing authorized direct lawenforcement activities in support of civildisturbances. See U.S. Department of DefenseDirective 5200.27, Acquisition of InformationConcerning Persons and Organizations NotAffiliated With the Department of Defense(January 7,1980) and U.S. Department ofDefense Civil Disturbance Plan (Garden Plot)(February 15, 1991).

34 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5202 (2000).35 United States Department of Defense

Directive 3025.1, Military Support to CivilAuthorities, para. 4.5 (January 15, 1993).

Subscribe Now

December 2001 / 25

2001 Subject Index

ADMINISTRATION

“Enterprise Theory of Investiga-tion,” Richard A. McFeely,May, p. 19.

“Fast Track Application ProcessSpeeds Hiring,” Floyd S.Hulsey and MaureenGoodwin, June, p. 5.

“Implementing an Asset Forfei-ture Program,” Victor E.Hartman, January, p. 1.

“The Psychological Influence ofthe Police Uniform,” RichardR. Johnson, March, p. 27.

BOOK REVIEWS

Bombs: Defusing the Threat,reviewed by T. C. Fuller,September, p. 24.

Cadaver Dog Handbook:Forensic Training and Tacticsfor the Recovery of HumanRemains, reviewed by CharlesMesloh and Jennifer James,November, p. 23.

Contoversial Issues in Polic-ing, reviewed by Larry R.Moore, December, p. 15.

Drugs in Society: Causes,Concepts and Control, 3rdedition, reviewed by ArtBowker, February, p.16.

Grave Words: NotifyingSurvivors About Sudden,Unexpected Deaths, reviewedby Larry R. Moore, March, p.15.

How To Do Financial AssetInvestigations: A PracticalGuide for Private Investiga-tors, Collections Personnel,and Assets Recovery Special-ists, reviewed by William R.Schoeder, July, p. 26.

The Loss of Innocents: ChildKillers and Their Victims,reviewed by Larry R. Moore,August, p. 24.

Police Trauma: PsychologicalAftermath of Civilian Com-bat, reviewed by Larry R.Moore, May, p. 18.

Reputable Conduct: EthicalIssues in Policing and Correc-tions, reviewed by Stanley B.Burke, October, p. 19.

CRIME PROBLEMS

“Gangs in Middle America: AreThey a Threat?” David M.Allender, December, p. 1.

“When Casino Gambling Comesto Your Hometown: TheBiloxi Experience,” TommyMoffet and Donald L. Peck,January, p. 12.

EQUIPMENT

“Surveillance Optics,” CarlylePoindexter, March, p. 7.

ETHICS

“Repairing Broken Windows:Preventing Corruption WithinOur Ranks,” Frank L. Perry,February, p. 23.

INTERVIEWING

“Detecting Deception,” JoeNavarro and John R. Schafer,July, p. 9.

“Documenting and Reporting aConfession with a SignedStatement: A Guide for LawEnforcement,” Timothy T.Burke, February, p. 17.

“Interviewing Self-confidentCon Artists,” Scott O’Neal,March p. 16.

“Subtle Skills for BuildingRapport: Using Neuro-Lin-guistic Programming in theInterview Room,” Vincent A.Sandoval and Susan H.Adams, August, p. 1.

INVESTIGATIONS

“Asian-on-Asian Kidnapping:Understanding Cultural Influ-ences,” Michael Berkow andBucky Cox, March, p. 22.

Tired Cops–The Importance ofManaging Police Fatigue,reviewed by Joseph H. Race,September, p. 25.

COOPERATION

“The International SharingProgram: Fostering Interna-tional Cooperation,” DouglasA. Kash and Jennifer A.Gorman, February, p. 27.

“Safe Streets Task Force: Coop-eration Gets Results,” DavidM. Allender, March, p. 1.


“Investigating Potential ChildAbduction Cases: A Develop-mental Perspective,” WayneD. Lord, Monique C.Boudreaux, and Kenneth V.Lanning, April, p. 1.

JUVENILE VIOLENCE

“Addressing School Violence:Prevention, Planning, andPractice,” Francis Q. Hoang,August, p. 18.

“Scholastic Crime Stoppers: ACost-Benefit Perspective,”Giant Abutalebi Aryani, CarlL. Alsabrook, and Terry D.Garrett, September, p. 1.

