FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec04leb

10 Unusual WeaponPepper Pager

11 Bulletin ReportsMedia RelationsWeb-Based Resources

12 Book ReviewA Law Enforcement Officer’s Guide to Testifying in Court

Offender Reentry By David M. Allender

Supreme Court Cases2003-2004 Term

By the FBI AcademyLegal Instruction Unit

1

Nine Supreme Court decisionsof particular importance to lawenforcement are summarized.

Although programs available for thoseleaving correctional facilities haveimproved, more work still needs tobe done to help offenders reform.

14

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

Departments

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 201,Quantico, VA 22135.

EditorJohn E. Ott

Associate EditorsCynthia L. Lewis

David W. MacWhaBunny S. Morris

Art DirectorDenise Bennett Smith

Assistant Art DirectorStephanie L. Lowe

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law Enforcement

Communication Unit, Training Division.

Internet [email protected]

Cover Photo© PhotoDisc

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy, Madison Building,Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.

December 2004Volume 73Number 12

23 Notable SpeechThe Professional Law Enforcement Officer

25 2004 Subject Index

28 2004 Author Index

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:18 PM4

December 2004 / 1

erhaps the most vexingproblem facing thecriminal justice system

in the United States today ishow to deal with offenders whohave “paid their debt to society”and are released from a struc-tured correctional setting backinto the community. Rarelydoes society lock up a personand “throw away the key.”Instead, 95 percent of all of-fenders sent to state prisonfacilities will be released andreturned to the civilian popu-lation.1 How to address thissituation has more importantconsequences for society than

the ongoing debate aboutwhether a prison sentenceshould be punitive or treatmentoriented. While incarcerated,the offender, at the very least,is “warehoused” away for theprotection of the general public.Upon release, however, thecommunity will be confronted,based on policy decisions madeand implemented, by either areturning criminal or a reformedoffender.

American PenologyConcern for the real purpose

behind a court-imposed sen-tence in response to a criminal

offense is not a new feature onthe American political land-scape. Rather, the debate goesback to the earliest period ofthis country’s existence. A brieflook at the history of penologyin this country can confirm thisobservation. In 1787, BenjaminFranklin’s Philadelphia, Penn-sylvania, home was the site forthe first meeting of the Philadel-phia Society for Alleviating theMiseries of Public Prisons(PSAMPP). At the time of thisgathering, local jails—basicallyholding pens that made noattempt to separate prisoners byage, sex, or offense—housed

P

Offender ReentryA Returning or Reformed Criminal?

By DAVID M. ALLENDER

© brandXpictures

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM5

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

the majority of incarceratedpersons. Upon adjudicationof their cases, most of thoseconvicted received sentencesthat entailed some form ofcorporal punishment or hardlabor and removal from the jailpopulation. PSAMPP membersfelt that this treatment ofoffenders was misguided and,by design, failed to correct theunacceptable behavior on thepart of the prisoner. As a solu-tion, they lobbied the govern-ment of Pennsylvania toconstruct Eastern StatePenitentiary, a facility thatopened in 1829 as the firstmodern-day prison. Behind itsdrive to build Eastern State,PSAMPP had as its goal: “ThePenitentiary would not simplypunish, but move the criminaltoward spiritual reflection andchange. The method was aQuaker-inspired system of

isolation from other prisoners,with labor.”2

To inspire their charges,Pennsylvania, at the time, builtpossibly the most expensivebuilding in the United States.Equipped with central heat andrunning water when the WhiteHouse still used wood-burningstoves and latrines, the peniten-tiary represented an attempt topositively affect the lives ofinmates. In reality, PSAMPP’swell-intentioned effort at reformled to the creation of the first“supermax” facility in theworld. For 23 hours a day, in-mates were confined in indi-vidual cells that had small,private exercise yards that theycould or had to go into for 1hour per day. Staff memberspassed food to the inmatesthrough a slot in the cell door.Inmates had no contact witheach other, and the staff

restricted conversation withthem to the amount necessaryto operate the prison. Whenprisoners had to move aroundinside the institution, they worehoods over their heads andfaces. Eventually, inmates couldexercise in a common yardtogether, but, for many years,they had to wear a hood witheyeholes to limit familiaritywithin the inmate community.In addition, the institutionrestricted reading material tothe Bible. All of these measureswere put in place to help in-mates meditate and reflecton the errors they had made.PSAMPP members felt thatupon reflection on their trans-gressions, inmates would be-come enlightened, which wouldlead to a resolve to make posi-tive changes in their lifestylesand behaviors. Eastern Statemodified these practices overthe years as new theories onpenology altered the beliefs ofthose working in the field ofcorrections. The facility itselfserved as a penitentiary for 142years, finally closing in 1971.3

The history of Eastern StatePenitentiary illustrates howAmerican society, in over 200years, has failed to reach anagreement on what it hopesto accomplish by sentencingoffenders to prison. Given thishistorical background, it is timeto make use of modern researchmethods to identify and imple-ment strategies that showCaptain Allender serves with the Indianapolis, Indiana, Police Department.

“

”

...the general public hasbegun to realize thatmany adult offenderslack the social skills

necessary to becomesuccessful, contributing

members of theircommunities.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM6

December 2004 / 3

promise in successfully reinte-grating offenders into society asproductive members.

Recidivism IdentifiedRecent research by the

Bureau of Justice Statisticshelps to demonstrate the needto develop effective measuresdesigned to assist recentlyreleased inmates.4 The studyexamined prisoners releasedfrom 15 states, which returned atotal of 272,111 of their chargesto free society in 1994. Thisnumber represented approxi-mately two-thirds of all inmatesfreed from custody that year.The researchers focused on fourfactors that they felt identifiedrecidivism: “rearrest, reconvic-tion, resentence to prison, andreturn to prison with or withouta new sentence.”5 Their findingsproved disturbing. Within 3years, 67.5 percent of releasedinmates were charged with anew crime, 46.9 percent werefound guilty of their latestcharge, and 25.4 percent weresent to a correctional facility inresponse to their new offense.Violations of release conditions(technical violations, not newoffenses) led to additionalincarceration time for manyinmates released in 1994.Considering all of the factors,a total of 51.8 percent of theinmates released in 1994 wereback in prison by 1997. Thishuman tragedy is felt not onlyby the inmates, their families,

and friends but by society as awhole. The most obvious costof this failure to gain compli-ance with societies’ mores liesin the extraordinary expense ofincarceration, $49,007,000 byall levels of government in1999.6 The victims of theseoffenders, however, pay a pricenot so readily apparent. Thestudy estimated that before re-turning to prison, these offend-ers committed approximately744,000 crimes between 1994and 1997.

inmate went free after 2 yearsof imprisonment or had to servethe equivalent of 4 years. Thesystem, by its very nature, wassubjective and prone to abuse.Public displeasure led to re-forms and a switch to determi-nate sentencing, with an equallyapplicable formula that allowedfor early release based on “goodtime” earned by the inmate. Adeficiency for the new proce-dure was a loss of postreleasecontrol formerly held by theparole boards. When the boardgranted release, it set terms thatparole officers administered.With the advent of determinatesentencing, however, moreinmates began serving theirentire sentences, then werereleased without control orassistance. An unintendedconsequence of this procedurehas been a dramatic reductionin funds available for paroleofficers with a resultant propor-tionate decrease in the controlof ex-inmates at a time whenappropriate direction could havea positive impact on their lives.

Truth-in-sentencing laws,which several states haveadopted, have further compli-cated issues surrounding of-fender reentry. In many jurisdic-tions, violent criminals mustserve at least 85 percent of theircourt-imposed sentences beforebeing considered for parole orrelease.7 Other states, such asIndiana, make use of determi-nate sentences where inmates

Changes in SentencingBy the middle of the 20th

century, most states had aparole board responsible foradministering an early releasepolicy. Courts generally gaveout sentences for a range ofyears. For example, a felonyconviction for a nonviolent theftmight be 2 to 4 years, instead ofa set time, such as 30 months.Parole board members held thepower to decide whether an

Public concern hasled to an acceptance

of the need fordrug treatment andfor the increasingrequirement for

appropriate programs.

”“

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM7


know that if they do not commitany transgressions while incar-cerated, they will be releasedafter serving 50 percent of theiroriginal sentences. These statesconsider the released inmates ashaving served their time and donot subject them to any addi-tional monitoring or control.But, these are individuals who,based on prior behaviors,society has a strong interest in,either for rehabilitation or closesupervision. In attempting toensure punishment and fairness,legislative bodies have madedecisions that did not take intoaccount the fact that once theseindividuals have served theirtime, they will be released intothe same neighborhoods theycame from to again prey uponthe citizens who live there.

One researcher, addressingthe topic of how to deal withreentry, said, “The answer to thequestion, ‘If not parole, thenwhat?’ is typically, ‘Moreprison.’ Yet asking a differentquestion—‘How should wemanage the reentry of largenumbers of people who havebeen imprisoned for a longtime?’—might elicit a differentanswer.”8 He continued withwhat has become a commontheme in enlightened discus-sions on the topic of reentry,“They all come back.”9 He sug-gested reassigning some of thefunctions formerly performedby parole boards.10 Among theitems to consider is a body

charged with controlling theactions of inmates after release,as well as monitoring theirbehavior prior to release toensure that they have receivedthe tools to become successfulwhen they return to free society.While this approach wouldseem to conflict with the sen-tencing reforms enacted inresponse to complaints concern-ing the old parole structure, thenumber of former inmates beingrearrested so quickly after theirrelease confirms the need forfine-tuning the system.

programs exist in a number ofjurisdictions to work withjuvenile offenders before andafter their release. Now, thegeneral public has begun torealize that many adult offend-ers lack the social skills neces-sary to become successful,contributing members of theircommunities. To help theseindividuals, many people haverecognized the need to providetraining and alternatives forthose being released.

Citizens have demandedthat at least two widely differentclasses of offenders incurspecial attention upon their re-lease from incarceration. Inter-est in both groups has drawnconsiderable political attention,but for different reasons. Aneducated electorate voicingconcern to appropriate legisla-tive bodies can lead to theestablishment of reentry pro-grams. Depending upon the typeof inmate targeted and the focusof the interest group, a reentryinitiative developed in this man-ner may or may not offer thebest chance for rehabilitation.

