FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - June 2010

8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - June 2010

1/36

June 2010

DecisionM

aking


2/36

1

10

17

26

Departments

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

endorsement b the FBI for an polic,program, or service.

The attorne general has determinedthat the publication of this periodicalis necessar in the transaction of thepublic business required b law. Use

of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved b the director of theOffice of Management and Budget.

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(ISSN-0014-5688) is publishedmonthl b the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 PennslvaniaAvenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20535-0001. Periodicals postage paidat Washington, D.C., and additional

mailing offices. Postmaster:Send address changes to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academ,Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Associate Editors

David W. MacWha

Bunn S. Morris

Art Director

Denise Bennett SmithAssistant Art Director

Stephanie L. Lowe

The Training DivisionsOutreach and Communications Unit

produces this publication withassistance from the divisions

National Academ Unit.Issues are available online at

http://www.fbi.gov.

E-mail Address

[email protected]

Cover PhotoPhotos.com

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academ,Quantico, VA 22135.

June 2010Volume 79Number 6

Law enforcement ofcers can improvethe quality of their judgments andenhance their condence in thedecisions they make.

Today, law enforcement leadersface many new requirements andresponsibilities.

Recent research has indicated thatthe 2-year degree requirement forentry-level ofcers in Minnesotaremains viable.

Employers need to familiarize themselveswith recent amendments made to theFamily and Medical Leave Act.

Good DecisionsB Brian Fitch

Leading the ModernPolice Force

B Joseph Pangaro

The Minnesota PoliceEducation Requirement

B Susan M. Hilal andTimoth E. Ericson

Family and Medical LeaveAct AmendmentsB Richard G. Schott

22 Unusual WeaponsPepper Spra Pens

23 Police Practice Communit Policing

25 Bulletin Honors

Dearborn Heights, Michigan

9 Bulletin Impact

15 Leadership Spotlight

Successful LeadershipTraining

16 Bulletin Reports

Bulling in SchoolsJail Planning


3/36

June 2010 / 1

Each day, law enforce-ment professionalsthroughout the nation

make thousands of decisions.While many of these judgmentsrequire little, if any, consciousdeliberation and involve fewnoteworthy consequences,others carry signicant im-plications for ofcers, theirorganizations, and the public.Bad decisions can damage anofcers career, harm publictrust, and expose an agencyto costly litigation. Yet, de-

spite the importance of gooddecision-making skills, mostofcersand, for that matter,law enforcement managers andexecutivesreceive preciouslittle training in this area. Al-though everyone likes to believethey are good decision makers,relying exclusively on objectivereasoning and logic, this sim-ply is not the case. All ofcers

harbor biasesinvisible mentalforces that inuence what theynotice, what they remember,and how they decidethat candramatically affect the qualityof their judgments.

While many bad decisionscan be traced back to the waythe choice was madetheoptions were unclear, relevantinformation was ignored, orthe costs and benets were not

properly evaluatedin othercases, the mistake resides in oneof the innate, systematic biasesthat appear hardwired to the

Good DecisionsTips and Strategies for

Avoiding Psychological TrapsB BRIAN FITCH, Ph.D.

Photos.com


4/36

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

ways humans think and decide.For decades, economic theoristshave championed the general-

purpose model of decisionmaking: the belief that peoplemake decisions by identifyingthe problem, dening objec-tives, generating alternatives,evaluating possible solutions,and selecting the best option.1This model, however, is basedon a number of fundamental as-sumptions about the way of-cers make choices, most notablythat

the problem is clearly andproperly dened;

the decision maker has allof the relevant information;

this individual carefullyweighs the costs and benetsassociated with each choice;

the person is sufcientlymotivated; and

the process is free of biasand error.

Unfortunately, more than 50

years of research on judgmentand decision making has failedto support this conclusion. Itseems that humans are not therational, objective decisionmakers they once were believedto be; rather, they are prone to anumber of systematic thinkingerrors and biases that can sabo-tage their thinking and deci-sions in ways they are not evenconsciously aware of until it istoo late.2 The author outlinesve decision-making biasesframing, overcondence,selective attention, informationoverload, and emotionsthatcan interfere with effectivedecision making and offers tipsand strategies to help ofcersimprove their judgments byrecognizing and mitigating the

powerful, yet unseen, sway ofthese psychological traps.

Framing

In simplest terms, a frameis a model, or lens, for under-standing, interpreting, and solv-ing a problem. Ofcers havea number of frames that theyuse to judge people, simplify

problems, and make decisions.While framing a concern rep-resents the initial step toward asuccessful resolution, it also isthe rst place a decision can go

wrong. Because most problemscan be framed, or looked at,in more than one way, the lensofcers employ to dene anissue can signicantly inuencehow they respond. For example,framing a situation as emergentand requiring quick, decisiveaction will cause ofcers to actvery differently than if theydene it as something requiringa slow, deliberate solution.

The protests surroundingthe World Trade Organization(WTO) Ministerial Conferenceof 1999 in Seattle, Washington,help illuminate the problems apolice agency can encounter.By all accounts, law enforce-ment expected a limited numberof relatively peaceful protestsand press events led by a loosecoalition of groups opposed to

WTO policies, especially thoserelated to free trade. Peace-ful protestors had assured lawenforcement ofcials that theywould promptly quell any

Dr. Fitch, a lieutenant with the Los Angeles, California, Sheriffs Department, holdsfaculty positions in the Psychology Department at California State University, LongBeach, and with the Organizational Leadership Program at Woodbury University.

Bad decisionscan damage an

ofcers career, harmpublic trust, and

expose an agency tocostly litigation.


5/36

June 2010 / 3

activity by the small number offringe activists expected to at-tend. The resulting civil disobe-

dience took law enforcementofcials completely by surprise.More than 40,000 protesters (anumber that immensely over-shadowed predictions) froma variety of groups (includinga number of self-proclaimedanarchists) blocked streets andvandalized shops, ultimatelycosting the city an estimated$23 million.3

What makes the sway of

framing so perilous is thatonce ofcers label a problem,it fundamentally alters howthey perceive it from that pointforwardan experience so per-suasive that it can affect themeven when the label is assignedarbitrarily (by someone unfa-miliar with the issue).4 It seemsthat once ofcers have labeled aproblem, they lose the ability to

remain objective. Instead, theyexperience unseen psychologi-cal pressure to make everythingt the frame, compelling themto notice what agrees with thelabel while ignoring information(regardless of how objective orrelevant) that does not matchup, a phenomenon referred to asframe blindness. And, as longas ofcers continue to cling tothe frame, they cannot consider

the problem in other wayseffectively limiting the eld of

possible solutions.Yet, despite the impor-

tance of framing, ofcers too

often accept the rst lens theyreceive, seldom stopping toevaluate the problem or reframe

it in their own words. In othercases, rather than relying onconscious, objective processes,ofcers frame problems as aresult of unconscious habits,

preferences too often based onfaulty notions, untested beliefs,or inaccurate assumptions.

Tips for avoiding the trap:How ofcers frame a problem

strongly inuences what infor-mation and options are avail-able. To help minimize the in-uence of framing, ofcers canemploy some basic strategies.

Pay special attention to theway the problem is framed.Do not simply accept therst frame given. Thisremains true regardless ofwho framed the problem.

Frame the problem from anumber of reference pointsand perspectives. A varietyof frames allows the deci-sion maker to evaluate the

problem from differentangles, as well as allow-ing for a larger number of

potential solutions.Continue to search for newways to frame the problem,asking how reframing theproblem might inuence thedecision.

Overcondence

It seems that most peoplehave a hard time evaluat-ing their abilities objectively.Everyday life is riddled with

examples of overcondence:drivers overestimate their driv-ing skills, students their testscores, couples their likelihoodof staying married, employeestheir chances of promotion, andmanagers their investment andmerger strategies. Wheneversomething goes wrong, it seemsthat human error is to blame.For instance, an estimated 70

percent of airplane crashes, 90percent of car accidents, and 90percent of workplace mishapsare attributed directly to hu-man erroroften in the form ofovercondence.5

The pervasive effects ofovercondence can impactlaw enforcement as well. Forexample, at a conference on

police interrogation, an audi-ence member asked if the

psychological inuence wieldedby trained interrogators mightcompel an innocent personto confess. No, replied oneparticipant, because we dont

It seems thathumans are notthe rational, objective

decision makersthey once werebelieved to be....


6/36


interrogate innocent people.6In truth, although law enforce-ment ofcers rarely arrest or

interrogate innocent people, noteveryone charged with a crimeis guilty. Allegations by vindic-tive spouses, scorned businesspartners, and angry familymembers have resulted in crimi-nal investigations andin somecasesprosecution.

Nor are the effects of over-condence limited to the waysofcers investigate crimes andinterrogate potential subjects.

