1 7 14 - leb

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

Departments

12 Technology UpdateUnsolved Case Fingerprint Matching

22 Focus on the MediaFine Tuning Your News Briefing

Police Officer CandidateAssessment and Selection

By David A. DeCicco

The Advent of theComputer Delinquent

By Arthur L. Bowker

Prohibited DiscriminationUnder the Americans with

Disabilities ActBy Thomas D. Colbridge

1

7

December 2000Volume 69Number 12

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Louis J. FreehDirector

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

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

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

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

Madison Building, Room 209,Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Associate Editors

Glen Bartolomei

Cynthia L. Lewis

Bunny S. Morris

Art Director

Brian K. Parnell

Assistant Art Director

Denise Bennett Smith

Staff Assistant

Linda W. Szumilo

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law Enforcement

Communication Unit,William T. Guyton, Chief.

Internet Address

[email protected]

Cover Photo

© Digital Stock

Send article submissions to Editor,

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI

Academy, Madison Building, Room

209, Quantico, VA 22135.

Advanced technology has spawneda new and younger generation ofcomputer criminals.

Law enforcement agencies throughoutthe United States have a diverse choiceof methods to assess and select theirofficers.

14The ADA requires employers toreasonably accommodate thedisabilities of their employeesand applicants.

25 2000 Subject Index

28 2000 Author Index

December 2000 / 1

or some individuals, themere sight of a law enforce-ment officer can elicit feel-

Police Officer CandidateAssessment and SelectionBy DAVID A. DECICCO

Fings of excitement, curiosity, orfear; however, these are mild ef-fects that citizens can experiencefrom afar. Yet, the officers them-selves often experience long peri-ods of boredom, peppered withmoments of excitement and evensheer terror. In the lives of manyofficers, adrenalin becomes a drugand adversity becomes part of theirdaily lives. Handling feelings ofseparation, uselessness, and frus-tration becomes a ritual habit.Some officers handle the stress ofthe job adequately, while for others

it can prove hazardous, if notdebilitating.

Police officer misconduct mayarise as a result of the various pres-sures this profession exerts, fromofficers’ inappropriate manage-ment of the ensuing stress. The de-partments and governments that po-lice officers represent frequentlyincur lawsuits as a result of the of-ficers reaction to stress. In addition,the actions of individual officerscan impact civilian and officersafety, and more generally, publicopinion of a department or of lawenforcement as a whole. Police of-ficers are entrusted with a tremen-dous amount of authority. They

make quick decisions and seldommake them under direct supervi-sion. Improper actions can provevery costly, not only with regard tomonetary judgements, but also interms of investigative costs, person-nel costs (i.e., staff shortages due tosuspensions, dismissals, and tempo-rary reassignments), and morale.1

Some experts believe that moreor improved training will suffi-ciently manage the risks associatedwith police officer misconduct.However, departments rarely makeimprovements in the selection pro-cess of candidates prior to training.Police managers should direct criti-cal emphasis in this initial phase in

© Tribute

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

order to effectively combat theproblem. The New York City PoliceDepartment estimated that eachnew officer costs approximately$500,000, which includes expensesincurred from recruitment throughthe end of an officer’s probationaryperiod.2 Many benefits of weedingout potentially hazardous officersexist. These can include the finan-cial savings of training and possiblelitigation as well as the influencethat “bad” officers could have ontheir peers. Moreover, because su-pervisory and managerial positionsgenerally are filled from within, theselection of entry-level officersgreatly affects the future leadershipof a department.3 Police managersoften assert that recruiters place toomuch emphasis on obtaining a largeapplicant pool, rather than qualityapplicants who have prepared forthis type of career. Therefore, inorder to have better patrol officerperformance, departments shouldscrutinize the selection of candi-dates before attempting improve-ments in officer training.

A COMPREHENSIVEAPPROACH

Although methods of assess-ment and selection of candidatesvary among the approximate 12,000local and state law enforcementagencies in the United States, manysimilarities exist between the long-standing departments. Some of thetactics used may include writtentests, a background investigation,physical exam, and an interview.The majority of agencies must fol-low state civil service regulations.For example, the New York StateCivil Service Commission adminis-ters the preliminary police officerexam and then reports the results todepartments who supervise subse-quent stages of selection and assess-ment within the regulations set bythe Civil Service Commission.However, many larger city jurisdic-tions can administer their own examwhile adhering to both city and statecivil service directives.

A typical candidate will ex-press their interest in becoming apolice officer by either applying

directly for employment or taking ascheduled exam, usually given bythe county or city personnel office.Administrators should rememberthat agencies hire less than 4 per-cent of those who apply to becomepolice officers.4 In the next phase,the personnel officer administers agroup exam designed to test candi-dates’ verbal skills, math aptitudeand reasoning, clerical, and relatedperceptual abilities.5 After gradingthis exam, which generally takes afew months, jurisdictions withopenings will receive a list of thetop-scoring candidates. Often, thesecandidates will have qualifiedalready on a physical fitness test,which requires minimum perform-ance on such exercises as sit-ups,pull-ups, squat thrusts, and a 50-yard dash.