“The School Shooter: One Com-munity’s Experience,” WilliamP. Heck, September, p. 9.

LEGAL ISSUES

“The Americans with Disabili-ties Act: A Practical Guide forPolice Departments,” ThomasD. Colbridge, January, p. 23.

“Indian Tribal Sovereignty:Criminal Jurisdiction andProcedure,” June, p. 24.

“Kyllo v. United States: Technol-ogy Versus Individual Pri-vacy,” Thomas D. Colbridge,October, p. 25.

“Law Enforcement PhysicalFitness Standards and TitleVII,” May, p. 26.

“Military Support of DomesticLaw Enforcement Operations:Working Within Posse Comi-tatus,” David G. Bolgiano,December, p. 16.

“Miranda Revisited: Dickersonv. United States,” Thomas D.Petrowski, August, p. 25.

“The Sixth Amendment Right toCounsel: Application andLimitations,” Kimberly A.Crawford, July, p. 27.

“The Role of Race in LawEnforcement: Racial Profilingor Legitimate Use?” RichardG. Schott, November, p. 24.

“Using Drug Detection Dogs:An Update,” Jayme S. Walker,April, p. 25.

MANAGEMENT

“The Four Elements of Self-policing: Addressing Institu-tional Integrity Through theInternal Disciplinary Process,”John H. Conditt, Jr., Novem-ber, p. 18.

“Major Case Management: KeyComponents,” Brian P.Carroll, June, p. 1.

“Organizational Development ina Law Enforcement Environ-ment,” Barbara French and

Jerry Stewart, September,p. 14.

“Rural and Suburban PoliceLeadership: Targeting ExternalFunding,” Thomas E. Baker,Loreen Wolfer, and RalphZezza, November, p. 1.

“A Systems Approach to Organi-zational Transformation,”Brian A. Ursino, October,p. 12.

“The Work Itself as a Motiva-tor,” John L. White, February,p. 7.

MEDIA RELATIONS

“Media Trends and the PublicInformation Officer,” DennisStaszak, March, p. 10.

OPERATIONS

“The Albuquerque PoliceDepartment’s Crisis Interven-tion Team: A Report Card,”Deborah L. Bower and W.Gene Pettit, February, p. 1.

December 2001 / 27

“Operation CleanSWEEP: TheSchool Safety Program ThatEarned an A+,” Gary S.Penrod, October, p. 20.

“Project Exile: Combating GunViolence in America,” BrianA. Monahan and Tod W.Burke, October, p. 2.

PERSONNNEL

“Airport Policing: TrainingIssues and Options,” Robert T.Raffel, September, p. 26.

“A Call to Duty in the NewAmerican Century,” JohnAshcroft, October, p. 9.

“Closing the Recruitment Gap:A Symposium’s Findings,”Gary Vest, November, p. 13.

“The Effects of Sleep Depriva-tion,” Glory Cochrane, July,p. 22.

“Line-of-Duty Police DeathNotifications: Planning for theUnthinkable,” Donna J. Wade,April, p. 13.

“Veterans Affairs Police andSecurity Service: SafeguardingAmerica’s Military Heritage,”Ralph C. Kennedy, June,p. 18.

POLICE-COMMUNITYRELATIONS

“Bowling Alone but Not Patrol-ling Alone,” Tobias Winright,April, p. 11.

“Community Mobilization: TheFoundation for CommunityPolicing,” Recheal Stewart-Brown, June, p. 9.

“International CommunityPolicing Partnership,” DennisHanwell, January, p. 19.

“Looking Inward with Problem-Oriented Policing,” TerryEisenberg and BruceGlasscock, July, p. 1.

“Police on Horseback: A NewConcept for an Old Idea,” JohnC. Fine, July, p. 6.

POLICE PROBLEMS

“Contact with Individuals withAutism: Effective Resolu-tions,” Dennis Debraudt andDarla Rothman, April, p. 20.

“Police Pursuits and CivilLiability,” Chris Pipes andDominick Pape, July, p. 16.

TECHNOLOGY

“Computer Intrusion Investiga-tion Guidelines,” J. BryanDavis, January, p. 8.

“FBI Laboratory Publications,”Colleen Wade, December,p. 10.

“Law Enforcement Web Sites:New Utility for a New Era,”Clyde B. Eisenberg andBrandon Porter, August,p. 6.