A 5-year study conducted bythe California Commission onPeace Ofcer Standards andTraining on law enforcement of-cers killed and assaulted citedovercondence, complacency,and rushing in without a planas contributing to the major-ity of ofcer deaths.7 The samestudy reported trafc accidentsas one of the primary sources of

ofcer injury and death. Sadly,many of these cases involvedonly one vehicle (the ofcers)and were the direct result ofofcers driving too fast for theirability or the roadway condi-tionsin some cases, the directresult of overcondence.

The psychological swayof overcondence may causeofcers to ignore any numberof important clues or dismiss

potential suspects or, in othercases, put their lives at risk.However, in spite of the dangersof overcondence, most people,including law enforcement

professionals, do not see anyneed to improve the way theymake decisions. Instead, they

are quite convinced of theirability to reason objectively, aswell as condently optimisticabout the future of their choices.It is, they believe, other peoplewho need to improve theirthinking.

Tips for avoiding the trap:Not only can ofcers assump-tions blind them to other pos-sibilities but it can delay inves-tigations, squander resources,and put lives at risk. Somesuggestions can help ofcersbetter manage the psychologicalquagmire of overcondence.

Examine assumptions care-fully, especially those be-liefs most strongly or con-dently held. All people takecertain beliefs and assump-tions for grantedrather

than checking periodicallyon accuracy, they simplyassume these are true. As-sumptions are dangerous,especially in police work.

Try imagining all of the pos-sible ways that somethingcan turn out, especially all

of the ways that somethingcan go wrong.

Appreciate the limits ofknowledge and abilities.Good decision makers notonly make a conscious ef-fort to investigate and verifyinformation but also recog-nize what they do not know.In many cases, what ofcersdo not know can be moreimportant than what theyknow.

Actively solicit input andideas from others, especiallythose with different experi-ences and opinions. Beingopen to ideas and criticismis critical at every stage ofthe decision-making processand, in many cases, maysave lives.

Selective Perception

All ofcers make choicessome conscious, some uncon-sciousabout what to notice,what to remember, and how toperceive the world. Selectiveperception occurs when ofcersfocus on evidence that supportswhat they suspect as true whileignoring facts that might dis-conrm those ideas, commonly

termed conrmation bias.8 Mostofcers believe that they see theworld in completely unbiasedways, but, in fact, they can-not avoid biases in perception.

Photos.com


7/36

June 2010 / 5

The natural human tendencyto look at the world selectivelycan cause ofcers to focus on

irrelevant facts and informa-tion while ignoring important,relevant data that does not ttheir preconceived notions. Thisis true even when something isright in front of their eyes.

Psychologists believe thatthe drive to conrm what peoplebelieve is true stems from theirsubconscious predisposition todecide how they are going to actbefore guring out their reasons

for doing so. Research on howjurors make decisions about theguilt or innocence of a defen-dant provides an excellent ex-ample of this principle at work.It turns out that jurors beginconstructing a story about whatprobably happened at the sceneof the crime during openingarguments and, then, selectivelyseek information during the trial

that agrees with their accounts.

9

Not surprisingly, selectiveperception tends to work closelywith other biases in distortingthinking and judgmentsforexample, the more emotion-ally involved ofcers are with abelief, the more likely they areto ignore information that mightundermine it.

Tips for avoiding the trap:Despite the natural inclination

to look for supporting evidence,ofcers usually will nd it morebenecial to seek contradictoryevidence. By recognizing andacknowledging the unconscious

preference to weigh evidenceselectively, ofcers have a bet-ter chance of recognizing and

using material that they mightotherwise overlook or thatothers fail to notice because oftheir biases. A few tips can helpminimize the effects of selectiveattention.

data to support the decision.Rather, consciously examineall of the available evidence

objectively before reachinga decision.

Try taking the perspectiveof a disinterested outsider.What questions would theyask? Where would theylook for information? Whatassumptions would theyquestion?

Information Overload

While the brain is capable

of amazing things, it also haslimitations. To begin with,attentionthe energy used tocarry out mental activities, suchas thinking, understanding,and rememberingis severelyrestricted.10 Research on atten-tion has consistently demon-strated that human beings areconstrained in the number ofthings they can attend to at any

given time. Although individualdifferences exist, most peoplecannot do more than one or twothings at the same time. As mostpeople can testify from experi-ence, anytime they try to do toomany things at once, they oftenend up doing nothing well andeverything poorly, potentiallymissing critical information inthe process.

It appears that the human

brain relies on two main sys-tems to process information. S1,referred to as implicit process-ing, is fast, automatic, andunconsciousat work whether

Remain open-minded to

disconrming data that doesnot t preexisting hypoth-eses or beliefs. This isespecially important in lightof the pet theories thateveryone holds about theworld and how it works.

Stay open to different view-points, interpretations, andpossible solutions, some-thing that can be surpris-

ingly difcult to do.Avoid the tendency todecide on a course ofaction and, then, searchselectively for conrming

The psychologicalsway of overcondence

may cause ofcers toignore any numberof important clues or

dismiss potentialsuspects or, in othercases, put their lives

at risk.


8/36


we realize it or not. S1 isconcerned mostly with patternrecognition, gut reactions,

and intuitive decision making.While its tremendous process-ing capacity can analyze largeamounts of information, S1is not particularly effective atdealing with novel problems.In addition, this systems

preference for speed and sim-plicity makes it vulnerable toa variety of cognitive biases.In contrast, S2, referred to asexplicit processing, is slow,

effortful, and logical, cor-responding most closely tothe rational model of decision

making. S2 carefullyframes the

problem, searches for relevantdata, and determines the bestcourse of action.11 Unlike im-

plicit processing, however, S2has a limited ability to evaluatedatatypically restricted tono more than a few pieces ofinformation at any given timewhile requiring considerablecognitive energy.

Although well trained tohandle stress, law enforce-ment ofcers nonetheless canbecome overwhelmed by novelor complex incidents. In fact,

the brains limited ability toprocess information undoubt-edly contributes to feelings ofbeing deluged by large amountsof data, commonly referredto as analysis paralysis, dur-ing stressful tactical or crisisinterventions. For example,

in the aftermath of an arsonto an apartment building,

the incident commander

became so inundatedwith informationand requests thathe simply aban-doned his post,opting instead tointerview poten-tial witnesses.

Not surprisingly,this delayed the

investigation, im-peded the dissemina-

tion of information,and caused consider-

able confusion amongofcers at the scene.

Making the best decisionspossibleparticularly duringnovel or unfamiliar circum-

stancesoften requires anofcer to focus on several im-portant pieces of informationsimultaneously, something theconscious mind has difcultydoing. As a result, ofcersoften oversimplify complex

problems into smaller, moremanageable units, especiallywhen they are busy, lackimportant information, or facetime constraints.

Tips for avoiding the trap:Anyone, regardless of tenure,can be overwhelmed by largeamounts of data. Some strate-gies can help ofcers avoidseveral of the pitfalls associat-ed with information overload.

Recognize the differentroles of the S1 and S2 pro-cesses. Each system hasits strengths and weak-

nesses and should be usedappropriately.

Because the consciousbrain (S2) has a limitedability to process informa-tion, ofcers should slowdown their decision mak-ing, especially when facedwith divided attention,time constraints, or lack ofimportant information.

Learn to recognize thedifferences between S1and S2 processes, payingspecial attention to which


9/36

June 2010 / 7

one is being used to manageinformation, process data,and make decisions.

Beware of S1s susceptibil-ity to cognitive biases and,if necessary, consciouslyswitch to S2 processing fora more careful and system-atic analysis.

Emotions

Despite their best efforts tothe contrary, ofcers decisionsare inuenced by emotionde-ned simply as intense feeling

states, such as joy, anger, fear,sadness, or disgust, with corre-spondingly positive or negativeconnotations. While emotionsserve as a guide for many typesof decisions, they also can cloudrational judgments, particu-larly during highly stressful orhigh-stakes events. Certainly,most ofcers can recall a situa-tion that turned out badly when

strong emotions inuenced theirjudgment. Thus, a clear under-standing of how emotions affectthe decision-making processis critical to everyone in lawenforcement.

A growing body of evidenceseems to suggest that thoughtsand emotions stem from twodifferent brainsone ratio-nal, the other emotional.12 Therational brain, also termed the

neocortex or cerebrum, ac-counts for almost 80 percentof the human brain and is thesource of reason, logic, and

higher-order decision making.It is the part of the brain thatrepresents consciousness, as

well as the portion that makeslanguage, speech, and writ-ing possible. The emotionalbrain, commonly referred to asthe limbic system, is the arearesponsible for learning andmemory, as well as instinctive

signs of danger. In fact, someexperts argue that the quick,automatic, visceral reaction,

along with bodily changes andthe impulse to act, generatedby the emotional brain devel-oped principally as a survivalresponse to the dangers facedby early humans.13 While thetwo brains normally operate inharmony, the emotional brainhas evolved the ability to over-ride the slower, more deliberaterational brain and, in doing so,effectively short-circuits logical

decision making, signicantlyimpairing an ofcers ability tothink rationally.