Once applicants pass the firstphase, agencies may use a variety oftests to further determine qualifiedcandidates. For example, depart-ments may use all or a combinationof various methods, such as fieldbackground investigations, medicalexaminations, physical strength andagility tests, situational tests, psy-chological examinations, polygraphtests, and assessment centers.

Background Investigation

Research has shown that all de-partments use background investi-gations and medical examinations.Generally, departments place em-phasis on the background investiga-tion because an intensive back-ground investigation can help toensure agencies recruit only themost qualified individuals and alsocan indicate an applicant’s compe-tency, motivation, and personal

...the assessmentcenter approach is...designed to simulateactual police officer

responsibilitiesand workingconditions.

”Officer DeCicco serves with the ClarkstownPolice Department in Rockland County, New York.

“

December 2000 / 3

ethics.6 During this process, a can-didate usually will complete a back-ground questionnaire covering abreadth of data, including all placesof residence, level of education,identities of family members andfriends, and personal references.The questionnaire will ask an appli-cant to provide an employmentrecord, credit history, criminal his-tory, and any alcohol or other druguse. This document then serves as abasis for the investigation.

The investigator will confirmthe veracity of each piece of infor-mation submitted by personally vis-iting all high schools and collegesthat the candidate has attended, aswell as interviewing past employersto discuss a candidate’s work ethic,performance, honesty, and sociabil-ity. A candidate’s credit history canserve as a cross-check of informa-tion on previous employers, ad-dresses, creditors, history of creditpayments, and any civil actiontaken against the candidate. Investi-gators can obtain driving and crimi-nal records from state and federalauthorities to determine if an appli-cant has any disqualifying offenses.In addition, the investigator shouldinterview neighbors, spouses, andpersonal references to provide moredetails on the applicant’s back-ground and lifestyle. Finally, tocomplete this phase, a formal boardinterview should ask candidates todiscuss current events, their interestin law enforcement, personal andprofessional backgrounds, and anydiscrepancies discovered by the in-vestigating officer.7

Medical Exam

This section of the hiring pro-cess requires that the candidate visit

a physician, appointed by the de-partment or certifying personnelagency, for a complete physical ex-amination. The physician should at-test that the candidate is generallyin good health and meets certainminimum standards such as a heightto weight ratio, 20/20 eyesight (cor-rected), and adequate hearing.

criticize the process as having a dis-parate impact on women. As a re-sult, some applicants who fail thispart of the process sue law enforce-ment agencies alleging that the testsdo not assess job-related skills. If aphysical agility test has a disparateimpact on female applicants thensuch a test violates Title VII of the1964 Civil Rights Act. The onlyjustification for a disparate impactis proof that the standards tested arerequired for the job. Police agenciesoften have lost legal challenges insuch cases unless they could showthat these standards apply to all oftheir on-board sworn personnel.The argument is that if the standardis requried for the job then it isnecesary for people who alreadyhave the job. Because few policeagencies are willing to fire employ-ees who cannot meet such stan-dards the courts have not upheldthem. Only when the standard canbe related to a public safety issueand is applied to on-board person-nel, will such standards be upheld.

Some departments have devel-oped a newer battery of tests to as-sess specific characteristics neededfor police officers, but less simula-tive in nature than other tests andscaled based on age and sex. Thisnew test uses push-ups or a benchpress to test absolute strength,sit-ups for muscular endurance, a1.5- to 2-mile run for aerobic capac-ity, and a “sit-and-reach” for flex-ibility. In one department, a male,age 20 to 29, would need to com-plete a minimum of 38 sit-ups in 1minute, reach 1.5 inches past histoes, bench press 99 percent of hisbody weight, and complete 1.5miles in less than 12 minutes and 51seconds.9

”

...the selection ofentry-level officersgreatly affects thefuture leadershipof a department.

“Physical Strengthand Agility Tests

Research revealed that 80 per-cent of departments require appli-cants to take a physical fitness test.8

The state civil service commissionmay require this type of test, whichdepartments may administer subse-quent to the written exam. Mostagencies hold this test in the gymna-sium of a local high school and of-ten include pull-ups, to teststrength; sit-ups, to test endurance;a run, to measure aerobic endur-ance; and an obstacle course, squatthrusts, or side lunges, to test agil-ity. The exam also may include atest of hand strength to verify anapplicant’s ability to pull the triggerof a gun.

Although these exercises re-main typical among many de-partments, some individuals often


Situational Tests

Fifty-eight percent of depart-ments use some type of real-life,simulated testing.10 These tests mayinclude mock crime scenes, simu-lated traffic stops, shoot/don’t shootdecisions, leaderless group discus-sions, or role-playing scenarios.Assessment centers also use thesetypes of exercises that incorporatemany of the traditional tech-niques of selection with the addi-tion and emphasis on situational

exercises. Some individuals viewthis approach as an increasinglypromising method of selection.

Psychological Testing

Candidates disqualified fromemployment based on psychologi-cal findings also can file lawsuitsagainst the police agency. Fortu-nately, adjustments to the methodsused and the way the findings arereported can reduce the expense ofdefending such decisions.