“Making Computer CrimeCount,” Marc Goodman,August, p. 10.

“The Public Safety WirelessNetwork (PSWN) Program:A Brief Introduction,” DerekSiegle and Rock Murphy, May,p. 10.

“Wanted and Arrested PersonRecords,” Mark Huguley,September, p. 20.

TERRORISM

“Responding to Terrorism,”Robert Mueller, December,p. 12.

TRAINING

“Law Enforcement and theHolocaust,” WilliamMcCormack, November,p. 8.

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

“Investment Fraud,” JohnCauthen, May, p. 13.

“Money Laundering: A GlobalThreat and the InternationalCommunity’s Response,”William R. Schroeder, May,p. 1

“Offshore Financial Centers:The Channel Islands and theIsle of Man,” Mark D.Ferbrache, February,p. 10.


2001 Author Index

A

Adams, Susan H., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Subtle Skills forBuilding Rapport: UsingNeuro-Linguistic Program-ming in the Interview Room,”August, p. 1.

Allender, David M., Lieutenant,Indianapolis, Indiana, PoliceDepartment, “Gangs in MiddleAmerica: Are They a Threat?,”December, p. 1; and “SafeStreets Task Force: Coopera-tion Gets Results,” March,p. 1.

Alsabrook, Carl L., Sergeant,Rockwall, Texas, Police De-partment, “Scholastic CrimeStoppers: A Cost-BenefitPerspective,” September, p. 1.

Aryani, Giant Abutalebi,Vibhooti Shukla Fellow,University of Texas, Dallas,“Scholastic Crime Stoppers:

A Cost-Benefit Perspective,”September, p. 1.

Ashcroft, John, U.S. AttorneyGeneral, Washington, D.C.,“A Call to Duty in the NewAmerican Century,” October,p. 9.

B

Baker, Thomas E., AssociateProfessor, University ofScranton, Scranton, Pennsylva-nia, “Rural and SuburbanPolice Leadership: TargetingExternal Funding,” November,p. 1.

Berkow, Michael, Chief, SouthPasadena, California, PoliceDepartment, “Asian-on-AsianKidnapping: UnderstandingCultural Influences,” March,p. 22.

Bolgiano, David G., SeniorAttorney, DEA, Quantico,Virginia, “Military Support ofDomestic Law EnforcementOperations: Working WithinPosse Commitatus,” Decem-ber, p. 16.

Boudreaux, Monique C., Post-doctoral Fellow, Universityof California, Los Angeles,“Investigating Potential ChildAbduction Cases: A Develop-mental Perspective,” April,p. 1.

Bower, Deborah L., DataAnalyst, Albuquerque, NewMexico, Police Department,“The Albuquerque PoliceDepartment’s Crisis Interven-tion Team: A Report Card,”February, p. 1.

Brooks, Michael E., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “LawEnforcement Physical FitnessStandards and Title VII,”May, p. 26.

Bulzomi, Michael J., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy, Quan-tico, Virginia, “Indian TribalSovereignty,” June, p. 24.

Burke, Timothy T., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Docu-menting and Reporting aConfession with a SignedStatement: A Guide for LawEnforcement,” February,p. 17.

Burke, Tod W., Associate Pro-fessor, Radford University,Radford, Virginia, “ProjectExile: Combating Gun Vio-lence in America,” October,p. 2.

December 2001 / 29

C

Carroll, Brian P., President,private security firm, Ft.Collins, Colorado, “MajorCase Management: KeyComponents,” June, p.1.

Cauthen, John, Special Agent,FBI, Sacramento, California,“Investment Fraud,” May,p. 13.

Cochrane, Glory, WellnessCoordinator, Albuquerque,New Mexico, Police Depart-ment, “The Effects of SleepDeprivation,” July, p. 22.

Colbridge, Thomas D., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “TheAmericans with DisabilitiesAct: A Practical Guide forPolice Departments, January,p. 23; and “Kyllo v. UnitedStates: Technology VersusIndividual Privacy,” October,p. 25.

Conditt, John H., Jr., SpecialAgent, FBI, Washington, D.C.,“The Four Elements of Self-policing: Addressing Institu-tional Integrity Through theInternal Disciplinary Process,”November, p. 18.