The inuence of strongemotions may have contributedto confusion over the commandand control structure amongsenior Los Angeles PoliceDepartment ofcers at the MayDay 2007 demonstrations inMacArthur Park.14 A lack of

unied command resulted inline ofcers receiving conict-ing direction, whereas a numberof requests from ofcers in theeld went unanswered, includ-ing ones for action as ofcerswere being struck with objectsthrown from people in thecrowd.

Tips for avoiding the trap:One of the most difcult aspectsof managing emotions is that

people often ignore their inu-ence, causing them to misidenti-fy the reasons for their decision.Although unable to avoid the

emotional responses, including

ght or ight. Unlike the logicalbrain, it operates mostly outsideconscious awareness, continu-ously scanning the environmentfor signs of danger, and, at therst indication of threat, primesthe mind and body for action byreleasing a cascade of hormonesand neurotransmitters into the

brain and bloodstream.While the rational brain

focuses primarily on the slow,

deliberate processing of infor-mation, the emotional brainrapidly processes incomingsensory information for any

Not surprisingly,selective perceptiontends to work closelywith other biases indistorting thinkingand judgments.


10/36


inuence of emotions, ofcerscan harness the positive powerof them by following a number

of simple steps.Become aware of emotionsand their inuence. Ratherthan attempting to denythe inuence of emotions,ofcers should increasetheir awareness by learn-ing to monitor the changesin thinking, feelings, andbehaviors that accompanyaffective responses.

Ask questions about thesource of the emotion. Isthe emotion valid? Does itrepresent a real danger, animaginary villain, or simplyan ego threat?

While emotions are anormal part of the decision-making process, excessiveemotionsparticularlyanger, guilt, and fearcansignicantly impair theability to make sound judg-ments. Ask if the strengthof the emotional responseis appropriate under thecircumstances.

Once ofcers recognize thepresence of strong emotions,they can consciously switchto the slower, more deliber-ate processes regulated bythe logical brain.

Conclusion

Clearly, good decision-making skills are among themost important attributes

law enforcement ofcerscan possess. While it may beimpossible to eliminate bias

and other reasoning errors fromthe decision-making processaltogether, it is possible forsworn personnel to signicantlyimprove the quality of theirjudgments. By increasing theirawareness of the innate, system-atic biases that often color theirdecisions, ofcers can betteravoidor at least minimizethe psychological sway of a

condence in the decisionsthey make.

Endnotes

1 For a more complete discussion of

general-purpose models of decision mak-

ing, see Stephen Robbins,Essentials of

Organizational Behavior, 8th ed. (Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2005).2 See, for example, Keith E.

Stanovich, Maggie E. Toplak, and Rich-

ard F. West, The Development of Ratio-

nal Thought: A Taxonomy of Heuristics

and Biases,Advances in Child Develop-

ment and Behavior36 (2008): 251-285.3 See Seattle Police Department After

Action Report: World Trade Organiza-tion Ministerial Conference, Seattle,

Washington, November 29-December 3,

1999.4 For a more detailed discussion on

the effects of framing, see Dan Ariely,

Predictably Irrational: The Hidden

Forces That Shape Our Decisions (New

York, NY: Harper Collins, 2008).5 For a review of the psychological

literature on overcondence, see Shelley

E. Taylor and Jonathon D. Brown, Illu-

sion and Well-Being: A Social Psycho-

logical Perspective on Mental Health,

Psychological Bulletin 103, no. 2 (1998):193-210.6 See Saul Kassin and Gisli Gudjons-

son, The Psychology of Confessions:

A Review of the Literature and Issues,

Psychological Science in the Public

Interest5 (2004): 35-67.7 See California Commission on

Police Ofcer Standards and Training,

California Law Enforcement Ofcer

Killed and Assaulted in the Line of Duty:

1995-1999 Report(Sacramento, CA:

POST Media Distribution Center, 2001).8 For a complete discussion of selec-

tive attention and bias, see Ori Brafmanand Rom Brafman, Sway: The Irresistible

Pull of Irrational Behavior(New York,

NY: Doubleday Publishing Group, 2008).9 For a complete review of selec-

tive attention and juror bias, see Nancy

number of decision-makingtraps. In fact, with a little effortand awareness, they can learnto pay better attention to howthey frame problems, anyfeelings of overcondence, theways they select and evaluateinformation, how that informa-

tion is processed, and theinuence of strong emotions.And, by doing so, ofcers notonly can improve the quality oftheir judgments but also their

Although well trainedto handle stress, lawenforcement ofcers

nonetheless canbecome overwhelmedby novel or complex

incidents.


11/36

Readers interested in discussing thistopic further can reach Dr. Fitch [email protected].

Pennington and Reid Hastie, The Story

Model for Juror Decision Making, in

Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror

Decision Making, ed. Reid Hastie (New

York, NY: Cambridge University Press,1994), 192-223.

10 For a discussion of working memory,

see Roger H. Burning, Gregory J. Schraw,

Monica M. Norby, and Royce R. Ronning,

Cognitive Psychology and Instruction, 4th

ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,

2004).11 For a complete discussion of the dual

process theories, see Daniel Kahneman

and Shane Frederick, Representativeness

Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intui-

tive Judgment, inHeuristics and Biases:

The Psychology of Intuitive Judgments,

ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale Grifn, andDaniel Kahneman (New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press, 2002),

49-81.12 For a review of the roles played by

thinking and emotion in decision making,

see Drew Weston, The Political Brain:

The Role of Emotions in Deciding the

Fate of the Nation (Philadelphia, PA:

Perseus Books Group, 2008).

13 See, for example, Daniel Goleman,

Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter

More Than IQ (New York, NY: Bantam

Books, 1995).

14 SeeLAPD Final Report: An Exami-nation of May Day 2007, MacArthur

Park. A report presented to the LAPD

Board of Police Commissioners, October

9, 2007.

T heFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin staff strives to keep the magazine relevant and usefulto readers. To this end, we feature, as an example of desired feedback, a brief summaryof a recent letter that informed us how an article directly impacted a police investigation. TheWinthrop Harbor, Illinois, Police Department had a suspect in custody for his involvement inthe alleged murder of his mother. The department was nearing the end of the time that it couldhold him and needed further evidence. Recalling the article 911 Homicide Calls and StatementAnalysis by Dr. Sue Adams (instructor and retired FBI special agent) and Lieutenant Tracy

Harpster (Moraine, Ohio, Police Department) that appeared in the June 2008 issue, detectivescontacted Lieutenant Harpster who immediately provided in-depth analysis of the original 911call. Not only did he corroborate some of the detectives theories but also gave additional direc-tions for questioning the suspect. Althoughthis did not lead to a conviction, the depart-ment found the techniques described in thearticle helpful in its investigation.

Bulletin Impact

TheFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin seeks additionalstories that illustrate the impact that articles havehad on investigations, community problems, orother related issues. Please send a brief narrative

describing the incident to Editor, FBI Law Enforce-ment Bulletin, FBI Academy, Outreach and Com-munications Unit, Quantico, VA 22135 or to [email protected].

911 Homicide Callsand Statement

AnalysisIs the Caller

the Killer?B SUSAN H. ADAMS, Ph.D., and

TRACy HARPSTER, M.S.

June 2010 / 9


12/36


What does it mean tolead a police force?That seems like a

simple question. In the worldof law enforcement, we havesome rock-solid principles andsome bedrock purposes. If wecombine them with our goal ofprotecting residents and serv-ing those who need our help,

the outcome should be easy topredict. Our ofcers would goout into the streets and do whatis necessary to get the job done.If it were only that easy.

The modern police force isextremely different from thoseof days gone by. That is not tosay that our current mission haschanged dramatically. Peopleare people, and the needs ofsociety change slowly over long

periods of time. The basic func-tions of police work are static.Predators always will look for

any opportunity to take advan-tage of the innocent. Human na-ture being what it is, we knowthat a percentage of our popu-lation always will attempt to

rob and rape. Unethical peoplewill lie and cheat the elderlyout of their retirement funds ifthe opportunity presents itself.Children will continue as targetsfor pedophiles. Our homes andproperty will remain fair gamefor burglars. The scourge ofdrug abuse will drive normallylaw-abiding people to acts of

criminality. I could ll manypages with the types of crimesthat always have been and al-ways will be with us. That is thehuman condition and the world

Leading theModern Police ForceA Veteran Ofcers ViewB JOSEPH PANGARO, C.P.M.

iStocphoto.com


13/36

June 2010 / 11

in which we, as law enforce-ment professionals, operate.

Exploring the changing

requirements and responsibili-ties associated with leading themen and women of the modernera of police work forms thefocus of this article. For me,the changes in the world of lawenforcement are not in the workwe do but in thepeople who dothe work.

Understandingthe Differences

Police work is a peoplebusiness. Most of us who havebeen in the profession for anyperiod of time know this. Ar-rests, tickets, raids, and inves-tigations all are elements of thejob, but the real work is humanrelationshipspeople to people,

person to person.Any ofcer at any rank

serving anywhere in the UnitedStates can attest that the peoplecoming into the professiontoday differ signicantly fromthose in the past. Although not anegative factor, it is somethingthat we must understand andmanage for the betterment of allinvolved.