Sex offenders became thefirst to draw extensive publicattention. Fear that releasedoffenders would again preyupon those members of societyleast able to protect themselvesled to several measures, includ-ing the National Sex OffenderRegistry. Also, in Kansas v.Hendricks, the U.S. SupremeCourt ruled that institutions may

Reentry by Offense CategoryMany Americans are slowly

starting to realize that offendersneed help to succeed and notreoffend upon their release fromcorrectional facilities. Societylong has recognized its respon-sibility to care for delinquentyouths because they are tooimmature to make decisions forthemselves. Due to this, special

During the structuredreentry phase,

programs often usepolice as a deterrentfor offenders should

they violate the termsof their release

agreements.

”“

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM8

December 2004 / 5

hold sexual offenders beyondtheir court-imposed sentenceif they can demonstrate thatinmates have displayed a mentalcondition that indicates theirlikelihood of committing newoffenses upon their release.11

Other efforts have occurred toensure released inmates aretracked and given either treat-ment or additional punishment,whichever professionals deemas the more appropriate for theircondition.

A second category ofoffenders warranting specialconsideration in the eyes of thepublic includes those sentencedfor what some perceive as“minor” drug crimes. Based oninformation in the media andhigh-profile movies, manymembers of the communityseem to believe that largenumbers of incarcerated drugoffenders have as their only realcrime an addiction to an illegalsubstance. While some personsundoubtedly have been impris-oned for usage amounts ofdrugs, most of those servingtime for simple drug possessionoffenses, in fact, were activelyinvolved in some manner withthe trafficking of illegal sub-stances.12 Numerous ways existfor a known drug dealer to endup charged with possessioninstead of dealing. The mostcommon occurs when prosecu-tors, with police encourage-ment, allow a person to pleadguilty to possession after selling

drugs to a cooperating individ-ual or informant. In such cases,a trade-off for the law enforce-ment community occurs—theidentity of the witness, oftenan undercover officer, remainsunknown, thereby protecting thewitness and allowing the policeto use that person again. Drugcouriers that risk arrest for theprofit gained by moving an-other’s drugs from one point to

population of offenders for drugaddictions.

Public concern has led to anacceptance of the need for drugtreatment and for the increasingrequirement for appropriateprograms. Many offenders in-carcerated for crimes not relatedto drugs either abuse or areaddicted to an illegal substance.Effective screening by correc-tional personnel can identifythose most in need of andreceptive to treatment as a stepto securing them placement inproper programs. The limitedfunding available for treatmentprograms, which occurs becauseno one can prove that criminalactivity did not happen due toa specific intervention effort,drives the rationale behind re-ferring only the best candidatesfor treatment.13 In contrast, bytheir very nature, enforcementprograms generate numbersof arrests and citizen contacts.Fiscal agents endeavoring tomake effective use of availablefunds understandably are morecomfortable with efforts thatproduce a verifiable result,usually numbers, as opposedto a successful outcome thatremains difficult to prove.

Project RIOInstitutions have employed

a wide variety of programs andideas in recent times to eitherforce ex-inmates to conform tosocietal norms or assist them inmaking the transition from

another are among those con-victed of simple possession.Others facing these chargesinclude those caught in “whis-per” stops where the informantor undercover officer arranges adrug deal and police interceptthe dealer before the individualcan reach the meeting spot.These few examples illustratewhy the public and researchersneed to become better informedabout conditions in the drugenforcement field before ac-cepting, at face value, thatcourts have imprisoned a large

©Digital Stock

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM9


prison to freedom. One suchprogram is Project RIO, a state-funded and locally controlledeffort in Texas.

In June 1998, the NationalInstitute of Justice evaluatedand reported on this effort.14

Under the formal title of Re-Integration of Offenders, theproject began in Texas during1985 as an effort to reduce therecidivism rate for inmatesreleased by state correctionalfacilities. A quick look at thenumber of offenders Texas mustdeal with can effectively illus-trate the scope of the problem.In December 1996, for example,Texas correctional institutionshoused more than 132,000 in-mates.15 Members of the Texaslegislature agreed with thepremise that without gainfulemployment and other steps toreintegrate them into society,ex-inmates likely will reoffendand a large percentage willreturn to prison. They approvedfunding for Project RIO in 1984with implementation in 1985.Elected officials took an en-lightened stance when theymandated that to receive funds,several agencies would have tocollaborate on the effort. TheInstitutional and Parole Divi-sion of the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice and the TexasWorkforce Commission, thestate employment agency estab-lished in 1935 that successfullyserves the entire state, equallyshare direction of the project.

The size of the RIO agency—100 paid staff located in 62 sitesserving 92 cities and towns—demonstrates the extent of thecommitment. Moreover, itiner-ant service providers travel totowns where large numbers ofparolees reside to provideservice for rural areas.16

presentations and by bringingpotential employers to thefacilities. While processing outof institutions, inmates mustattend a 30-minute orientationon RIO. Even if inmates fail totake advantage of the opportu-nities provided by the projectupon release, they still can signup later. This late sign-upoften occurs because the ex-offender’s parole officer makesa referral or a current or pastparticipant in RIO assures theparolee that the program works.

Once inmates or paroleesdecide to take advantage of thebenefits connected with ProjectRIO, they receive servicestailored to fit their needs.Finding a job begins with aweek of life-skills and job-search training. Program spe-cialists then attempt to matchex-offenders with availablepositions and make calls toappropriate employers withinthe network of 12,000 compa-nies that already have hired RIOparticipants. Project counselorsrealize the need to take a holis-tic approach to the problemsand conditions that the ex-inmates face. For this reason,they provide ex-offenders withinformation on and assistance inobtaining community services,housing, medical care, and otherresources for handling problem-atic issues. An important com-ponent of the program involvesongoing monitoring of the ex-offender’s work performance

Inmates are introduced toRIO in a variety of ways. Uponentry into a correctional facility,each offender must complete anorientation process. During thisintroduction, project staff mem-bers provide new inmates with abrochure describing how ProjectRIO works and how it canbenefit them. As an example,the school that provides voca-tional and technical traininginside the prisons requiresinmates who participate in anycourse to enroll in the project.Staff members from RIO makeperiodic attempts to recruitinmates through oral or video

Changes in sentencingprocedures havegreatly increased

the number ofprisoners released

unconditionallyinto communities

across the country.

”

“

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM10

December 2004 / 7

and behavior, with timely inter-vention by parole or ProjectRIO workers before a problemreaches the level that willrequire reincarceration of theindividual.

Overall then, how success-ful is the effort at keepingoffenders from returning toprison? As the study of offend-ers released around the countryduring 1994 showed, by 1997,51.8 percent had returned toprison.17 This represents anenormous drain on public re-sources and a waste of potentialcontributions those imprisonedmight make to society. TexasA&M University evaluated RIOin 1992 and judged the programa success.18 Evaluators studied1,200 inmates released that yearand found that those who choseto participate in RIO had lowerrates for both arrest and reincar-ceration. University researchersidentified a number of factorsthat they believed had an effecton the ex-offender’s ability toassimilate back into society.19

The study then grouped subjectsinto categories of high, average,and low risk to obtain as muchinformation as possible on theeffectiveness. As might be ex-pected, high-risk subjects hadthe most chance of being rear-rested. This held true regardlessof status with RIO, but projectsubjects faired significantlybetter than non-RIO individuals,48 percent as opposed to 57 per-cent. Although the difference in

rearrest rates for average-risk,30 percent versus 32 percent,and low-risk, 16 percent versus19 percent, ex-offenders did notvary widely. In both categories,RIO participants did better thantheir counterparts not in theprogram.

RIO versus 11 percent non-RIO.No significant difference oc-curred for re-imprisonmentamong those studied whoranked as low risk.

The Texas A&M study notonly indicated the success of theRIO effort but also identifiedboth the scope of its work andthe extent of its positive influ-ence on the lives of the partici-pants. Between 1995 and 1998,over 100,000 released inmatesvoluntarily participated in RIO,which found jobs for 69 percentof those in need.20 Of those whochose not to enter the project,only 36 percent obtained gain-ful employment. Obviously,more ex-offenders workingand paying taxes as opposed toserving time in prison can re-sult in a positive impact onsociety.

New PartnershipsCommunity policing is

changing the manner in whichmany law enforcement agenciesaround the nation do business.Instead of being what manyauthors a couple of decadesago characterized as an armyof occupation stationed inAmerica’s inner cities, police inmany areas are emerging as truepartners for citizens and otherservice providers. A numberof factors have influenced thischange, including a better-educated police work force anda need for all parties to cooper-ate so they could stretch limited

Texas A&M Universityfollowed new cases filed againstex-offenders to conclusion anddetermined that Project RIOalso had influenced the rate ofincarceration for ex-offenders.Those individuals in the high-risk category were rearrested ata much higher rate than theother categories and, corre-spondingly, were imprisoned ina much greater percentage. RIOenrollees returned to prison lessoften than those who chose notto enter the program. Amongthose considered high risk, 23percent from RIO as opposed to38 percent non-RIO, went backinto prison. In the average-riskranking, the tally was 8 percent

©PhotoDisc

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM11


resources and achieve theirgoals. Operating largely underthe federal government um-brella, grant providers, in actu-ality, have been responsible forchanging the face of Americanpolicing.

A report prepared for theNational Institute of Justice bythe University of Maryland doc-umented eight communities us-ing local police as an ingredientin ongoing reentry initiatives.21

The information contained inthe report may usher in a newphase of law enforcementactivity.

The research identified fivesteps in the reentry process: “1)program eligibility, 2) institu-tional treatment plans, 3) struc-tured prerelease planning, 4)structured reentry, and 5) com-munity reintegration strate-gies.”22 The authors felt that thelast three phases were equallydangerous for an offender’ssuccessful reentry. In all of theareas, police have the knowl-edge and ability to make mean-ingful contributions. Whileoffenders are incarcerated,police, an often overlookedintelligence resource, cansupply information on theirfamilies, associates, gangaffiliations, and neighborhoodproblems they likely will en-counter. Rather than relying ona “cookie-cutter” approach,examining information of thistype would prove valuable inthe development of treatment

and prerelease plans most likelyto aid inmates.