Cox, Bucky, Vice President ofSecurity, private firm, Phila-delphia, Pennsylvania, “Asian-on-Asian Kidnapping: Under-standing Cultural Influences,”March, p. 22.

Crawford, Kimberly A., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “The SixthAmendment Right to Counsel:Application and Limitations,”July, p. 27.

D

Davis, J. Bryan, Special Agent,Department of Defense,Arlington, Virginia,“Computer Intrusion Investiga-tion Guidelines,” January,p. 8.

Debbaudt, Dennis, President,private detective agency,“Contact with Individuals withAutism: Effective Resolu-tions,” April, p. 20.

E

Eisenberg, Clyde B., Sergeant,Hillsborough County, Florida,Sheriff’s Office, “Law En-forcement Web Sites: NewUtility for a New Era,”August, p. 6.

Eisenberg, Terry, President,private law enforcementconsultant firm, San Diego,

California, “Looking Inwardwith Problem-Oriented Polic-ing,” July, p. 1.

F

Ferbrache, Mark D., SpecialAgent, FBI, London, England,“Offshore Financial Centers:The Channel Islands and theIsle of Man,” February,p. 10.

Fine, John C., Attorney, privatepractice, “Police on Horse-back: A New Concept for anOld Idea,” July, p. 6.

French, Barbara, IndependentConsultant, Tallahassee,Florida, “OrganizationalDevelopment in a Law En-forcement Environment,”September, p. 14.

G

Garrett, Terry D., Lieutenant,Rockwall, Texas, PoliceDepartment, “Scholastic CrimeStoppers: A Cost-Benefit Per-spective,” September, p. 1.

Glasscock, Bruce, Chief, Plano,Texas, Police Department,“Looking Inward with Prob-lem-Oriented Policing,” July,p. 1.

Goodman, Marc, former officer,Los Angeles, California,Police Department, “MakingComputer Crime Count,”August, p. 10.

Goodwin, Maureen, CareerDevelopment Specialist, PolkCounty, Florida, Sheriff’sOffice, “Fast Track Applica-tion Process Speeds Hiring,”June, p. 5.

Gorman, Jennifer A., Law Clerk,U.S. Department of Justice,Washington, D.C., “TheInternational Sharing Program:Fostering International Coop-eration,” February, p. 27.

H

Hanwell, Dennis, Chief, Medina,Ohio, Police Department,“International CommunityPolicing Partnership,” January,p. 19.

Hartman, Victor E., SpecialAgent, FBI, Houston, Texas,“Implementing an AssetForfeiture Program,” January,p. 1

Heck, William P., AssociateProfessor, Northeastern StateUniversity, Tahlequah, Okla-homa, “The School Shooter:One Community’s Experi-ence,” September, p. 9.

Hoang, Francis Q., Advisor,Rockland County, New York,

Police Academy, “AddressingSchool Violence: Prevention,Planning, and Practice,”August, p. 18.

Huguley, Mark, Major, SouthCarolina Law EnforcementDivision, Columbia, “Wantedand Arrested Person Records,”September, p. 20.

Hulsey, Floyd S., Director,Human Resources Division,Polk County, Florida, Sheriff’sOffice, “Fast Track Applica-tion Process Speeds Hiring,”June, p. 5.

J

Johnson, Richard R., KaneCounty, Illinois, State’sAttorney Office andWaubonsee CommunityCollege, Sugar Grove, Illinois,“The Psychological Influenceof the Police Uniform,”March, p. 27.

K

Kash, Douglas A., SeniorAttorney, DEA, Arlington,Virginia, “The InternationalSharing Program: FosteringInternational Cooperation,”February, p. 27.

Kennedy, Ralph C., DeputyDirector, Veterans Affairs LawEnforcement Training Center,North Little Rock, Arkansas,“Veterans Affairs Police andSecurity Service: SafeguardingAmerica’s Military Heritage,”June, p. 18.

L

Lanning, Kenneth V., retiredSpecial Agent, FBI Academy,

Quantico, Virginia, “Investigat-ing Potential Child AbductionCases: A DevelopmentalPerspective,” April, p. 1.

Lord, Wayne D., Critical IncidentResponse Group, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Investigat-ing Potential Child AbductionCases: A DevelopmentalPerspective,” April, p. 1.

M

McCormack, William, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Law Enforcementand the Holocaust,” November,p. 8.