Todays recruits grew upin a world that viewed the ideaof simply doing what theywere told without question as

not a valid option. Many weretaught to question authority atevery level. If told what to do,they wanted to know why theyshould do it that way. If given

an explanation, they would askif a better way to do it existed.These young people have re-

ceived the generational catego-rization of the millennials.1

I have found that many inthis group have different moti-vations than those of us in pre-vious generations. I loved over-time; it helped me provide formy family as I moved throughthe various pay scales andranks. I loved being at work anddoing the work. Today, I see atrend with younger people who

do not view money as the great-est motivator but, instead, ap-

pear more concerned with theirtime off and other availablelifestyle benets. They are dili-gent workers and have tremen-dous skill sets to offer, but theysee things differently. Demand-ing that they act and appreci-ate what past generations saw

as important is a futile exercise.They must be seen and valuedfor what they have to offer, and

their needs and concerns mustbe gured into the equation. Asleaders, it is our responsibilityto do this.

Examining the Options

To understand the people wenow will lead, we must look atour organizations and ourselvesmuch closer. As a practical mat-ter, law enforcement agenciesare quasi-military organizations

with ranks, rules, regulations,policies, and written directivesthat set the internal boundariesin our departments and the basic

parameters of how to deal withthe public. Technology movesat lightning speed, enabling usto le papers and create newpolicies and directives in recordtime. Unfortunately, what gets

Lieutenant Pangaro serves as a supervisor and training ofcerwith a police department in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

For me, thechanges in the worldof law enforcement

are not in theworkwedo but in thepeople

who do the work.


14/36


lost in the shufe is our people,especially the young membersof the modern police force.

How we deal with ourpeople often lags behind allof the other changes that haveoccurred in the profession. Inmany instances, we cling toold ways and practices that donothing to move us forwardand lead our people in the mostappropriate way. It is time forthose of us in leadership posi-tions to do a top-down review ofhow we run our organizations,

starting with our own actions,styles, and practices. Just be-cause thats the way we havealways done it does not meanwe have to continue with thosemodels. We must ask ourselvesif we are functioning in the bestway possible, regardless of ourown personal preferences anddesires. If we are not, then weshould change the way we oper-

ate. We must look forward atwhat could be, compare it withthe lessons from the past, anddevelop improvements based onthe combined experiences of allinvolved. In short, as leaders,we must evolve.

My years of experienceboth in law enforcement and,more important, in my life asa member of societyhaverevealed what I believe are some

important lessons in regard toleading effectively. I start withthe basic premise of leadership:the goals and, most of all, the re-sponsibilities of being a leader.

Does being in chargemake a person a leader? Obvi-ously, the chief executive of any

organization, by virtue of theposition, is a leader. The betterquestion is, Does simply beingin charge make someone aneffective leader? The answer isclearly no. All of us can thinkof individuals in leadershippositions who give orders, makerules, issue edicts, and demandeveryones obedience, but they

suggesting that we learn fromthe past, take what was goodfrom it, and then move on. It

is time for a paradigm shift inleadership practices.So, if simply being in

charge does not make someonean effective leader, what does? Ibelieve that being a good leaderrequires changing the way weview the art of leading. Therealways will be a time for theautocratic leader. On many oc-casions, our business demandsimmediate, forceful, and deci-

sive action on the part of thosein charge. We must be able togive direct orders and havethem followed without hesita-tion. Sometimes, lives dependon this. That being said, how-ever, I do not believe that suchsituations represent the bestexamples of where leadershiptakes place. Effective leadershipis more than that, more than just

driving the tank into battle.Making the Choice

With all of this in mind, animportant question is, What canhelp the leaders of tomorrow bethe best they can? In this con-text, I suggest that we can beginby adopting four basic concepts.

First of all, being an effec-tive leader is a choice. As withanything else we want to do and

do well, we must make choices.We must replace because I saidso with what is best for mypeople, not necessarily goodfor me. This is where the hard

do nothing to better their peopleor their organizations. This typeof leader harkens to a differenttime. In police work, most ofus can conjure up stories ofold-time chiefs who ruled withan iron hand or stayed lockedaway in the ofce. We rarelysaw them; when we did, theyseemed an almost mythical

gure. Fortunately, such leadershave mostly disappeared fromthe scene at this point, but theywere the model for many ofus in earlier generations. I am

...the peoplecoming into the

profession todaydiffer signicantly

from those inthe past.


15/36

June 2010 / 13

work takes place. Many peoplehave spent the majority of theircareers pursuing a leadership

position. When they get there,they lose perspective on whattheir main goal and focus must

be: their people, not their owncareer track.

Next, we must own the prin-ciple of servant leadership.2The more we advance in thechain of command, the morewe owe to those in the positions

below. Doing what needs to bedone to make their jobs easier is

the key obligation of this princi-ple. We must work tirelessly toassist them in anyway we can,such as providing guidance,counseling, and positive cri-tiques; listening, not just hear-ing them; and appreciating themand working fortheircareergoals, not just our own. Seless-ness is incumbent to this typeof thinking. The choice here

involves foregoing the beliefthat because we have obtaineda leadership position, whateverwe think has to be right andeveryone should do what wewant simply because we are incharge. This can kill morale anddisplays poor leadership quali-ties. People do not follow poorleaders; they tolerate them. Asleaders, our goal should be tomake our people better, not to

have them merely tolerate us.We must take an active role intheir work lives and always beavailable. We teach best by al-lowing others to try using their

own skills. If morethan one way existsand the immediate

outcome is not crit-ical, we should letour people choosetheir own path tothe objective. Theexperience theygain in the effortand the trust andcondence theyreceive from us canprovide the greatestreward.

Third, loyaltyis a two-way street,

but it starts withthe leader. Effec-tive leaders mustbe the rst to showunconditionalloyalty to theirpeople by standing up for themin every instance and lookingout for their needs, both per-

sonal and professional. In theold paradigm, leaders demandedloyalty. In return, they doled outprivileges to the loyal. Theseleaders received loyalty only onthe basis of better assignments,

promotions, and other mate-rial benets. The depth of thatloyalty was shallow indeed andnonexistent when the treasuryran out. On the other hand, loy-alty based on how leaders look

out for their subordinates is al-most bottomless and constantlyrelled. When our people be-lieve that we are there for themand the organization and not

solely for our own needs, theyrespond in kind, which createscredibility.

Finally, succession planningshould be paramount for allleaders. Instead of concerningthemselves with their legaciesand achievements, effectiveleaders prepare their people totake over for them. As a leader,I feel no greater satisfactionthan to have my people takewhat I have to teach and rise totheir potential. My goal doesnot end there; my mission is

to assist my people in eclipsingmy record. My legacy is notborne on my achievements buton the achievements of thoseI have taught. It is through

iStocphoto.com


16/36


their success that my journey asa leader is completed and mycareer justied. I want them to

surpass me.

Conclusion

Servant leadership principlesrequire sacrice on the leaderspart because they are not alwayseasy to live. They are a processand a belief system that putsleadership on a new path. Formany people, these conceptswill seem strange and unconven-tional. They are, but I believe our

profession is at a point where we,as leaders, must assume a newrole, accept additional respon-sibilities, and understand thechanges in the culture and the

people coming into our profes-sion. We must lead with a dedi-cation to our core principles andpurposes and our people rst.

Endnotes1

Diane Thielfoldt and Devon Scheef,Generation X and the Millennials: What

You Need to Know to Mentor the New

Generation, August 2004, http://www.

abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/mgt08044.

html(accessed August 3, 2009); and Craig

Junginger, Who Is Training Whom? The

Effect of the Millennial Generation,FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin , September 2008,

19-23.2 For additional information on the

concept of servant leadership, see the Robert

K. Greenleaf Center, Inc., at http://www.

greenleaf.org/index.html(accessed August

3, 2009).

The author invites readers interested inthis topic to contact him [email protected].

Length: Manuscripts should contain2,000 to 3,500 words (8 to 14 pages, dou-ble-spaced) for feature articles and 1,200to 2,000 words (5 to 8 pages, double-spaced) for specialized departments, suchas Police Practice.

Format: Authors should submit threecopies of their articles typed and double-spaced on 8 - by 11-inch white paperwith all pages numbered, along with anelectronic version saved on computer

disk, or e-mail them.Criteria: TheBulletin judges articles

on relevance to the audience, factual accu-racy, analysis of the information, structureand logical ow, style and ease of reading,and length. It generally does not publisharticles on similar topics within a 12-month period or accept those previously published or currently under consider-ation by other magazines. Because it is agovernment publication, theBulletin can-not accept articles that advertise a product

or service. To ensure that their writingstyle meets the Bulletins requirements,authors should study several issues of themagazine and contact the staff or accesshttp://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/leb.htm for the expanded author guidelines,which contain additional specications,detailed examples, and effective writ-ing techniques. The Bulletin will adviseauthors of acceptance or rejection butcannot guarantee a publication date for

accepted articles, which the staff edits forlength, clarity, format, and style.Submit to: Editor, FBI Law En-

forcement Bulletin, FBI Acade -my, Outreach and CommunicationsUnit, Quantico, VA 22135; telephone:703-632-1460; fax: 703-632-1968;e-mail: [email protected].

FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin

Author Guidelines


17/36

June 2010 / 15

Leadership Spotlight

Special Agent Scott W. Olson, a squad supervisor inthe FBIs New York ofce, prepared thisLeadershipSpotlight.

Leading is hard. Not because leader-ship behaviors and concepts are hardto execute but because the resistance

to those behaviors and concepts is strong. Wereturn from leadership training seminars withnotes and binders full of guidance on howto articulate a vision, to think outside thebox, and to be innovative. This inspires usto think and act in a new and original mannerfor both personal and organizational enhance-ment. However, sometimes, rather than beingencouraged to de-velop new ideasand try new solu-tions, we in lawenforcement are

placed under tre-mendous pressureto do the job as it always has been donetonot rock the boat. Often, both our superiorsand subordinates actively resist change.

To make leadership training worthwhile,

an organizational entity must create a culturethat fosters leadership development. Individu-als are not leaders merely by virtue of the jobor position held. They are true leaders only ifgenuine leadership behaviors are exhibited.That requires personal commitment from thetop of the law enforcement organization. Trulyeffective law enforcement senior executivescommit to the development of their leaders byidentifying those in the organization who havestrong potential and then by taking the time topersonally coach them. Rather than waiting for

volunteers, they actively recruit. These seniormanagers recognize the power that evolvesfrom actively developing their own internal

leadership system and personally coachingtheir subordinates at all levels throughoutthe organization. In particular, senior lawenforcement executives can create and fostera progressive organizational leadership envi-ronment by devoting their time to discussionswith employees that emphasize the signicantand important concepts learned from recentlyattended training. These new concepts andideas then may be actively incorporated andemployed as a foundation for both the con-

tinued develop-ment of the in-dividual ofcerand the creationof innovationsfor the orga-nization. The

more senior commanders develop the abilityand willingness to personally engage talentedsubordinates to develop new concepts and putthem into practice, the better off the entire or-

ganization becomes.The cultural change required to ensure

that law enforcement leadership training willsucceed begins when the entire organiza-tion recognizes that those ofcers in the topmanagement positions have the privilege ofserving the public and are accountable for theresponsibility they have accepted. To this end,they must exhibit and ensure continuity of or-ganizational leadership behaviors.

Successful Leadership Training


18/36


Bulletin Reports

The U.S. Department of Justice, Ofce of Community Oriented Policing Ser-vices (COPS) has releasedBullying in Schools in support of renewed local efforts toprevent the consequences of bullying. The publication provides school administra-tors, teachers, counselors, and law enforcement ofcials with practical informationon how to identify bullying behavior, reduce the incidence of bullying, and mitigateits impact. It also offers guidance to ofcials on how to determine the extent of bul-lying in their schools, to address its causes, and to develop effective practices thatcontribute to student safety.

Bullying has two key components: repeated harmful acts and an imbalance ofpower. It involves repeated physical, verbal, or psychological attacks or intimida-

tion directed against victims who cannot properly defend themselves because ofsize or strength or because they are outnumbered or less psychologically resilient.

Bullying was once viewed by some as a relatively harmless behavior that wasan expected part of adolescent interaction, said COPS Director Bernard K. Mele-kian. However, we now know that bullying can have a long-term affect on boththe bully and the victim, it can lead to other forms of school-based violence, and theadvent of cyber-bullying can further exacerbate consequences.

Victims of bullying are more likely to exhibit health problems, have declininggrades, contemplate suicide, skip school to avoid being bullied, and experiencefeelings of depression and low self-esteemthat can persist for years after the incidents.Research conducted in three countries also

has shown that bullies themselves are muchmore likely to develop a criminal record.

Bullying in Schools can be downloadedfrom the COPS Ofce Web site at http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publica-tions/e07063414-guide.pdfor ordered at nocost by contacting the U.S. Department ofJustice Response Center at 800-421-6770.

Jail Planning

Bullying in Schools

Jail Planning and Expansion: LocalOfcials and Their Roles, from the Na-tional Institute of Corrections, describes aprocess to help elected ofcials and other policymakers develop jail facilities. Thissecond edition of the publication outlinesall participants roles, the decisions theymake, and the products they create. Readersinterested in reviewing the entire document(NCJ 230031) may access it at the National

Criminal Justice Reference Services Website, http://www.ncjrs.gov .


19/36

June 2010 / 17

Several decades of researchconcerning the relation-ship between higher

education and policing has ledto little agreement concerningthe appropriate extent of educa-tion for entry-level law enforce-ment ofcers. Clearly, ofcers

with little formal educationhave effectively protected andserved citizens throughout thehistory of policing in the UnitedStates. Despite this, however,

academics and practitioners,as well as organizations andnational commissions, have re-peatedly argued for more formaleducation requirements for thepolice. They often posit thatthe movement from traditionalpolicing to community-oriented

problem solving requiresskill sets, such as critical andanalytical reasoning, enhancedunderstanding of socioeconomiccauses of crime, and advanced

interpersonal and interculturalcommunication, that are bestdeveloped in higher education

programs. These argumentshave not translated into action,and few law enforcementagencies mandate anythingbeyond a high school diploma

for entry-level ofcers. Asrecently as 2003, only 9 percentof police departments nationallyrequired a 2-year college degreeand 1 percent a 4-year degree.1

TheMinnesota PoliceEducation RequirementA Recent AnalysisB SUSAN M. HILAL, Ph.D., and TIMOTHy E. ERICkSON, M.A.T., M.S.E.


20/36


Despite the apparent lackof a national movement towardhigher education in policing,

the state of Minnesota has hada 2-year degree requirement forentry-level police ofcers formore than 30 years. In addition,Minnesota has conducted twostatewide studies of the educa-tion levels of its police ofcers,the most recent in 2008. Theauthors present a discussion thatreviews the key ndings of thislatest police education study.

HISTORICALOVERVIEW

In 1977, Minnesota policymakers passed legislationthat created the rst licensingsystem for police ofcers in theUnited States and establishedthe Minnesota Board of PeaceOfcer Standards and Training

(Minnesota POST), which hasthe authority to both license anddetermine minimum education

requirements for all new policeofcers in the state. In 1978,Minnesota POST identied a2-year college degree as theminimum education require-ment for all new entry-levelofcers. In 1990, the rst state-wide study of the Minnesotamodel took place in response tothe introduction of initial leg-islation that would have raisedthe entry-level requirement for

police ofcers in Minnesota toa 4-year degree after January4, 1994.2 The study, conductedin two parts, collected datathat provided an overview ofeducation levels and relatedcharacteristics of police ofcers,

perceptions of degree require-ments, and demographic data.

One key recommendation ofthis rst studyto not raise theentry-level requirement to a

4-year degreewas accepted,and the 2-year degree continuesas the minimum requirement inMinnesota.3

CURRENT STUDY

The authors conducted the2008 study to assess the effectof the 2-year degree require-ment on overall educationlevels of current ofcers overthe nearly 20 years that have

elapsed since the rst study. Inaddition, they examined ofcer

perceptions of the issues re-lated to and associated with theformal education requirements.Because the research instru-ment used in the current studyessentially replicated the 1990one (with several new itemsadded), it enabled the analysisand comparison of the relation-ships between the key variablesof both studies.

Participants

The authors obtained a listof all of the 9,386 licensed,full-time ofcers working incity or county law enforcementagencies in May 2008 fromMinnesota POST. They sent aself-administered survey to arandom sample of the ofcers,

using a random number genera-tor. From the nal sample sizeof 1,099 ofcers, 627 of themreturned the survey, represent-ing a 57 percent response rate.The survey consisted of 30

Mr. Erickson, a retired police ofcer,is an assistant professor in theSchool of Law Enforcement andCriminal Justice at Metropolitan StateUniversity in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Dr. Hilal is an assistantprofessor in the School of LawEnforcement and CriminalJustice at Metropolitan StateUniversity in St. Paul, Minnesota.


21/36

June 2010 / 19

questions or items, 29 closed-ended and 1 open-ended.

Results of the analysis

indicated that approximately86 percent of the respondentswere male, 56 percent wereunder the age of 39, 93 percentidentied themselves as white,69 percent held the position ofpatrol ofcer, and 52 percentreported having 12 or moreyears of experience in polic-ing. Approximately 73 percentwere employed by a municipal

police department, 44 percent

served in agencies with morethan 56 police ofcers, and 62

percent worked in a metropoli-tan region.