During the structured re-entry phase, programs often usepolice as a deterrent for offend-ers should they violate the termsof their release agreements. Thisapproach differs in a significantway from older methods ofpolicing. First, law enforcementofficers meet face-to-face withoffenders and tell them franklywhat the community expects

successful outcome. Thisprobably represents the mostcontroversial use of police inthe reentry process because ofthe appearance, real or imag-ined, that the law enforcementcommunity is not really animpartial voice in the decision-making process.

In years past, inmatesnormally were released underthe supervision of either aparole or probation department.Changes in sentencing proce-dures have greatly increased thenumber of prisoners releasedunconditionally into communi-ties across the country. Policeare the only enforcement agentsfor those released uncondition-ally. Where the goal of incar-ceration is simply to punishcriminal behavior, traditionalpolicing methods (if ex-inmatesreoffend, they are rearrested andsuffer new consequences)would be an acceptable govern-mental response. The informa-tion now available, however,shows that the recently releasedmost likely will fail withouthelp. The law enforcementcommunity may be forced toexpand its range of services toassist ex-offenders unless someother group comes forward tofill the void.

During the communityreintegration phase, officerswork to lessen the friction thatalways accompanies change.When offenders return to theirneighborhoods, they form only

and what the consequences willbe if they fail to meet expecta-tions. Second, officers serve asa resource to help offenderswho may have problems achiev-ing what authorities expect.23 Insome jurisdictions, police workclosely with probation andparole agencies, even participat-ing in home visits and curfewchecks, to ensure that offendersmeet the requirements of theirrelease agreements. Last, policein some jurisdictions sit onboards that determine whetheroffenders have achieved a

During the communityreintegration phase,

officers work tolessen the friction

that alwaysaccompanies change.

“”

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM12

December 2004 / 9

part of the equation. Familymembers often must rearrangetheir lives to accommodateanother person in the house-hold. Victims still may be a partof the community and requirereassurance that they will not bevictimized anew. Communitygroups need to know that anyfuture transgressions will bedealt with quickly. Police oftenare the focal point for all ofthese entities. If offenders makea successful transition, theinvolvement of the police willbe limited to positive interac-tions with both the offendersand the community.

ConclusionOffender reentry is a press-

ing issue for society. Govern-mental resources have beenseverely taxed as legislatureshave criminalized more andmore behaviors. Determinatesentencing, coupled with man-datory minimum time require-ments, has resulted in longerstays for offenders. Many treat-ment and educational programshave not been able to keep pacewith the demand. Unconditionalrelease, for those having com-pleted a determinate sentence,has resulted in many offendersbeing returned to the environ-ments that initially contributedto their abhorrent behavior.Without new tools to assistthem in avoiding pitfalls, ex-offenders are likely to repeatprevious negative actions,

which could lead to their rein-carceration. This, in turn, causesmultiple injuries to society, in-cluding the cost of the crimeitself, the need for appropriatehousing for the offender, theloss of productivity that couldbe expected had the person notreoffended, and the harm to thefamily structures of victim andoffender. The magnitude of theproblem defies a quick-fixanswer.

New ways of thinking are anecessary step to reducing therecidivism rate. Project RIO isa shining example of what canbe done when effective partner-ships are formed and conditionsallow them to function in theproper manner. Moreover, find-ing the role for law enforcementto work with other team mem-bers in reentry would benefiteveryone concerned. With itsemphasis on problem solving,community policing is changingthe face of law enforcement

around the country. Not every-one, however, agrees with usingpolice officers in this way, andsome agencies may be reluctantto incorporate them for fear ofhaving their own work over-shadowed. But, by establishingguidelines for law enforcementinvolvement, cooperatingpartners could ensure that theirneeds are met and police offi-cers would better understandwhat is expected of them. Usinglaw enforcement personnelcould reduce costs and lessenthe workload of some over-worked agencies. Officerswould benefit from working inthese programs because theywould be placed in close con-tact with those who, statisti-cally, are the most likely tocommit new crimes. Althoughit is heartening to see that stepsare being taken to improveprograms available for thoseleaving correctional facilities,more work still needs to bedone to help offenders reform,rather than return to theircriminal ways.

Endnotes1 T. Hughes and D. Wilson, U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics,Reentry Trends in the United States, 2002;retrieved on May 20, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm.

2 Eastern State Penitentiary Web site;retrieved on May 20, 2004, from http://www.easternstate.com/history/sixpage.html.

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM13

3 The structure remains and is beingrenovated as a historical monument. Tohelp pay for the renovation, the site isopen to the public and has been rented tofilmmakers.

4 P.A. Langan and D.J. Levin, U.S.Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, Bureau of Justice Statistics,Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994,NCJ 193427 (Washington, DC, 2002).

5 Ibid., 1.6 Sidra Lea Gifford, U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureauof Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditureand Employment in the United States,1999, February 2002, NCJ 191746;retrieved on May 24, 2004, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jeeus99.pdf.

7 Jeremy Travis, U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs,National Institute of Justice, “But They AllCome Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reen-try,” Sentencing & Corrections: Issues forthe 21st Century, NCJ 181413 (Washing-ton, DC, May 2000).

8 Ibid.9 Ibid.10 By the end of 2000, 16 states had

abolished discretionary release from prisonby a parole board for all offenders; supranote 1.

11 117 S.Ct. 2072.12 The author based this observation

on his 30 years of law enforcementexperience.

13 The author learned this concept fromOlgen Williams, director of the Indianapo-lis Christamore House Community Center.The two have worked together on a num-ber of projects, including Weed and Seedand gang prevention programs, since 1995.

14 U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, National Institute ofJustice, Texas’ Project RIO, NCJ 168637(Washington, DC, June 1998).

15 Ibid.16 Ibid.17 Supra note 4.18 R. Menon, C. Blakely, D.

Carmichael, and L. Silver, Texas A&MUniversity, Public Policy Resources

Laboratory, An Evaluation of Project RIOOutcomes: An Evaluative Report (CollegeStation, TX, 1992).

19 The researchers identified a total of23 factors, including substance abusehistory, living arrangements, academiclevel, vocational skills, employmenthistory, and the correctional officer’simpression of risk.

20 Supra note 14.21 J.M. Byrne, F.S. Taxman, and D.

Young, University of Maryland, Bureau ofGovernmental Research, Emerging Rolesand Responsibilities in the ReentryPartnership Initiative: New Ways of DoingBusiness (College Park, MD, 2002).

22 Ibid., 5.23 Indianapolis has made limited use of

this by working with the IndianapolisViolence Reduction Partnership to hold“lever-pulling” sessions for parolees andprobationers. Some success has been dem-onstrated in that the number of violationsamong those persons targeted for thisprogram has significantly decreased fromthe start of the effort until the present time.


Unusual Weapon

Pepper PagerThis object has a plastic body and

is designed to look like an actualpager. Offenders may use this deviceto dispense pepper spray.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM14

Bulletin Reports

Bulletin Reports is an edited collection of criminal justice studies, reports, and project findings. Send yourmaterial for consideration to: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Room 201, Madison Building, FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135. (NOTE: The material in this section is intended to be strictly an information source andshould not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any product or service.)

December 2004 / 11

The National Institute of Justice and the Office of CommunityOriented Policing Services present Marketing Community Policingin the News: A Missed Opportunity? that investigates the relation-ship between police departments and the media and how it affectscoverage of community policing in newspapers and on television.This report found that, in general, media reporting of communitypolicing is favorable, access to police agencies is not a problem,and relations with departments are good. It identifies barriers tobetter media handling of community policing (e.g., the monopolythat crime stories hold over other types) and discusses their im-plications for police public information officers. The publicationconcludes that to develop a winning approach, departments could

explore the possibility of usingthe news media as one—but notthe sole—component of a broadoutreach strategy. This report isavailable electronically at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/200473.htm or by contacting theNational Criminal Justice Ref-erence Service at 800-851-3420.

Media Relations

The International Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP) is the world’s oldest and largest nonprofitmembership organization of police executives, withmore than 19,000 members in more than 90 countries.IACP supports law enforcement professionals withservices that include management and operationalstudies, state-of-the-art training programs and materi-als, law enforcement policies and procedures, a pro-fessional monthly magazine and special reports, andextensive law enforcement research. Its Web site,http://www.theiacp.org, includes information onthese services as well as legislative activities; upcom-ing conferences, professional assistance; and IACP’sdivisions, sections, and committees.

Web-Based Resources

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM15

A Law Enforcement Officer’s Guide toTestifying in Court by James M. Vukelic,Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NorthCarolina, 2003.

Without a doubt, this book will help theveteran, as well as the inexperienced, law en-forcement officer testify in court more effec-tively. A Law Enforcement Officer’s Guide toTestifying in Court provides significant infor-mation and advice to members of the law en-forcement community to improve their persua-sive manner of performance at trials whiletestifying as witnesses. The author identifiesvarious methods used by attorneys on wit-nesses testifying and couples these with sug-gestions on how to deal with such tactics. Heuses examples to emphasize key points thatwill greatly assist the patrol officer and otherwitnesses and bases the information presentedon actual testifying situations in criminal andcivil trials.

Six chapters make up the book, with theaddition of two appendices. Appendix A dealswith the cross-examination of a DUI arrestingofficer and field sobriety tests, whereas Appen-dix B covers the cross-examination of a psy-chiatrist in a murder case.

The first chapter, “What You Need to Un-derstand Before Trial,” is designed to help setthe mental stage for officers preparing to testifyby building their confidence. It focuses on thefact that officers must acknowledge the battle-ground of the court as a technique to reduce tes-tifying anxiety and maintain their professionalcredibility.

Loaded with critical and necessary infor-mation, chapter 2 contains tips for testifyingofficers, including nonverbal persuasion,whether to wear jewelry, how to properly takethe witness stand, and the indicators of witnessdeception, as seen by courtroom attorneys andjury members. This chapter covers the “dos anddon’ts” that testifying officers must adhere toduring the trial proceedings. All of the informa-tion is included to enhance and maintain anofficer’s credibility.

A chapter on surviving both direct andcross-examinations contains further importantinformation to help testifying officers and oth-ers as to what they must expect during the twotypes of examinations in terms of the style ofthe interrogation and their responses to suchquestions. The author addresses how officersand other witnesses are discredited; how theidentification of prejudice or bias on the part ofa witness surfaces; and what constitutes poormemory situations by a witness. Information ispresented as to a lack of perception, inconsis-tent statements, and attacks on the character ofa witness that gives the officer an idea of whatto be prepared to encounter. All of the informa-tion is supported with sound, tried tips.