McFeely, Richard A., SpecialAgent, FBI, Washington, D.C.,“Enterprise Theory of Investiga-tion,” May, p. 19.

Moffett, Tommy, Chief, Biloxi,Mississippi, Police Depart-ment, “When Casino GamblingComes to Your Hometown:The Biloxi Experience,”January, p. 12.


December 2001 / 31

Monahan, Brian A., GraduateAssistant, University of Del-aware, Newark, “Project Exile:Combating Gun Violence inAmerica,” October, p. 2.

Mueller, Robert S. III, Director,FBI, Washington, D.C.,“Responding to Terrorism,”December, p. 12.

Murphy, Rick, Program Man-ager, U.S. Department ofTreasury, “The Public SafetyWireless Network (PSWN)Program: A Brief Introduc-tion,” May, p. 10.

N

Navarro, Joe, Special Agent,FBI, Tampa, Florida, “Detect-ing Deception,” July, p. 9.

O

O’Neal, Scott, Special Agent,FBI, Albuquerque, NewMexico, “Interviewing Self-confident Con Artists,” March,p. 16.

P

Pape, Dominick, Special Agent,Florida Department of LawEnforcement, “Police Pursuitsand Civil Liability,” July,p. 16.

Peck, Donald L., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “When CasinoGambling Comes to YourHometown: The Biloxi Experi-ence,” January, p. 12.

Penrod, Gary S., Sheriff, SanBernardino County, California,Sheriff’s Department, “Opera-tion CleanSWEEP: The School

Safety Program That Earnedan A+,” October, p. 20.

Perry, Frank L., Special Agent,FBI, Raleigh, North Carolina,“Repairing Broken Windows:Preventing Corruption WithinOur Ranks,” February, p. 23.

Petrowski, Thomas D., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “MirandaRevisited: Dickerson v.United States,” August, p. 25.

Raleigh, North Carolina, “Sur-veillance Optics,” March, p. 7.

Porter, Brandon, ComputerSoftware Specialist, Hills-borough County, Florida,Sheriff’s Office, “Law En-forcement Web Sites: NewUtility for a New Era,”August, p. 6.

R

Raffel, Robert, T., FederalSecurity Manager, U.S.Federal Aviation Administra-tion, Washington, D.C.,“Airport Policing: TrainingIssues and Options,” Sept-ember, p. 26.

Rothman Darla, Instructor,Maryland Police and Correc-tional Training Commissions,“Contact with Individuals withAutism: Effective Resolu-tions,” April, p. 20.

S

Sandoval, Vincent A., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “SubtleSkills for Building Rapport:Using Neuro-LinguisticProgramming in the InterviewRoom,” August, p. 1.

Schafer, John R., Special Agent,FBI, Lancaster, California,“Detecting Deception,” July, p.9.

Schott, Richard G., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “The Roleof Race in Law Enforcement:Racial Profiling or LegitimateUse?” November, p. 24.

Pettit, W. Gene, Sergeant,Albuquerque, New Mexico,Police Department, “TheAlbuquerque PoliceDepartment’s Crisis Interven-tion Team: A Report Card,”February, p. 1.

Pipes, Chris, Commander,Odessa, Texas, Police Depart-ment, “Police Pursuits and CivilLiability,” July, p. 16.

Poindexter, Carlyle, President,private investigation firm,


Schroeder, William R., President,private law enforcementconsultant firm, Woodbridge,Virginia, “Money Laundering:A Global Threat and theInternational Community’sResponse,” May, p. 1.

Siegle, Derek, Program Man-ager, U.S. Department ofJustice, “The Public SafetyWireless Network (PSWN)Program: A Brief Introduc-tion,” May, p. 10.

Staszak, Dennis, Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Media Trends andthe Public Information Of-ficer,” March, p. 10.

Stewart, Jerry, Assistant Direc-tor, Florida Department ofInsurance, Treasury, and FireMarshal, “OrganizationalDevelopment in a Law En-forcement Environment,”September, p. 14.

Stewart-Brown, Recheal, Clini-cal Social Worker, San Diego,California, “CommunityMobilization: The Foundationfor Community Policing,”June, p. 9.

U

Ursino, Brian A., Captain,Washington State Patrol,Olympia, “A Systems Ap-proach to OrganizationalTransformation,” October,p. 12.