Key Findings

Using census data from2000 as a comparison, Min-nesota ofcers appeared moreeducated than the general

population in the state. A littleover one-third (34.7 percent) ofMinnesota ofcers in the 2008survey had a bachelors degree,whereas 27.4 percent of Min-nesota residents had attained anequivalent level of education.4An additional 14.2 percent ofMinnesota ofcers had earnedcredits beyond the bachelorsdegree (6.8 percent) or held agraduate degree (7.4 percent),indicating that nearly 50 percent

of Minnesota ofcers possesseda bachelors degree or higher,approximately 13 percent abovethe general population. In addi-tion, the 2008 survey indicatedthat 31 percent of ofcers had a

2-year degree, 16.2 percent hadcollege credits beyond one, andonly 3.9 percent had less than a

2-year degree. By comparison,in the 1990 survey, only 29.4percent of ofcers had a bache-lors degree or higher, 21.2 per-cent had a 2-year degree, 20.8percent had college beyond a2-year degree, and 28.5 percenthad less than a 2-year degree.

percent since the 1990 survey.In 2008, 14.3 percent of of-cers identied that earning

a degree resulted in a salaryincrease. This represented adecrease from the 1990 surveywhen 19.2 percent indicatedthat they would receive a salaryincrease. Responding to an ad-ditional item in the 2008 survey,9 percent of the ofcers statedthat their agencies increased theentry-level salary at time of hireif the new ofcer had a bach-elors degree. The 1990 survey

did not include this item.Ofcer perceptions of

the education requirementsneeded for supervisory posi-tions increased as the rankstructure rose. As illustrated intable 1, ofcers perceived thata bachelors degree or higherwas required for promotionto the ranks of chief (40.3

percent), captain/commander

(28.3 percent), lieutenant (21percent), and sergeant (12.9percent). Furthermore, whenasked whether they felt that byeither policy or practice theirdepartments would require moreformal education for promotionin the future, 33.6 percent of theofcers said yes, 53.1 percentno, and the remaining were notsure.

Interestingly, fewer ofcers

in the 2008 survey believed thata 4-year degree should be theminimum education require-ment for licensure as a policeofcer. In 2008, 30.8 percentthought that a bachelors degree

In terms of monetary incen-tive for further education, policedepartments seemed to haveincreased nancial support ofeducation for ofcers. In the2008 survey, 52 percent of of-cers advised that they receivedsome form of tuition reimburse-ment for taking college-levelcourses (42 percent of ofcersreported having taken college-level courses since being hired

by their agencies). In the 1990survey, only 37 percent of of-cers identied their departmentas providing tuition assistance,indicating that tuition reim-bursement had increased 15

Using censusdata from 2000 as acomparison, Minnesotaofcers appeared more

educated than thegeneral population

in the state.


22/36


should be the minimum require-ment, whereas 40.6 percent of

the ofcers in the 1990 studysupported this stipulation.However, when asked whetherthey still would have entered

police work in Minnesota if the4-year degree requirement hadexisted, 70.4 percent of ofcersresponding to the 2008 surveyindicated that they would; thisrepresented approximately 13percent more ofcers than in the1990 survey. Of note, response

to this item depended on theofcers years of service; thosewith more years were less likelyto support the entry-level re-quirement of a 4-year degree.

Ofcer perceptions of whatshouldbe the minimum educa-

tion requirement for promotionto the various rank structuresindicated that the higher therank, the more formal educationshould be required. Approxi-mately 71 percent of ofcersthought that a chief should haveat least a bachelors degree, 66

percent for captain/commander,56.9 percent for lieutenant, and40.6 percent for a sergeant. Table1 shows that these percentages

are greater in all rank areas thanthe perceptions of the educationlevel that ofcers believed werecurrently needed to attain thesesupervisory positions.

CONCLUSION

The Minnesota experience

seems to suggest that some sortof minimum education require-ment beyond the high schooldiploma or its equivalency is aviable option for policing stan-dards. It appears that the Min-nesota model has successfullyincreased the education levelof all ofcers and that supportfor higher education is favor-able among Minnesota ofcers.Whether increasing entry-levelrequirements beyond the rela-tively universal standard of thehigh school diploma is neces-sary or even of value continuesto be widely discussed and

Requirements Sergeant Lieutenant Captain/Commander Chief

2-year degree 278 (45.4%) 161 (29.4%) 126 (21.4%) 68 (12.7%)

4-year degree 76 (12.4%) 108 (19.7%) 128 (21.8%) 139 (25.9%)

Graduate degree 3 (.5%) 8 (1.3%) 38 (6.5%) 77 (14.4%)

No minimum 204 (33.3%) 170 (31.1%) 154 (26.2%) 66 (12.3%)

Not sure 52 (8.5%) 100 (18.3%) 142 (24.1%) 186 (34.7%)

Total 613 547 588 536

Ofcer Perceptions of Education Requirements for Promotion

Table 1


23/36

June 2010 / 21

debated. Because Minnesotaremains the only state to re-quire a postsecondary degree

for entry-level licensing, itproves difcult to compareMinnesota with any other stateat this time.

It seems that a furtheravenue of investigation would

be to replicate the most recentMinnesota study in other statesand to compare the currenteducation level of those statesofcers with that of Minnesotaofcers. This comparison might

identify whether the Minnesotaexperience of increasing levelsof formal education of policeofcers is a direct result of thepostsecondary degree require-ment or merely a reectionof a possible increase of edu-cation level of police ofcers

nationally. Furthermore, exam-ining the perceptions of ofcersfrom diverse geographic loca-

tions and various agency sizesmight add to the discussion andanalysis of the current state ofpolice ofcer education.

Clearly, the primary mis-sion of police work is to pro-tect and serve. How to bestachieve this as communitieschange, strategies and tacticsof law enforcement improve,and the expectations of polic-ing continue to grow, remains

unanswered. It also is clear thatentry-level education require-ments for ofcers at the mu-nicipal, county, and state levelhave not substantially alteredin the past century. Perhaps,the Minnesota model can helplead to incremental increases in

overall law enforcement ofcereducation levels.

Endnotes1 M.J. Hickman and B.A. Reaves, U.S.

Department of Justice, Ofce of Justice

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Local Police Departments, 2003 (NCJ

210118), May 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.

gov/bjs/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf(accessed January

25, 2009).2 Minnesota Board of Peace Ofcer

Standards and Training,A Study of the Min-

nesota Professional Peace Ofcer Educa-

tion System, (St. Paul, MN, 1991).3 For a more thorough discussion of the

Minnesota licensing process and a summary

of the 1990 survey, see M.G. Breci, Higher

Education for Law Enforcement: The

Minnesota Model,FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, January 1994, 1-4.4 Minnesota State Demographic Center,

Educational Attainment in Minnesota ,

March 2003, http://www.demography.state.

mn.us/PopNotes/EducationalAttainment.pdf

(accessed February 14, 2009).

Wanted:Notable Speeches

heFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin seeks transcripts of presentations made by criminaljustice professionals for its Notable Speech department. Anyone who has delivered aT

speech recently and would like to share the information with a wider audience may submit atranscript of the presentation to theBulletin for consideration.

As with article submissions, theBulletin staff will edit the speech for length and clarity,but, realizing that the information was presented orally, maintain as much of the originalavor as possible. Presenters should submit their transcripts typed and double-spaced on8 - by 11-inch white paper with all pages numbered, along with an electronic version of the

transcript saved on computer disk, or e-mail them. Send the material to: Editor,FBI Law En-forcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, Outreach and Communications Unit, Quantico, VA 22135,or to [email protected].


24/36


Unusual Weapons

Pepper Spray Pens

Law enforcement ofcers should be aware that offenders may attempt to use this pep-per spray pen. This plastic device has a spray nozzle concealed under the cap that dispensescapsaicin spray when depressed.

Although this plastic and metal item looks like anink pen, it actually can eject pepper spray. This device

can pose a serious threat to law enforcement ofcers.


25/36

June 2010 / 23

ne of the most disturbing calls any agency

receives involves possible danger to the

boundary of this 192-square-mile rural commu-

nity, home to approximately 9,000 residents. Thelocal sheriffs ofce employs 17 sworn membersand receives over 8,000 calls each year for lawenforcement and emergency services. The agencycurrently offers two specic initiatives aimed atsafeguarding particular groups of citizens.

Project Lifesaver

In Pittsylvania County, Virginia, a 45-year-old man suffering from a traumatic brain injurybecame lost and disoriented. A deputy sheriff spe-cially trained and equipped by Project Lifesaverlocated the man 1.5 miles from his home within 20minutes. A traditional search normally would haveinvolved the time and expense to taxpayers of upto 264 searchers and 924 man-hours.1 In another

Police Practice

Community PolicingImplementing Programs to Keep Citizens SafeB Douglas A. Brant

Oelderly or to individuals with mental challenges.Stories related to those suffering from dementiawandering away from their homes appear too oftenon news programs. Law enforcements most im-portant responsibilities are serving and protectingcitizens. To that end, agencies participate in anddevelop programs based on the needs of their com-munity. The Richmond County, Virginia, SheriffsOfce implemented strategies to ensure that ittakes every precaution to keep residents safe.