In the chapter on expert testimony, theauthor addresses the officer as an expert wit-ness and provides advice and examples on howand when an officer may give opinion testi-mony. The author also presents a comprehen-sive chapter on deposing witnesses and how

Book Review


December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:19 PM16

depositions are used at trials. Overall, twostrong points of the book emerge: 1) a total of37 excellent tips with examples spreadthroughout the book involving officers in courtand 2) two appendices on cross-examinationsthat provide insight to officers and other wit-nesses as to what they may expect at a trial.

A Law Enforcement Officer’s Guide toTestifying in Court applies to all personnel inthe criminal justice system. It is of value to lawenforcement academies and in-service trainingprograms, as well as officers studying for the

civil service test and those individuals whowrite the examination. It is an essential bookfor prosecutors and defense attorneys to readand should be considered as part of the requiredreading list at higher academic institutions.

Reviewed byMajor Larry R. Moore (Ret.), CPP

Certified Emergency ManagerInternational Associationof Emergency Managers

Knoxville, Tennessee

December 2004 / 13

Subscribe Now

Untitled-1 12/2/04, 4:00 PM17

he 2003-2004 U.S. Su-preme Court term in-cluded several casesT

addressing a variety of constitu-tional criminal proceduralissues, some dealing with themost fundamental of law en-forcement activities. One caseresolved the constitutionalityof a state’s identify yourselfstatute, requiring individuals toidentify themselves during aninvestigation detention. TheCourt also rejected a rigidapproach to determiningwhether a reasonable period oftime has lapsed prior to makinga forcible entry. A few vehiclecases were reviewed, includingone addressing the scope of thesearch incident to arrest whenthe individual already was outof the vehicle when the lawenforcement encounter beganand the other relating to high-way checkpoints. The Courtaddressed the constitutionalityof arresting several companionswhen information suggests at

least one may be involved incriminal activity. Custodialinterrogation matters also wentbefore the Court, including theconstitutionality of an interroga-tion technique described as theask now, warn later approachand the admissibility of physicalevidence derived from a confes-sion obtained in violation ofMiranda. Additionally, the

concept of deliberate elicitationwithin the meaning of the SixthAmendment was clarified. Thefollowing is a brief synopsis ofthese cases. As always, stateand local law enforcementagencies must ensure that theirown state laws and constitutionshave not provided greater pro-tections than the U.S. constitu-tional standards.

Legal Digest


SupremeCourtCases2003-2004TermBy the FBI ACADEMYLEGAL INSTRUCTION UNIT

© PhotoDisc

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:20 PM18

United States v. Banks,124 S. Ct. 521 (2003)

This case afforded the U.S.Supreme Court the opportunityto provide guidance to law en-forcement officers in assessinghow much time to wait prior tomaking a forcible entry afterknocking and announcing theirpresence and demanding entry.Officers obtained a searchwarrant based on informationthat cocaine was being soldfrom an apartment. Officers atthe front door of the apartmentknocked and announced loudenough to be heard by officerslocated at the back. Afterwaiting 15 to 20 seconds withno response, officers forciblyentered with a battering ram.They encountered the defendantwalking out of the shower afterhe heard them enter. Evidenceof drug dealing was foundduring the search, which thedefendant sought to suppress,

arguing that the officers failedto wait a reasonable time priorto the forcible entry.

The Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals agreed with the defen-dant and spelled out a detailedlist of factors law enforcementmust consider when decidingwhether a reasonable period oftime has lapsed prior to makinga forcible entry. The factorsincluded the location of theofficers in relation to the mainliving or sleeping area of theresidence, time of day, and theobject of the search.1 Addition-ally, the court of appeals di-vided the types of entries intocategories, each supporting adifferent type of delay. For ex-ample, the court described theentry in this case as involvingthe destruction of property butwith no exigent circumstances,therefore, requiring an evenlonger period of time beforemaking entry.2 The U.S. Su-preme Court agreed to hear thiscase and ultimately rejected thisapproach.

The Court rejected the ideathat the concept of reasonable-ness required law enforcementofficers to consider a list of pre-determined factors to justifytheir actions. Instead, reason-ableness should be viewedunder the totality of the circum-stances confronting officers atthe moment they decide to makeforcible entry. The Courtviewed the delay of 15 to 20seconds in Banks as sufficient

given that a reasonably objec-tive law enforcement officercould conclude that the dangerof disposal of the drugs hadripened.

December 2004 / 15

Thornton v. United States,124 S. Ct. 2127 (2004)

In 1981 in New York v.Belton,3 the U.S. Supreme Courtdescribed the scope of thesearch incident to arrest of anoccupant in a vehicle as any-where within the passengercompartment, including con-tainers the officer discovers.The Court described containersas including “closed or openglove compartments, consolesor other receptacles locatedanywhere within the passengercompartment, as well as lug-gage, boxes, bags, clothing andthe like.”4 Recognizing thegrave risk such encounters poseto officers, the Supreme Courtwas not concerned that thearrestee was removed from thevehicle and under control of law

© Comstock Images

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:20 PM19


enforcement at the time of thesearch. In Thornton, the Su-preme Court took this a stepfurther. The Court held thatpolice can search the passengercompartment of a vehicle inci-dent to arrest when the arresteewas a recent occupant of thevehicle.

In this case, an officerbecame suspicious of howThornton was driving. He ap-peared nervous and attemptedto avoid contact with the offi-cer. The officer checked thelicense plate and discoveredthat it belonged to a differentvehicle. Before the officer couldpull over the car, Thorntonturned into a parking lot, parkedhis vehicle, and began walkingaway. The officer confrontedhim and asked whether he hadany weapons or drugs on him orin his car, which he denied.Thornton consented to a limit-ed search of his person, which

as the arrest of an individualwhen inside the vehicle. Con-sidering whether someone is arecent occupant may turn on histemporal or spatial relationshipto the vehicle at the time of thearrest and search; it certainlydoes not turn on whether he wasinside or outside the car at themoment that the officer firstinitiated contact with him.6

revealed a suspicious item thathe admitted to contain drugs.He then was arrested and placedin the back of the patrol car.The officer then searched thevehicle incident to arrest andfound a handgun.

The defendant argued thatthe handgun should be sup-pressed as the search wentbeyond what can be done inci-dent to arrest given he was notin the vehicle at the time theofficer initially encounteredhim. The district court rejectedthis argument, and the defen-dant appealed. The FourthCircuit Court of Appeals af-firmed.5 The U.S. SupremeCourt reviewed the case andheld for the government, agree-ing with the Fourth Circuit.

The Court viewed the arrestof a recent occupant of a vehi-cle as presenting the identicalconcerns regarding officer safe-ty and destruction of evidence

Groh v. Ramirez,124 S. Ct. 1284 (2004)

In Groh v. Ramirez, the U.S.Supreme Court was presentedwith an opportunity to send amessage to law enforcement onthe importance of paying atten-tion to detail. In this case, awarrant was obtained to searcha residence. The application andaffidavit contained a particulardescription of the items to beseized. However, the warrantitself did not contain such adescription as required by the

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:21 PM20

Fourth Amendment. The sectionin the warrant that was tocontain a list of items to beseized instead described theplace to be searched. Thewarrant was reviewed, signedby a judge, and executed.

A civil action alleging aFourth Amendment violationwas brought against the affiant.The lower court agreed that aconstitutional violation occurredand held that the affiant was notentitled to qualified immunityas any reasonable officer wouldhave concluded from just a cur-sory look at the warrant that itwas invalid. The U.S. SupremeCourt agreed.

that at least one or more isinvolved in criminal activity butdoes not have information toidentify with certainty who maybe the culprit. In this case, anofficer stopped a car occupiedby three men for speeding. Theofficer requested and wasprovided consent to search thevehicle. During the search, hefound over $700 of rolled-upcash and five plastic bags ofcocaine. After the three occu-pants denied any knowledge ofthe money and drugs, the officerarrested all three, includingPringle.

Pringle later confessed thatthe cocaine belonged to him andthe others were not aware thatdrugs were in the car. At trial,Pringle challenged the use of hisconfession, arguing that hisarrest was not supported byprobable cause. The Marylandstate court agreed, holding thatabsent specific facts establish-ing Pringle’s dominion andcontrol over the drugs, theofficer’s mere finding that itwas a car occupied by Pringle isinsufficient to justify probablecause to arrest.7

On appeal, the U.S. Su-preme Court reversed, conclud-ing that the officer had suffi-cient probable cause to arrestPringle based on the informa-tion known to the officer at thetime of arrest and the reasonableinferences the officer coulddraw therefrom. The officercould reasonably infer that one

or all three of the individualshad knowledge of, and exer-cised dominion and controlover, the cocaine as all threewere riding together in a rela-tively small vehicle and ap-peared to be engaged in acommon enterprise.8 The Courtnoted that a standard higherthan probable cause is to beapplied later in the criminaljustice process and does notbelong in the decision to arrestsomeone.9

December 2004 / 17

Maryland v. Pringle,124 S. Ct. 795 (2003)

In Maryland v. Pringle, theU.S. Supreme Court addressedthe constitutionality of arrestinga group of companions whenthe officer has reason to believe

Hiibel v. Sixth JudicialDistrict Court of Nevada,Humboldt County,124 S. Ct 2451 (2004)

A state statute requiringindividuals to identify them-selves as part of an investigativedetention does not violate theFourth or Fifth Amendment.In this case, a deputy sheriffresponding to a call reporting anassault lawfully detained a manthat later turned out to be Hiibel

© Comstock Images

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:21 PM21


based on reasonable suspicionof his involvement in the crime.After numerous attempts todetermine the man’s identity,the deputy arrested him forfailing to identify himselfduring an investigative deten-tion pursuant to Nevada’s stopand identify statute.10 Hiibelwas convicted and appealed,challenging the constitutionalityof the stop and identify statute.The Nevada Supreme Courtultimately rejected Hiibel’sefforts to overturn his convic-tion, and he petitioned to theU.S. Supreme Court.11

The Court rejected Hiibel’sclaim that the statute violatedthe Fourth Amendment prohibi-tion against unreasonableseizures. Provided the stop isjustified at its inception—inother words, based on reason-able suspicion—and the requestfor identity is reasonably relatedto the purpose of the stop, theminimal intrusion into privacyby requiring the individual toidentify him or herself is out-weighed by important govern-mental interests in securingsuch information.12 The Courtnoted that this would providethe officer critical information,such as whether the individualis wanted or has a prior criminalhistory involving violence.13

Such information also couldserve to remove the cloud ofsuspicion hovering over theindividual and bring an end tothe encounter.14

The requirement to provideidentity further was challengedon the grounds that it violatedthe Fifth Amendment privilegeagainst compelled self-incrimi-nation. The Court rejected thischallenge, but refused to resolvethis issue on the grounds arguedby the government. The govern-ment argued that the statementsthe “stop and identify” statuterequires are nontestimonial and,therefore, do not implicate theFifth Amendment.15 Whilerecognizing it would be the rarecase, the Court refused to holdas a broad principle that thestatement of one’s name couldnever be incriminating. TheCourt left open the possibilitythat with different facts, identi-fying oneself may implicate theprivilege against self-incrimina-tion. However, in this case,Hiibel’s refusal to provide hisname was not out of concernthat it would be used againsthim, rather he refused merelybecause he was not cooperative.