V

Vest, Gary, Chief, Powell, Ohio,Police Department, “Closingthe Recruitment Gap: ASymposium’s Findings,”November, p. 13.

W

Wade, Colleen, ManagingEditor, FBI, Washington, D.C.,“FBI Laboratory Publica-tions,” December, p. 10.

Wade, Donna J., FreelanceWriter, Los Angeles, Califor-nia, “Line-of-Duty PoliceDeath Notifications: Planningfor the Unthinkable,” April,p. 13.

Walker, Jayme S., Chief, LegalInstruction Section, DEA,Quantico, Virginia, “UsingDrug Detection Dogs: AnUpdate,” April, p. 25.

White John L., retired AssistantChief, Pulaski, Tennessee,Police Department, “The WorkItself as a Motivator,” Febru-ary, p. 7.

Winright, Tobias, Professor,Simpson College, Indianola,Iowa, “Bowling Alone but NotPatrolling Alone,” April,p. 11.

Wolfer, Loren, Assistant Profes-sor, University of Scranton,Scranton, Pennsylvania,“Rural and Suburban PoliceLeadership: Targeting ExternalFunding,” November, p. 1.

Z

Zezza, Ralph, Chief, WestPittston, Pennsylvania, PoliceDepartment, “Rural andSuburban Police Leadership:Targeting External Funding,”November, p. 1.

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.

The Bulletin Notes

Sergeant Logsdon

Sergeant David Logsdon of theAstoria, Oregon, Police Departmentresponded to a report of a suicidaldistraught woman. When SergeantLogsdon arrived, he saw that the womanwas threatening to kill herself with ahandgun. Sergeant Logsdon was able todistract and disarm the woman, but notbefore she discharged three rounds intothe floor. Sergeant Logsdon’s courageousactions not only prevented any injuriesbut ultimately saved the woman’s life.

Officer Morgan

While on routine patrol in Baldwin,New York, Officer Michael Morgan ofthe Nassau County Police Departmentobserved a man standing on an elevatedrailroad track adjoining the stationplatform. Officer Morgan radioed forassistance and requested that the railroadauthorities be notified to warn anyoncoming trains. As he made his wayto the station, Officer Morgan wasapproached by a woman who told himthat it was her 20-year-old nephew on

the tracks and that he had been drinking and was distraught. Asthe man began running farther down the elevated track, OfficerMorgan feared that the man would jump. Disregarding hisown safety, he pursued the man on the tracks and attemptedto control him. As they struggled, Officer Morgan suddenlyrealized that a train was rapidly approaching, so he grabbedthe man and rolled them both into asmall crawl space under the platformjust as the train roared past. Shortlythereafter, he gained control of the man,handcuffed him, and removed him tosafety. Officer Morgan’s selfless acts ofbravery prevented a potential tragedy.

Officer Kies

When Officer ChristopherKies of the City of Lompoc,California, Police Departmentresponded to an attemptedsuicide call, he found thedwelling engulfed in flamesand a suicidal man, who haddoused himself with gasoline,standing in the front yard.When the man saw the policearriving, he began to walk intothe burning residence. Disre-garding his own safety, OfficerKies managed to pull the manto safety just as they crossedthe threshold, preventing theman’s gasoline-soaked clothesfrom igniting. Officer Kies’courageous and heroic actionsthwarted the man’s suicideattempt.

Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be based on eitherthe rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s) made at unusualrisk to an officer’s safety. Submissions should include a shortwrite-up (maximum of 250 words), a separate photograph ofeach nominee, and a letter from the department’s ranking officerendorsing the nomination. Submissions should be sent to theEditor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, MadisonBuilding, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

PeriodicalsPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

Patch Call

The Nebraska City, Nebraska, Police Depart-ment’s patch depicts Arbor Lodge, the home of J.Sterling Morton, who founded Arbor Day, whichis the celebration of tree planting. Arbor Day isobserved on the last Friday in April. While mostholidays honor the past, Arbor Day proposes forthe future.

The patch of the Jacksonville, North Carolina,Police Department features the original city hall andpolice department law enforcement complex. Theglobe and anchor of the U.S. Marine Corps is promi-nently displayed on the patch and reflects the closerelationship with Camp Lejeune, the world’s largestamphibious base and home of the 2nd MarineDivision.