RICHMOND COUNTYS EFFORTS

Richmond County is located on the NorthernNeck Peninsula in the eastern portion of Virginia.The Rappahannock River forms the southern

the sheriffimplemented the

Safe Guard Program,which links emergenc

dispatchers withelderly residents via

phone calls ona daily basis.


26/36


case, a 79-year-old man with Alzheimers diseaseleft his house in Chesapeake, Virginia, driving histruck and could not nd his way back home. After

searching the neighborhood, a police helicopterwas called in with a Project Lifesaver team andequipment. In just 35 minutes, the helicopter lo-cated the man via the signal transmitted from his

bracelet. He was found 14 miles from his home.Before joining Project Lifesaver, the man had wan-dered off and was missing for 2 days.

Project Lifesaver, a nonprot organizationfounded by public safety ofcers, aids people withAlzheimers disease and related mentally dysfunc-tional disorders (ARMD),such as Downs Syndrome,

traumatic brain injury, andautism, and their families bydistributing electronic brace-lets to those with the historyof or a potential for wander-ing (72 percent of wanderersrepeat). Each bracelet has aunique frequency that can betracked and located by spe-cially trained search and res-cue personnel using receivers

tuned to the appropriate fre-quency. The transmitters canlocate victims in a matter of minutes, rather thanhours or days. In over 1,800 searches, no seriousinjuries or deaths have been reported and recoverytimes average less than 30 minutes. Further, whenthese victims are located, they can be disoriented,anxious, or untrusting. Project Lifesaver teams arespecially trained on how to approach these people,gain their trust, and put them at ease to transportthem home. Such individuals are victims just asif they were criminally attacked because ARMD

physically robs them of their mental faculties, dig-nity, health, and, ultimately, their lives.

The Richmond County Sheriffs Ofce cur-rently distributes Project Lifesaver bracelets to

local residents. Families or caregivers interestedin the program contact the department and submitinformation on behalf of ARMD individuals. The

project coordinator reviews each request for pos-sible acceptance.

The Safeguard Program

In 2004, the sheriff implemented the SafeguardProgram, which links emergency dispatchers withelderly residents via phone calls on a daily basis.Senior citizens who live alone and are interestedin participating complete paperwork with contactinformation to be included in this free service. Dis-

patchers call participants eachday to check on their safety and

address any concerns. If they donot connect with each senior onthe list, they continue attemptsto contact them until located.One resident described thatwhen a deputy came to checkon her one night, he eventuallyfound her at a bridge game with80 other women in a neighbor-ing county. Suddenly, a deputyappeared and asked for me.

Theyre always cheerful, shesaid. Another added, Theyre[ofcers] always forgiving when we forget. A lo-cal minister attended one of the programs eventsand advised, Its one of a kind and offers a realsense of security to know that if they cant ndyou, theyll come and nd you. The program hasgenuine benets for seniors living alone, whetherthey have local relatives or rely on out-of-townfamily.

Funding Concerns

All law enforcement agencies face budgetrestraints today. Therefore, obtaining additionalresources can present unavoidable burdens onlocalities. Funding can be obtained from a variety

agencies participatein and develop

programs based onthe needs of their

community.


27/36

of sources, such as private citizens, churches, cor-porations, and civic organizations. All donations toProject Lifesaver are used for program equipment,

rescues, and educational expenses.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement leaders consistently searchfor and evaluate unique and innovative ways to protect and serve citizens in their communities.Often, groups of people with specic needs inspireprivate and public agencies to employ additionalmethods and programs to ensure residents safety.

The Richmond County, Virginia, Sheriffs Of-ce and local citizens have discovered the numer-ous benets to incorporating Project Lifesaver and

the Safeguard Program to meet the challenges of protecting individuals with Alzheimers disease

and related mentally dysfunctional disorders andguaranteeing the safety of elderly citizens. Proac-tive planning can prepare agencies if unfortunate

scenarios of ARMD individuals wandering fromtheir home or elderly residents who live alonebecoming incapacitated occur in their jurisdiction.Most of all, having such resources and strategiesin place not only may help provide families with asense of security but save lives as well.

Endnotes1 Information in this article regarding Project Lifesaver is

available from http://www.projectlifesaver.org.

Sheriff Bryant heads the Richmond County, Virginia,Sheriffs Ofce.

Bulletin Honors

The Dearborn Heights, Michigan, Police Department presents its memorial, erected in thespring of 2007 following the tragic on-duty death of one of the agencys ofcers in 2006. Thememorial is dedicated to the departments only two ofcers killed in the line of duty, OfcerRobert Dowidait (1966) and Corporal Jason Makowski (2006). The monument was dedicatedin May 2007 on the rst anniversary of Corporal Makowskis death.

Dearborn Heights, Michigan

June 2010 / 25


28/36


As we settle into this newdecade, our countrysmilitary embarks on

its tenth year of the mission tocombat terrorism in Iraq andAfghanistan. With that commit-ment comes immense sacrice,by both military personnel andtheir families and other lovedones. It also comes with anexpense to those who employ

these modern-day patriots andthose close to them. Among thesacrices required by these em-ployers is the legal obligationto be without certain employees

because of specied militaryobligations and other situationsbrought on by military service.The 2009 amendments to theFamily and Medical LeaveAct (FMLA) contained in the

National Defense Authoriza-tion Act for Fiscal Year 2008(2008 NDAA),1 which becameeffective on January 16, 2009,add to this obligation. The 2009

amendments were expandedagain by amendments con-tained in the National DefenseAuthorization Act for FiscalYear 2010 (2010 NDAA).2 This

article briey discusses the pro-visions contained in the original1993 FMLA legislation;3 and itthen scrutinizes the provisionscontained in the new amend-ments, which create new cat-egories of FMLA leave and theconcurrent obligations imposedon employers who must recog-nize this leave entitlement.

THE 1993 FAMILYAND MEDICAL ACT

The Family and MedicalLeave Act as originally signedinto law in 1993 entitles eligible

Legal Digest

Nav.mil/3rd Class Matthew Schwarz

Family and Medical Leave ActAmendmentsNew Military LeaveEntitlementsRICHARD G. SCHOTT, J.D.


29/36

June 2010 / 27

employees to a minimum of 12weeks unpaid leave during any12-month period because of

their own serious health condi-tion, to care for certain familymembers who have a serioushealth condition, or because ofthe birth or adoption of a childor the placement of a fosterchild with an eligible employ-ee.4 Over the course of the past17 years, most employers have

become cognizant of their obli-gations under the statute. Theyalso have become aware of the

important denitions containedin the legislation, as well aswhen required elements to meetthe denitions have been satis-ed. For example, an eligibleemployee is one who has beenemployed for at least 1 year bythe employer and who has per-formed at least 1,250 hours ofservice with the employer dur-ing the previous 12-month pe-

riod.

5

Family members includea son or daughterdened asa biological, adopted, or fosterchild, a stepchild, a legal ward,or a child of a person standingin loco parentiswho is eitherunder 18 years of age or 18years of age or older and inca-

pable of self-care because of amental or physical disability.6Employers and medical person-nel have become familiar with

the statutory meaning of seri-ous health condition7 that oftentriggers an employees rightsunder the FMLA. These basic

principles contained in the

original legislation have notbeen altered by the recentamendments. Other important

features of the original FMLAlegislation that have remainedunchanged by the recent amend-ments are the obligation of theemployer to allow for intermit-tent use of leave when medi-cally necessary,8 as well as theobligations imposed on theemployee to provide reason-able notice (when possible)9 andto provide certication froma health-care provider when

required by the employer.10Perhaps the most commonly

misunderstood provision con-tained in the original legislationis that the requirement to allowan FMLA-protected absencefrom work is not necessar-ily a paid absence.11 Whetherthe absence is compensated isgenerally determined by theparticular employers paid-leave

policy.12 This feature of theFMLA also was unaffected bythe recent amendments. While

the amendments did not alterthe landscape of the traditionalFMLA situations, they havecreated new situations entitlingeligible employees to FMLA-

protected absences from theirjobs on account of a familymembers military service.

THE 2009 AND 2010AMENDMENTS

The National Defense

Authorization Act for FY 2008expanded the FMLA by creat-ing two new military familyleave entitlementsnamely,the qualifying exigency leavecategory and the military care-giver leave category.Employersmust become familiar with thesetwo occurrences now entitlingemployees to take leave underthe FMLA.

Special Agent Schott is a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

...the amendmentsqualifying exigency leave

and military caregiverleaveare designed to

ease the strains in such away that accommodatesthe legitimate interests

of employers.