Illinois v. Lidster,124 S. Ct. 885 (2004)

This case brought the issueof highway checkpoints onceagain to the U.S. SupremeCourt. In 1990, the Court heldthat brief, suspicionless seizuresat highway checkpoints for thepurpose of combating drunkdriving are constitutional.16 In2000, in City of Indianapolis v.Edmond,17 the Court ruled thata highway checkpoint designedprimarily to locate narcotics isan unconstitutional seizure. InLidster, the Supreme Courtclarified that Edmond shouldnot be read to condemn allhighway checkpoints.

In Lidster, the police wereinvestigating the hit-and-rundeath of a bicyclist. About aweek after the fatal accident,police set up a highway check-point to locate witnesses atabout the same time and placeas where the accident occurred.Police stopped all vehiclesapproaching the checkpoint andasked the occupants whetherthey knew anything about theaccident. As Lidster approachedthe checkpoint, his vehicle near-ly struck an officer. The officerapproached the vehicle andsmelled alcohol on Lidster’sbreath. Lidster subsequentlyfailed a field sobriety test andwas arrested and eventuallyconvicted for driving under theinfluence.

Lidster challenged his arrestand conviction, arguing that the

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:21 PM22

information leading to his arrestwas derived from an unlawfulseizure, asserting that thecheckpoint violated the FourthAmendment. The Illinois Su-preme Court held that Edmondcontrols and, therefore, theevidence against Lidster mustbe suppressed.18 The govern-ment appealed to the U.S.Supreme Court which reversed,concluding that the use of thecheckpoint in Lidster differedgreatly from that in Edmond.The Court noted that the pur-pose of the checkpoint inLidster was not to determinewhether the occupants wereengaged in criminal activitybut, rather, to solicit informa-tion about a fatal accident.19 InEdmond, the Court concludedthat the purpose of the check-point was general crime control,requiring law enforcement tohave individualized suspicionto seize an individual. Theinformation-seeking purpose inLidster furthered the significantpublic interest of attempting toidentify the driver who fled thescene of a fatal hit-and-run.

Once it determined therewas sufficient public interest atstake, the Court then consideredwhether the government’sactions during the stop werereasonable. The Court notedthat the stop was brief, typicallyno longer than 15 to 20 seconds;the officers engaged in volun-tary questioning focused on theaccident; and all vehicles were

stopped, eliminating subjectiv-ity on the part of the officers.20

The purpose and scope of thecheckpoint satisfied the FourthAmendment.

December 2004 / 19

questioning after Miranda wasprovided and a waiver wasobtained could be used in thecriminal proceeding. Thistechnique was a way to “workaround” Miranda.

In Seibert, the defendant’syoung son, afflicted with cere-bral palsy, died in his sleep. Thedefendant feared that she wouldbe charged with neglect. In herpresence, two of her other sonsand their friends concocted ascheme to conceal the truecause of death by setting thetrailer they lived in on fire withthe boy’s body inside. The firewas set with teenager, who wasmentally ill, inside in the trailerso it would appear that thedeceased had not been leftalone.

Ultimately, Seibert wasarrested for the crime. At thestation, the officer who was tointerview her was instructed tobegin talking with her withoutregard to Miranda. She madeseveral admissions during theconversation. Following a 20-minute break, the officer re-turned, turned on the taperecorder, administered Mirandawarnings, and obtained awaiver. During this interview,the officer reminded Seibert ofher earlier admissions. Sheconfessed and was charged withfirst-degree murder. Seibertsought to suppress her pre- andpostwarning statements.22 At thesuppression hearing, the officertestified thatthe initial failure to

Missouri v. Seibert,124 S. Ct. 2601 (2004)

This case provided the U.S.Supreme Court with an opportu-nity to address a controversialinterrogation technique involv-ing the intentional deprivationof Miranda rights in a custodialinterrogation. This technique,sometimes referred to as“beachheading,” took advantageof the 1985 U.S. Supreme Courtholding in Oregon v. Elstad21

allowing the use of statementsobtained in a follow-up interro-gation despite an earlier viola-tion of Miranda, provided therewas compliance in the follow-up interrogation. While theinitial statements could not beused, those made in response to

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:22 PM23


provide Miranda warnings wasintentional and based on aninterrogation technique he wastaught. The lower courts sup-pressed the pre-warning state-ments but allowed the post-warning statements to be usedagainst her. A jury convictedSeibert, and, on appeal, theMissouri Court of Appealsaffirmed.23 On appeal, theMissouri Supreme Court re-versed, ruling that both the pre-and postwarning statementsshould be suppressed due to theinitial failure to provideMiranda warnings.24 The U.SSupreme Court agreed to hearthe case.

The Court determined thatwhen interrogators questionfirst and warn later, the warn-ings and waiver do not functionas Miranda requires. The Courtpointed out that “telling asuspect that ‘anything you saycan and will be used againstyou,’ without expressly except-ing [a] statement just given,could lead to an entirely reason-able inference that what he hasjust said will be used, withsubsequent silence being of nofurther avail.”25 The Courtexpressed concern that insertingthe warnings and waiver in themidst of an ongoing interview,as opposed to at the start, wouldlikely deprive the subject of theability to understand the natureof the rights and the impact ofwaiving those rights.26

The Court’s emphasis on thetiming of the advice of rightsrelative to the interview isworth noting. The fact that theinterview in Seibert was contin-uous and conducted by the sameofficer led the Court to con-clude that it would be difficultfor the defendant to understandthe nature of the protectionsafforded by the Miranda rightsand the consequences of waiv-ing those rights. The Court dis-tinguished this case from itsprevious ruling in Oregon v.Elstad27 where the Court al-lowed the use of statementsobtained during a lawful custo-dial interrogation despite anearlier interview of the defen-dant in which the officersunintentionally deprived thedefendant of his Miranda rights.In Elstad, statements wereobtained at the defendant’shouse that were determined tobe in violation of Miranda.Officers transported the defen-dant to the office and inter-viewed him later in compliancewith Miranda. The Courtviewed the problem with thestatements obtained initially asa good faith mistake, correct-able by complying with thedictates of Miranda. TheSeibert ruling should promptdepartments to evaluate theirinterrogation tactics and assessthe continued viability ofso-called “beachheading”tactics.

United States v. Patane,124 S. Ct. 2620 (2004)

In this case, the U.S. Su-preme Court held that thefailure to provide Mirandawarnings prior to engaging incustodial interrogation does notrequire suppression of physicalevidence discovered as a resultof the person’s unwarned butvoluntary statements. The Courtrecognized, however, that theunwarned statement itself wasinadmissible. After the arrestof Patane, officers sought toquestion him about his allegedpossession of a handgun andbegan reading him his Mirandarights.28 Patane interrupted rightafter he was advised he had theright to remain silent and toldthe officers they did not needto go any further; he unders-tood his rights.29 In responseto the questioning, Patane toldthe officers where the gunwas located and gave them

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:22 PM24

permission to retrieve it. He wascharged with being a felon inpossession.

Patane sought to have thefirearm suppressed. The TenthCircuit Court of Appeals upheldthe U.S. District Court’s rulingsuppressing the firearm, con-cluding it was the fruit of theunwarned statement.30 The U.S.Supreme Court agreed to hearthe case to resolve the conflictthat existed on this issue amongseveral circuit courts.31

The Court concluded thatsuppression of the physicalevidence derived from a state-ment is not required as thestatement, albeit unwarned, wasvoluntary. It is worth noting thatwhile the physical evidence isadmissible, the response to thequestions are not. Also, estab-lishing voluntariness may bedifficult in the absence of thecomplete set of Miranda rightsand a waiver.

December 2004 / 21

Fellers v. United States,124 S. Ct. 1019 (2004)

The U.S. Supreme Courtreiterated that the concept ofdeliberate elicitation of incrimi-nating information within themeaning of the Sixth Amend-ment right to counsel encom-passes more than interrogation.The accused, John Fellers, wasformally charged by a grandjury for distribution of narcoticsand conspiracy. Officers went to

first time. He waived them andprovided additional inculpatorydetails. Fellers later sought tohave all of his statementssuppressed.

The Eighth Circuit Courtof Appeals affirmed the lowercourt’s decision to allow the useof the postwarning jailhousestatement, concluding that therewas no interrogation at Fellers’residence. Accordingly, thestatements obtained later at thejailhouse are admissible underthe reasoning of Oregon v.Elstad.33 The case was appealedto the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Court took issue withthe circuit court’s reasoningbecause it rested on the “errone-ous determination that [Fellers]was not questioned in violationof Sixth Amendment stan-dards....”34 The Court pointedout that it has long held that theSixth Amendment right tocounsel attaches after judicialproceedings have commencedagainst an individual andapplies during deliberate eli-citation of information about thecrime for which the person hasbeen charged. The SupremeCourt remanded this case tothe circuit court to determinewhether the Sixth Amendmentrequires the suppression of thestatements made at the jailhouseafter Miranda was compliedwith on the ground that theywere the fruit of the earlier eli-citation of information in viola-tion of the Sixth Amendment.

his residence and advised himthat he had been indicted and awarrant was issued for hisarrest. They explained that theindictment referred to hisinvolvement with others. Fellersadmitted to knowing the indi-viduals and using narcotics withthem.32 Fellers was taken intocustody and transported to jail.Once at the jail, he was advisedof his Miranda rights for the

© Comstock Images

© Comstock Images

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM25

Case GrantedNext Term for Review

The U.S. Supreme Courtcarried over a case of particularinterest to law enforcement.During the 2004-2005 term, theCourt will consider Illinois v.Caballes, 802 N.E.2d 202(2003), cert. granted, 124 S. Ct.1875 (2004). In this case, theSupreme Court will considerwhether specific and articulablereasonable suspicion is neededto conduct a canine sniff of avehicle stopped for a trafficviolation.

Endnotes1 282 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir. 2002).2 Id.3 453 U.S. 454 (1981).4 Id. at 460, n.4.5 325 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2003).6 Thornton at 2131-2132.7 805 A.2d 1016 (2002).8 The Supreme Court also disagreed

with the lower court’s view that the cashshould not be considered when deter-mining whether probable cause existed aspossessing money, without more, is notcriminal. The Supreme Court stated “[t]hecourt’s consideration of the money inisolation, rather than as a factor in thetotality of the circumstances, is mistakenin light of our precedents.” See 124 S. Ct.at 800, fn 2.

9 124 S. Ct. at 800.10 NRS §171.123 (2003), defining the

rights and duties of a police officer duringan investigative detention.

11 59 P.3d 1201 (2002).12 Hiibel at 2458.13 Id.14 Id.15 Id. at 2460.

Law enforcement officers of other thanfederal jurisdiction who are interestedin this article should consult their legaladvisors. Some police proceduresruled permissible under federalconstitutional law are of questionablelegality under state law or are notpermitted at all.

16 Michigan Department of State Policev. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).

17 121 S. Ct. 447 (2000).18 779 N.E.2d 855 (2002).19 Lidster at 885.20 Id. at 891.21 470 U.S. 298 (1985).22 Id. at 2605-2611.23 Id. at 2606. The appellate court

found the case undistinguishable fromOregon v. Elstad.

24 Id. The Missouri Supreme Courtdistinguished this case with Elstad as thatcase involved the unintentional withhold-ing of Miranda warnings. See State v.Seibert, 93 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. 2002).

25 Id. at 2611.26 Id.27 470 U.S. 298 (1985).28 124 S. Ct. 2620, 2625 (2004).29 Id. at 2625.30 304 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2002). The

lower court suppressed the firearm afterconcluding that the officers did not haveprobable cause to arrest Patane initially.The circuit court of appeals decided tobase its ruling on the Miranda violation. Itwas the Miranda issue that went to theSupreme Court.

31 See United States v. Sterling, 283F.3d 216 (4th Cir. 2002) and United Statesv. DeSumma, 272 F.3d 176 (3rd Cir. 2001)(fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine doesnot apply to Miranda violations).

32 Fellers at 1021.33 470 U.S. 298 (1985). See United

States v. Fellers, 285 F.3d 721 (8th Cir.2002).

34 Fellers at 1023 (emphasis added).


Wanted:Notable Speeches

he FBI Law EnforcementBulletin seeks transcriptsT

of presentations made by crim-inal justice professionals forits Notable Speech depart-ment. Anyone who hasdelivered a speech recentlyand would like to share theinformation with a wideraudience may submit a trans-cript of the presentation to theBulletin for consideration.

As with article submis-sions, the Bulletin staff willedit the speech for length andclarity, but, realizing that theinformation was presentedorally, maintain as much ofthe original flavor as possible.Presenters should submit theirtranscripts typed and double-spaced on 8 ½- by 11-inchwhite paper with all pagesnumbered. When possible, anelectronic version of the tran-script saved on computer diskshould accompany the docu-ment. Send the material to:

Editor, FBI LawEnforcement BulletinFBI AcademyMadison Building,Room 201Quantico, VA 22135telephone: 703-632-1952,e-mail: [email protected]

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM26

elcome graduates, families, POST staff,colleagues, and guests. It is a privilege to

Qualities and Traits ofthe Professional LawEnforcement OfficerBy Edward L. Guthrie, Ed.D.

Chief Guthrie heads thePocatello, Idaho, Police

Department. He deliveredthis speech to the 142nd

graduating class of thePeace Officer Standards

and Training (POST) BasicAcademy on June 11, 2004.

stand before you today as you complete one of thefirst milestones in your careers. The past weekshave been difficult, but they have prepared you foryour chosen profession. It is one that is honorable,rewarding, and the most stressful you ever willexperience. It is the only occupation on domesticsoil that has the authority to take a human life notbased on fact but perception (e.g., a toy gun) and torestrict the most fundamental of civil rights—theright to freedom.

I also want to talk about heroes and ethics. Ahero has been defined as having “strength, cour-age, and daring.” But who are our heroes? Weknow what our soldiers are doing in Iraq and thecourage and sacrifices they are making for ourfreedom. We have heard about the unfortunatedeath of Pat Tillman, the professional footballplayer while in service to his country. Now, yourfriends and neighbors in the Idaho National Guardhave been called to serve.

Crime does not distinguish one person fromanother, as demonstrated in a recent case whereSupreme Court Justice David Souter was assaultedwhile jogging in Washington, D.C. There are ap-proximately 957,500 sworn law enforcement of-ficers now serving in the United States, one of thehighest figures ever. In 2002, there were more than1.4 million violent crimes committed in the UnitedStates. The annual number of violent crimes hasdeclined since a peak in 1993; however, it hastaken its toll. A total of 1,658 law enforcementofficers have died in the line of duty during the last10 years. Who are our heroes? They are you—themen and women of the 142nd class of the POST

Basic Patrol Academy. You have volunteered toserve your community and country. Never takeyour training, or anything, for granted, and alwaysremember that complacency has no room in thisjob. Your actions that occur within a few secondswill be judged by many who have several monthsto review what you did. I often think of a quote byTheodore Roosevelt on this issue:

It is not the critic who counts; not the manwho points out how the strong man stumbles,or where the doer of deeds could have donethem better.... There is little use for the beingwhose soul knows nothing of the great prideor the stern belief of the men who quell thestorm and ride the thunder.Do not dwell on what you may have done, but

did not, as long as you did your best. Stay focusedon your goals in life.

The good news is that I have been in lawenforcement for over 29 years and still love goingto work everyday. There is not a more rewardingoccupation than ours. Remember, no one calls the

W

Notable Speech

December 2004 / 23

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM27


police department because they are having a niceday, and always remember why you raised yourright hand. Your job is to protect and serve—neverforget that. This is emphasized even more with theevents of September 11, 2001. This was the great-est loss of life experienced in our country in mod-ern times. Over 50 police officers and 300firefighters were lost. This unfortunate terrorist acthas shed new light on the dangers of law enforce-ment and public service. There is renewed honor,pride, and recognition of the job you do. Take youroath seriously, and do not let those who haveserved and sacrificed to have done so in vain.

This leads into another area of concern and adiscussion of values. You will not be entering thisjob for the money. Your reward will be publicservice, which is founded in integrity and charac-ter—the two most importanttraits you can have in your per-sonal and professional lives.They take a lifetime to build, but,once compromised, they cannotbe restored.• Integrity: derived from

the Latin word integritas,means “wholeness.” It isfurther defined as “thegroup of values an organ-ization or individual usesto achieve their goals.”

• Character: the qualities that distinguish anindividual. It is a set of dispositions to behavesystematically in one way or another. It isdeveloped and ingrained; solidified by prac-tice or habit; a lifelong process; and a senseof duty to our departments and profession.There are two other things to remember. First,

public trust: a charge of duty imposed in faith. Youare trusted to uphold the law without prejudice orpartiality. Second, accountability: you and youalone are answerable to withstand unethical pres-sure, fear, or danger; we are responsible for our

own actions and conduct. What are the qualitiesthe public expects in law enforcement officers?• Higher education and training (Today is only

the beginning; continue the journey of youreducation and professional training.)

• The ability to cope with a myriad of problemsand apply discretion

• Serving and protecting• Impartiality• Honesty

These are only a few, but law enforcement is away of life, not something that you can turn on andoff. You may be walking through the local shop-ping mall and somewhere there is someone saying,“There’s Officer Harris, he handled our acci-

dent....” You won’t even knowthey saw you.

Finally, I would like to closewith a couple of quotes. In 1919,Woodrow Wilson said, “In myjudgment, the obligation of apolice officer is as sacred as theobligation of a soldier. He is apublic servant, not a private em-ployee, and the whole honor ofthe community is in his hands.He has no right to prefer any pri-vate advantage to public safety.”In his book, Character and

Cops, Edwin J. Delattre wrote, “...bad cops do notfear detection by other bad cops, but they are afraidof good cops.” He further stated that at an academygraduation such as yours, where he was speaking,their motto stayed with him—“Integrity is notnegotiable.”

As you leave today to return to your agenciesand communities, remember the lessons you havelearned. And, always remember the men andwomen who have passed before you and carry onthe tradition of the most honorable and trustedprofession—a law enforcement officer.

“

”

Your reward will bepublic service,

which is foundedin integrity and

character....

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM28

ADMINISTRATION“A Small Police Department’s

Success,” William L.Wilcox, February, p. 18.

BOOK REVIEWSAssets Forfeiture: A Study of

Policy and Its Practice,reviewed by William R.Schroeder, April, p. 10.

Fear Less, reviewed by Rex J.Rakow, September, p. 24.

Law Enforcement FuneralManual, reviewed byCharles Mesloh and JenniferJames-Mesloh, March, p. 6.

A Law Enforcement Officer’sGuide to Testifying inCourt, reviewed by Larry R.Moore, December, p. 12.

Police Assessment Testing: AnAssessment Center Hand-book for Law Enforcement

Personnel, reviewed byLarry R. Moore, May, p. 20.

Police Suicide: Tactics for Pre-vention, reviewed by LarryR. Moore, August, p. 15.

Practical Aspects of RapeInvestigation: A Multi-disclipinary Approach,reviewed by Larry R.Moore, October, p. 22.

The Principles of KinesicInterview and Interrogation,second edition, reviewedby Joe Navarro, November,p. 7.

Private Investigation andProcess Serving, reviewedby Larry R. Moore, January,p. 24.