30/36


the American Red Cross thatare related to thedeployment;

Childcare and school activi-tiesfor example, 1) to ar-range for alternate childcarewhen the deployment neces-sitates a change in the exist-ing childcare arrangement;or 2) to enroll in or transferto a new school or day carefacility a biological, adopted,or foster child, a stepchild, ora legal ward of the coveredmilitary member; or 3) to at-tend meetings with staff at aschool or a day care facility,such as meetings with schoolofcials regarding disciplin-ary measures, parent-teacherconferences or meetingswith school counselors, for a

biological, adopted, or fosterchild, a stepchild, or a legalward of the covered militarymember;

Financial and legal arrange-mentsfor example, tomake or update nancial orlegal arrangements such aspreparing or updating a will;

Rest and recuperationtospend time with a coveredmilitary member who ison short-term, temporary,rest and recuperation leaveduring the deployment,

up to 5 days of leave foreach instance of rest andrecuperation;

Postdeployment activitiesfor example, 1) to attend

...many of theexigencies arising

out of a deploymentmay occur prior to

or following theactual deployment.

Qualifying Exigency Leave

The rst of the two new cat-egories is known as qualifying

exigency leave. It is designedto allow family members ofdeployed military personnel totake time away from work toprovide for the exigencies thatarise out of a military deploy-ment. Like other typical FMLAabsences, this category of leaveis limited to up to a total of 12workweeks of unpaid leave dur-ing the normal 12-month periodestablished by the employer,and it is to be calculated alongwith other FMLA-protectedabsences when calculatingcontinued eligibility.13 Also likeother FMLA leave, qualify-ing exigency leave is triggeredonly when the deployed mili-tary member is the employeesspouse, son, daughter, or par-ent.14 While the 2008 NDAAonly made qualifying exigency

leave available based on thedeployment of a member of theNational Guard or Reserves,the 2010 NDAA expanded itsavailability to employees whosedeployed relatives are membersof the regular Armed Forcesas well.15 Before exploring thedifferent exigencies covered bythe new statutory provision, itis important to recognize thatmany of the exigencies arising

out of a deployment may occurprior to or following the actualdeployment. The language ofthe amendment provides forthis by stating that the leave

may be taken while the spouse,son, daughter, or parent of theemployee is on covered active

duty (or has been notied of animpending call or order to cov-ered active duty) in the ArmedForces.16

When it has been deter-mined that an employee isentitled to qualifying exigencyleave due to a loved ones call

to active duty, the exigenciesthey are allowed to resolve arevery inclusive. The secretaryof labors seemingly exhaus-tive list of potential exigenciesinclude, but are not limited to

Military events and relatedactivitiesfor example,1) to attend any ofcialceremony, program or eventsponsored by the militarythat is related to the deploy-

ment; or 2) to attend fam-ily support or assistance

programs and informationalbriengs sponsored or pro-moted by the military...or


31/36


32/36


most difcult situation for thereturning soldier, as well as hisfamily, it also imposes obliga-

tions on employers never beforecontemplated by the terms ofthe FMLA.

First, an eligible employeewho is the spouse, son, daugh-ter, parent, ornext-of-kin ofa covered servicemember isentitled to this type of leave.23The next-of-kin recognition isunique to the military caregiverleave category. Its meaning,used with respect to an indi-

vidual, means the nearest bloodrelative of that individual.24The regulations accompanyingthe new legislation prioritizethose who may satisfy thisdenition: blood relatives whohave been granted legal custodyof the servicemember, brothersand sisters, grandparents, auntsand uncles, and rst cousins.This lineage applies unless

servicemembers have desig-nated in writing another bloodrelative as their nearest bloodrelative for this FMLA purpose.Employers should be awarethat when there has been nosuch designation and there aremultiple family members withthe same level of relationshipto the servicemember, all suchfamily members are consideredthe next of kin. They each, then,

are entitled to FMLA leave toprovide care, either consecu-tively or simultaneously. Forexample, if a servicememberhas three siblings and has not

(or it existed before the begin-ning of the active duty and wasaggravated by service in the

line of duty on active duty) andmanifested itself before or afterthe member became a veteran.27Veterans must have been mem-bers of the military during theperiod of 5 years preceding thedate on which they underwentmedical treatment, recuperation,or therapy.28 While the omitted

portions of the amendment dis-cuss other qualifying conditionsfor this leave, this category of

leave is clearly meant to pro-vide for the care of our soldiersinjured in the line of duty whileon active dutythe often tragicbattleeld injury. Thus, thisdenition of serious injury orillness is clearly not synony-mous with the more traditionalFMLA denition of serioushealth condition contained inthe original FMLA legislation.29

Recognizing the unique and,hopefully, isolated occurrencethat gives rise to military care-giver leave entitlement makesthe major difference from othertypes of FMLA leave moreunderstandable.

When employees ndthemselves in the unenviable

position of being eligible to takemilitary caregiver leave underthe FMLA, they are entitled to

a total of26 workweeks of leaveduring a 12-month period tocare for the servicemember.30This unique category of leaveaffords up to 26 weeks off

designated a blood relative toprovide care, all three siblingswould be considered the next of

kin.25

The reason these familymembers, or next of kin, areallowed to take FMLA leaveunder the military caregiverleave provision is to care for amember of the Armed Forces,including a member of the Na-tional Guard or Reserves...who

has a serious injury or illnessthat was incurred in the line ofduty on active duty and that mayrender the member medicallyunt to perform the duties of themembers ofce, grade, rank, orrating and for which he or she isundergoing medical treatment,recuperation, or therapy....26The 2010 NDAA expanded the

eligibility of this type of leavefor employees to care for veter-ans of the military as long as theinjury or illness was incurred inthe line of duty on active duty

Navy.mil/1st Class Tifni M. Jones


33/36

June 2010 / 31

and requires employers to bewithout employees for that halfof a year. Furthermore, because

of the nature of the situation,the use of this type of leavetriggers a new 12-month periodfor FMLA purposes. As will bediscussed, up to 12 weeks ofthese 26 weeks can be for moretraditional FMLA purposes.However, if some or all of theusual 12-week allotment hasbeen used by the employee atthe beginning of the 12-month

period, the 26-week entitlement

would be reduced accordinglyuntil the end of the 12-monthperiod normally followed bythe employer. The regulationaccompanying this new leaveprovision describes this timeas a single 12-month period.Therefore, it begins on the rstday the employee takes leaveto care for the servicemeberand ends 12 months after that

date, regardless of the methodused by the employer for otherFMLA-qualifying reasons.Furthermore, if an employeedoes not take all of the 26weeks entitlement during thissingle 12-month period, theremaining part of the 26 weeksis forfeited.31

While this provision con-templates a single 12-month pe-riod, the regulation does make

clear that an employee may beentitled to take more than one

period of 26 workweeks ofleave if the leave is to care fora different servicemember or to

care for the same servicemem-ber who suffers a subsequentserious injury or illness. In no

circumstance, however, is theemployee entitled to more than26 workweeks of leave withinany single 12-month period.32

Finally, the new provisionsanticipate employees beingentitled to military caregiverleaveas well as other, moretraditional types of FMLA

child. But, the employee maynot take more than 12 weeksof FMLA leave to care for

the newborn child, even if theemployee takes fewer than 14weeks of FMLA leave to carefor a covered servicemember.33

While some of the featuresof this new variety of FMLAleave are unique to it, there isconsistency with past FMLAprovisions relating to the em-ployer who employs both ahusband and wife. If the sameemployer employs both a hus-

band and wife who are eligiblefor military caregiver leave,the aggregate of their leaveentitlement is 26 workweeks.If the couple takes militarycaregiver leave in conjunctionwith FMLA leave due to the

birth, adoption, or placementof a child with the couple (orto care for a sick parent), theirtotal leave entitlement remains

at 26 weeks, with no more thana total 12 of those weeks com-bined due to the birth, adoption,or placement of a child withthe couple (or to care for a sick

parent).34 This is consistent withthe long-standing limitation of12 weeks total of FMLA entitle-ment for couples employed bythe same employer for the birth,adoption, or placement of achild with the couple.35

CONCLUSION

Among the purposes ofthe original Family and Medi-cal Leave Act, as noted by

...the new provisionsanticipate employees

being entitled tomilitary caregiver

leaveas well as other,more traditional typesof FMLA leaveduring

the same periodof time.

leaveduring the same pe-riod of time. In that situation,it is clear that the employee isentitled to a combined total of26 weeks of leave during thatsingle 12-month period and thatno more than 12 of those weekscan be for the more traditionalqualifying reason. Thus, forexample, an eligible employee

may, during the single 12-monthperiod, take 16 weeks of FMLAleave to care for a coveredservicemember and 10 weeksof FMLA to care for a newborn


34/36


Law enforcement ofcers of other thanfederal jurisdiction who are interestedin this article should consult their legaladvisors. Some police procedures ruledpermissible under federal constitutionallaw are of questionable legality understate law or are not permitted at all.

Congress, was to balancethe demands of the workplacewith the needs of families, to

promote the stability and eco-nomic security of families, andto promote national interests inpreserving family integrity, andto accomplish these purposesin a manner that accommodatesthe legitimate interests ofemployers.36 It is beyond dis-

pute that the needs of familiestoday often include situationsinvolving military service to ourcountry. While loved ones serve

in the full-time military, theNational Guard, and Reserveunits, others remain to work at

their jobs and to take care oftheir families. The 2009 and2010 amendment

Documents

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - June 2010