Terrorism: An Investigator’sHandbook, reviewed byCorrine Koepf, July, p. 17.

CRIME PROBLEMS“Drug-Endangered Children,”

Jerry Harris, February, p. 8.“Identification with the

Aggressor: How CrimeVictims Often Cope withTrauma,” Ryan E. Melsky,August, p. 16.

“Identity Theft Within FederalStudent Aid Programs,”Sharon Jones-Davis, March,p. 8.

“Khat: A Potential Concern forLaw Enforcement,” M.Justin Crenshaw and TodBurke, August, p. 10.

FORENSICS“Computer Forensics: Charac-

teristics and Preservation ofDigital Evidence,” Loren D.Mercer, March, p. 28.

INVESTIGATIVETECHNIQUES“Conducting Surveillance

Operations: How to Get theMost Out of Them,” John T.Nason, May, p. 1.

“Expert Testimony and RiskAssessment in StalkingCases: The FBI’s NCAVCas a Resource,” EugeneRugala, James McNamara,and George Wattendorf,November, p. 8.

“Geologic Material as PhysicalEvidence,” Joseph A.Finley, Jr., March, p. 1.

December 2004 / 25

2004 Subject Index

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM29


“Kidnapping Investigations:Enhancing the Flow ofInformation,” Toni MarieChrabot and Winnie D.Miller, July, p. 12.

“Statement Analysis: Beyondthe Words,” Susan H.Adams, April, p. 22.

“Sudden, Unexplained InfantDeath Investigations,” ErnstH. Weyand, March, p. 10.

LEGAL ISSUES“Consent Searches: Scope,”

Jayme Walker Holcomb,February, p. 22.

“The Fair Labor Standards Actand Police Compensation,”Michael E. Brooks, June,p. 24.

“Hiding in Plain Sight: A Peekinto the Witness SecurityProgram,” Douglas A. Kash,May, p. 25.

“Supreme Court Cases: 2002-2003 Term,” Michael J.Bulzomi, April, p. 26.

“Supreme Court Cases: 2003-2004 Term,” FBI AcademyLegal Instruction Unit,December, p. 14.

“Testifying in the Theaterof the Courtroom,” JoeNavarro, September, p. 26.

“U.S. Land Border SearchAuthority,” M. WesleyClark, August, p. 22.

MANAGEMENT“Compstat Process,” Jon M.

Shane, April, p. 12;

“Compstat Design,” May,p. 12; “Compstat Implemen-tation,” June, p. 13.

“M-A-N-A-G-E-M-E-N-TDefined: Subordinates’Expectations,” RichardForsyth, March, p. 23.

“Role-Play Training for Nego-tiators in Diverse Environ-ments,” James R. Maher,June, p. 10.

“Role-Playing: A Vital Toolin Crisis Negotiation SkillsTraining,” Vincent B.Van Hasselt and Stephen J.Romano, February, p. 12.

PERSONNEL“Current Best Practices: Cop-

ing with Major CriticalIncidents,” Donald C.Sheehan, George S. Everly,Jr., and Alan Langlieb,September, p. 1.

“Issues in Small Town Polic-ing: Understanding Stress,”Dennis Lindsey and SeanKelly, July, p. 1.

“Police Trauma and Addiction:Coping with the Dangers ofthe Job,” Chad L. Cross andLarry Ashley, October,p. 24.

“Too Close for Comfort:Negotiating with FellowOfficers,” Sandra D.Terhune-Bickler, April,p. 1.

POLICE-COMMUNITYRELATIONS“Community Policing: Ex-

ploring the Philosophy,”David M. Allender,March, p. 18.

“The Future of Public/PrivatePartnerships,” Al Youngs,January, p. 7.

“Managing Joint TerrorismTask Force Resources,”James Casey, November,p. 1.

“Managing the Problem Em-ployee: A Road Map forSuccess,” Thomas Q.Weitzel, November,p. 25.

NEGOTIATIONS“Crisis Intervention for Law

Enforcement Negotiators,”Chuck Regini, October,p. 1.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM30

December 2004 / 27

“The Need for School Re-source Officers,” Mark D.Benigni, May, p. 22.

POLICE PROBLEMS“The Montgomery County CIT

Model: Interacting withPeople with Mental Illness,”Rodney Hill, Guthrie Quill,and Kathryn Ellis, July,p. 18.

“Offender Reentry: A Return-ing or Reformed Criminal?”David. M. Allender,December, p. 1.

“The Property Room: Impor-tant Considerations,”Barney Kinman, July, p. 28.

RESEARCH“Are You Telling Me the

Truth? Indicators of Verac-ity in Written Statements,”Susan H. Adams and JohnP. Jarvis, October, p. 7.

“Homicidal Poisoning: TheSilent Offense,” Arthur E.Westveer, John P. Jarvis,and Carl J. Jensen III,August, p. 1.

“Intuitive Policing: Emotional/Rational Decision Makingin Law Enforcement,”Anthony J. Pinizzotto,Edward F. Davis, andCharles E. Miller III,February, p. 1.

“Preparing for the ChallengesAhead: Practical Applica-tions of Futures Research,”Sandy Boyd, Alberto Melis,and Richard Myers,January, p. 2.

TECHNOLOGY“The Future of Privacy in Law

Enforcement: The UnitedKingdom’s Experience,”Alan Beckley, September,p. 16.

“Improving the View of theWorld: Law Enforcementand Augmented RealityTechnology,” ThomasCowper, January, p. 12.

“The Future of SimulationTechnology for LawEnforcement: DiverseExperience with RealisticSimulated Humans,”Chris Forsythe, January,p. 19.

TRAINING“Cop 101: Surviving Prisoner

Searches,” Todd Coleman,May, p. 8.

“Educating and Training theFuture Police Officer,”Michael Buerger, January,p. 26.

“The Need for Change: A Callfor Action in CommunityOriented Police Training,”R. Gregg Dwyer andDeborah L. Laufersweiler-Dwyer, November, p. 18.

“Nontraditional TrainingSystems: Realizing theEffectiveness of anAgency’s Most ValuableResource,” Brian C. Della,June, p. 1.

“One-Shot Drops: Survivingthe Myth,” Anthony J.Pinizzotto, Harry A. Kern,and Edward F. Davis,October, p. 14.

“The Professional LawEnforcement Assistants’Association,” Debra S.Beebe and Joy Rikala, July,p. 8.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM31


AAdams, Susan H., retired

Special Agent, FBI, “State-ment Analysis: Beyond theWords,” April, p. 22; and“Are You Telling Me theTruth?: Indicators of Verac-ity in Written Statements,”October, p. 7.

Allender, David M., Captain,Indianapolis, Indiana, PoliceDepartment, “CommunityPolicing: Exploring thePhilosophy,” March, p. 18;and “Offender Reentry: AReturning or ReformedCriminal?” December,p. 1.

Ashley, Larry, Faculty, Univer-sity of Nevada, Las Vegas,“Police Trauma and Addic-tion: Coping with theDangers of the Job,”October, p. 24.

BBeckley, Alan, retired Chief

Inspector, West MerciaConstabulary, UnitedKingdom, “The Future ofPrivacy in Law Enforce-ment: The UnitedKingdom’s Experience,”September, p. 16.

Beebe, Debra S., InstructionalSystems Specialist, Curricu-lum, Planning, and Evalua-tion Unit, FBI, “The Profes-sional Law EnforcementAssistants’ Association,”July, p. 8.

Benigni, Mark D., AssistantPrincipal, Berlin HighSchool, Meriden,Connecticut, “The Need forSchool Resource Officers,”May, p. 22.

Boyd, Sandy, Professor, Col-lege of Marin and AdjunctFaculty, University of SanFrancisco and St. Mary’sCollege, California, “Pre-paring for the ChallengesAhead: Practical Applica-tions of Futures Research,”January, p. 2.

“Educating and Trainingthe Future Police Officer,”January, p. 26.

Bulzomi, Michael J., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Su-preme Court Cases: 2002-2003 Term,” April, p. 26.

Burke, Tod, Professor, Rad-ford University, Radford,Virginia, “Khat: A PotentialConcern for Law Enforce-ment,” August, p. 10.

CCasey, James, Special Agent,

FBI, National SecurityCouncil, Washington, D.C.,“Managing Joint TerrorismTask Force Resources,”November, p. 1.

Chrabot, Toni Marie, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Kid-napping Investigations:Enhancing the Flow ofInformation,” July, p. 12.

Clark, M. Wesley, SeniorAttorney, DEA, Arlington,Virginia, “U.S. Land BorderSearch Authority,” August,p. 22.

Coleman, Todd, Master PoliceOfficer, Virginia Beach,Virginia, Police Depart-ment, “Cop 101: SurvivingPrisoner Searches,” May,p. 8.

Cowper, Thomas, Captain,New York State Police,“Improving the View of the

Brooks, Michael E., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “TheFair Labor Standards Actand Police Compensation,”June, p. 24.

Buerger, Michael, AssociateProfessor, Bowling GreenState University, Ohio,

2004 Author Index

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM32

December 2004 / 29

World: Law Enforcementand Augmented RealityTechnology,” January,p. 12.

Crenshaw, M. Justin, Lieuten-ant, U.S. Air Force, “Khat:A Potential Concern forLaw Enforcement,” August,p. 10.

Cross, Chad L., GraduateFaculty, University ofNevada, Las Vegas, “PoliceTrauma and Addiction:Coping with the Dangers ofthe Job,” October, p. 24.

DDavis, Edward F., Instructor,

FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Intuitive Policing:Emotional/Rational Deci-sion Making in LawEnforcement,” February,p. 1; and “One-Shot Drops:Surviving the Myth,”October, p. 14.

Della, Brian C., Sergeant,Annapolis, Maryland, PoliceDepartment, “NontraditionalTraining Systems: Realizingthe Effectiveness of anAgency’s Most ValuableResource,” June, p. 1.

Dwyer, R. Gregg, Physician,University of South Caro-lina, Columbia, “The Needfor Change: A Call forAction in CommunityOriented Police Training,”November, p. 18.

EEllis, Kathryn, CIT Coordina-

tor, Montgomery County,Maryland, Police Depart-ment, “The MontgomeryCounty CIT Model: Interact-ing with People with MentalIllness,” July, p. 18.

Everly, George S., Jr., Profes-sor, Loyola College, Balti-more, Maryland, “CurrentBest Practices: Coping withMajor Critical Incidents,”September, p. 1.

FFinley, Joseph A., Jr., Special

Agent, FBI, Miami, Florida,“Geologic Material asPhysical Evidence,” March,p. 1.

Forsyth, Richard, Sergeant,Buena Park, California,Police Department,“M-A-N-A-G-E-M-E-N-TDefined: Subordinates’Expectations,” March, p. 23.

Forsythe, Chris, LaboratoryTechnician, Sandia NationalLaboratories, Albuquerque,New Mexico, “The Futureof Simulation Technologyfor Law Enforcement:Diverse Experience withRealistic Simulated Hu-mans,” January, p. 19.

HHarris, Jerry, Agent, Oklahoma

Bureau of Narcotics andDangerous Drugs Control,Oklahoma City, “Drug-Endangered Children,”February, p. 8.

Hill, Rodney, Lieutenant,Montgomery County,Maryland, Police Depart-ment, “The MontgomeryCounty CIT Model: Interact-ing with People with MentalIllness,” July, p. 18.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:23 PM33


Holcomb, Jayme Walker,Chief, Legal InstructionSection, DEA TrainingAcademy, Quantico, Vir-ginia, “Consent Searches:Scope,” February, p. 22.

JJarvis, John P., Instructor, FBI

Academy, Quantico, Vir-ginia, “Homicidal Poison-ing: The Silent Offense,”August, p. 1; and “Are YouTelling Me the Truth?Indicators of Veracity inWritten Statements,”October, p. 7.

Jensen, Carl J. III, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Homi-cidal Poisoning: The SilentOffense,” August, p. 1.

Jones-Davis, Sharon, ProgramManagement Analyst, U.S.Department of Education,Office of Inspector General,Investigation Services,“Identity Theft Within Fed-eral Student Aid Programs,”March, p. 8.

KKash, Douglas A., Senior

Attorney, DEA, Arlington,Virginia, “Hiding in PlainSight: A Peek into theWitness Security Program,”May, p. 25.

Kelly, Sean, Lieutenant,Durham, New Hampshire,Police Department, “Issuesin Small Town Policing:

Understanding Stress,”July, p. 1.

Kern, Harry A., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “One-Shot Drops:Surviving the Myth,”October, p. 14.

Kinman, Barney, retired Lieu-tenant, Lexington-FayetteUrban County Division ofPolice, Kentucky, “TheProperty Room: ImportantConsiderations,” July, p. 28.

University of Arkansas,Little Rock, “The Need forChange: A Call for Actionin Community Oriented Po-lice Training,” November,p. 18.

Lindsey, Dennis, SpecialAgent, DEA TrainingAcademy, Quantico, Vir-ginia, “Issues in SmallTown Policing: Understand-ing Stress,” July, p. 1.

MMaher, James R., Detective

Lieutenant, Suffolk County,New York, Police Depart-ment, “Role-Play Trainingfor Negotiators in DiverseEnvironments,” June,p. 10.

McNamara, James, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “ExpertTestimony and Risk Assess-ment in Stalking Cases:The FBI’s NCAVC as aResource,” November, p. 8.

Melis, Alberto, Chief, Waco,Texas, Police Department,“Preparing for the Chal-lenges Ahead: PracticalApplications of FuturesResearch,” January, p. 2.

Melsky, Ryan E., Sergeant,Clinton Township, NewJersey, Police Department,“Identification with theAggressor: How CrimeVictims Often Cope withTrauma,” August, p. 16.

LLanglieb, Alan, Assistant

Professor, Johns HopkinsUniversity School of Medi-cine, Baltimore, Maryland,“Current Best Practices:Coping with Major CriticalIncidents,” September, p. 1.

Laufersweiler-Dwyer, DeborahL., Associate Professor,

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:24 PM34

December 2004 / 31

Mercer, Loren D., ComputerForensic Examiner, FBI,San Diego, California,“Computer Forensics:Characteristics and Preser-vation of Digital Evidence,”March, p. 28.

Miller, Charles E. III., Instruc-tor, FBI, Clarksburg, WestVirginia, “Intuitive Policing:Emotional/Rational Deci-sion Making in Law En-forcement,” February,p. 1.

Miller, Winnie D., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Kid-napping Investigations:Enhancing the Flow ofInformation,” July, p. 12.

Myers, Richard, Chief,Appleton, Wisconsin, PoliceDepartment, “Preparing forthe Challenges Ahead:

Practical Applications ofFutures Research,” January,p. 2.

NNason, John T., Special Agent,

FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “ConductingSurveillance Operations:How to Get the Most Outof Them,” May, p. 1.

Navarro, Joe, retired SpecialAgent, FBI, “Testifying inthe Theater of the Court-room,” September, p. 26.

PPinizzotto, Anthony J., Foren-

sic Psychologist, FBI Acad-emy, Quantico, Virginia,“Intuitive Policing: Emo-tional/Rational DecisionMaking in Law Enforce-ment,” February, p. 1; and“One-Shot Drops: Survivingthe Myth,” October, p. 14.

QQuill, Guthrie, Officer, Mont-

gomery County, Maryland,Police Department, “TheMontgomery County CITModel: Interacting withPeople with Mental Illness,”July, p. 18.

RRegini, Chuck, Special Agent,

FBI, CounterterrorismDivision, Washington, D.C.,“Crisis Intervention for LawEnforcement Negotiators,”October, p. 1.

Rikala, Joy, Director, PublicSafety and Chief, Minne-tonka, Minnesota, PoliceDepartment, “The Profes-sional Law EnforcementAssistants’ Association,”July, p. 8.

Romano, Stephen J., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Role-Playing: A Vital Tool inCrisis Negotiation SkillsTraining,” February, p. 12.

Rugala, Eugene, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “ExpertTestimony and Risk Assess-ment in Stalking Cases:The FBI’s NCAVC as aResource,” November, p. 8.

SShane, Jon M., Captain,

Newark, New Jersey, Police

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:24 PM35

Department, “CompstatProcess,” April, p. 12;“Compstat Design,” May, p.12; and “Compstat Imple-mentation,” June, p. 13.

Sheehan, Donald C., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “CurrentBest Practices: Coping withMajor Critical Incidents,”September, p. 1.

A Vital Tool in CrisisNegotiation Skills Train-ing,” February, p. 12.

WWattendorf, George, Prosecu-

tor and Officer, Dover, NewHampshire, Police Depart-ment, “Expert Testimonyand Risk Assessment inStalking Cases: The FBI’sNCAVC as a Resource,”November, p. 8.

Weitzel, Thomas Q., AssistantChief, Riverside, Illinois,Police Department, “Manag-ing the Problem Employee:A Road Map for Success,”November, p. 25.

Westveer, Arthur E., ViolentCrime Specialist, FBIAcademy, Quantico, Vir-ginia, “Homicidal Poison-ing: The Silent Offense,”August, p. 1.

Weyand, Ernst H., SpecialAgent, FBI, Washington,D.C., “Sudden, UnexplainedInfant Death Investiga-tions,” March, p. 10.

Wilcox, William L., Chief,German Township, Ohio,Police Department, “ASmall Police Department’sSuccess,” February, p. 18.

YYoungs, Al, Chief, Community

Resource Division, Lake-wood, Colorado, PoliceDepartment, “The Future ofPublic/Private Partner-ships,” January, p. 7.

TTerhune-Bickler, Sandra D.,

Officer, Santa Monica,California, Police Depart-ment, “Too Close for Com-fort: Negotiating withFellow Officers,” April,p. 1.

VVan Hasselt, Vincent B., Pro-

fessor, Nova SoutheasternUniversity, Fort Lauderdale,Florida, “Role-Playing:


Wanted:Photographs

he Bulletin staff isalways on the lookoutT

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

We can use either black-and-white glossy or colorprints or slides, although weprefer prints (5x7 or 8x10).We will give appropriatecredit to photographers whentheir work appears in themagazine. Contributorsshould send duplicate, notoriginal, prints as we do notaccept responsibility fordamaged or lost prints. Sendphotographs to:

Art DirectorFBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy,Madison Building,Room 201, Quantico,VA 22135.

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 7:06 PM36

The Bulletin Notes

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

Officer Dailey

Officer John Dailey of the Boston, Massachusetts, Police Departmentresponded to a residential fire. Upon his arrival, he proceeded up the stairsto the second floor of the building, where he determined that the elderlymale homeowner refused to leave. Despite the fire and smoke all aroundhim, Officer Dailey located the confused and disoriented man and at-tempted to lead him to safety, but the individual became anxious andcombative and retreated back into the apartment. Officer Dailey thenhoisted the man over his shoulder and fought through searing flames andthick black smoke to make his way through the house and reach thebackyard. Suffering from burns and smoke inhalation, Officer Daileycarried the individual through a narrow corridor between a chain-link fence

and the burning building, reaching the safetyof the street. Officer Dailey’s heroic actionssaved the life of the elderly man. Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be based

on either the rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s)made at unusual risk to an officer’s safety. Submissionsshould include a short write-up (maximum of 250words), a separate photograph of each nominee, and aletter from the department’s ranking officer endorsingthe nomination. Submissions should be sent to theEditor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,Madison Building, Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.

Officer Albani

While directing traffic at an intersection, OfficerPatrick Albani of the Franklin Township, New Jersey,Police Department overheard a radio call of a housefire. He quickly responded to the scene; upon hisarrival, he determined that children were trapped in-side the residence. Officer Albani immediately enteredthe smoke-filled home and found four young childrenand their great-grandmother; the victims were disori-ented and unable to locate the exit. Now aided by off-duty North Plainfield Police Department OfficerDavid Canica, Officer Albani carried the children

outside to safety and returned to rescue the elderly woman. The teamwork and heroismdisplayed by these two officers helped avert a tragedy.

Officer Canica

December04.pmd 11/15/04, 6:25 PM37

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

The patch of the Fenwick Island, Delaware,Police Department features the island’s lighthouse.Built in 1858, the structure stands 89 feet tall andis visible 20 miles from shore.

The Fort Gibson, Oklahoma, Police Depart-ment serves the oldest town in the state. Theagency’s patch features a Civil War fort and aNative American shield.

Patch Call

December04.pmd 10/26/04, 9:06 AM2

Documents

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec04leb