Departments use these screensto determine that a police officercandidate is mature, emotionallystable, independent, sociable, andcapable of functioning in stressfulsituations. A certified psychologist,with experience in psychologicalassessment for law enforcement,should direct this screeningprocess.

Initially, the candidate shouldtake a personality inventory test. Ofthe exams used in police testingcircles, the most popular are theMinnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory, used by 60 percent ofdepartments, and the CaliforniaPersonality Inventory, used by 19percent of departments.11

Agencies must use the results inconjunction with other componentsof a psychological assessment in or-der for these test results to provemost useful. The psychologistshould use the test results to indi-cate areas that investigators shouldprobe further during an interview.The interview should follow a stan-dardized format and elicit informa-tion relevant to a candidate’s char-acteristics suitable for employmentas a police officer.

The psychologist then shouldformulate a decision whether to per-mit or withhold employment of acandidate and prepare a writtenconclusive summary that com-pletely articulates the assessmentprocess and the reasoning behindthe decision. In order to provide alegally defensible report, the asses-sor also should include specific ex-amples of a candidate’s characterpathology (e.g., behavior, prompt-ness, and dress).

Of all the phases in the selec-tion process, administrators should

The Appleton, Wisconsin, Police Department uses variousexercises to assess their police officer candidates.

• Group discussion – A leaderless interaction regarding a lawenforcement topic that an entry-level candidate can under-stand that will elicit information on a candidate’s interper-sonal and communication skills.

• Situational response – Observation of a department-pre-pared video tape requiring a written response regarding thesituations presented that will obtain information to helpgauge a candidate’s problem-solving and written commu-nication skills.

• Oral presentation – Assignment of a topic for a candidate topresent, with a limited preparation time to stimulate stress.Topics should elicit information on how well a candidatecan adapt and react to adverse situations.

• Background/achievement report – Response to questionsthat develop information about each candidate’s life historyand preparation for a law enforcement career.

• Observational response – Analysis of a crime scene orprepared room, with instructions to document observationsor find clues, which illustrates a candidate’s information-gathering and problem-solving skills.

One Department’s Assessment Method

Source: B. D. Kolpack, “The Assessment Center Approach to PoliceOfficer Selection,” Police Chief, September 1991, 44-46.

December 2000 / 5

consider the psychological examwith particular caution and meticu-lous planning. The psychologicaltesting must accurately predict anapplicant’s performance as a po-lice officer before departments canuse it as a basis to disqualify anindividual.12

Polygraph Tests

Although prohibited from use inmost private sectors by the Em-ployee Protection Act of 1988, gov-ernment organizations can use poly-graph testing. Approximately 56percent of police departments usethis test, based on measures of aperson’s respiration, heart rate, andgalvanic skin response.13 A quali-fied polygrapher will inquire aboutthe information applicants provideon their background questionnairein order to verify accuracy and com-pleteness and to note any significantphysiological irregularities.

A great deal of controversy hasarisen as to the validity of poly-graph measurements; therefore,departments should look at the re-sults as a small part of a candidate’sassessment process. Law enforce-ment professionals and polygraphadministrators should use the ma-chine to deter lying, rather than todetect it. The U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Third Circuit decided that“...in the absence of scientific con-sensus, reasonable law enforcementadministrators may choose to in-clude a polygraph requirement intheir hiring process without offend-ing the equal protection clause.”14

Assessment Centers

First, police administratorsmust realize the difference be-tween an assessment center and

an assessment center approach.An assessment center is a placewhere a series of events or exer-cises will occur; however, the as-sessment center approach is amethod that supplements the tradi-tional assessment and selection pro-cedures with situational exercisesdesigned to simulate actual policeofficer responsibilities and workingconditions.

First used in its basic form bythe Cincinnati, Ohio, Police Depart-ment in 1961, today, nearly 35 per-cent of police agencies use the as-sessment center approach in someform.15 Some individuals predictthis number to increase steadily, as

individuals who scored highest onthe exam to notify them of the dateand time to report for the assess-ment test. Generally, this test occursin a 1-day session, during whichassessors rank all of the candidates.Most departments hold assessmentcenters in a local school or a largefacility that offers a variety ofrooms suitable for each phase of thetesting.

Each candidate participates al-ternately in a series of five to eightexercises, each designed to assess aparticular “dimension” necessaryfor a police officer. For example,the exercises ensure a candidate’sability to deal with the public, main-tain emotional stability in stressfulsituations, work in teams, com-municate adequately, and demon-strate the proper use of force.16 Ad-ditionally, administrators shouldensure that the tests—

• remain standardized;

• prove relevant and realisticto situations police officersmight expect to face in theline of duty;

• have several alternativesolutions;

• remain complex enough toengage the candidate;

• prove stressful enough toelicit a number of possibleemotional responses; and

• not require specializedabilities.17

Individuals specifically se-lected and trained to serve as asses-sors will rate the performance ofeach candidate. Some experts sug-gest departments use one assessorfor every two candidates and thatthe assessment panel include a

”

...agencies mayuse a variety oftests to further

determine qualifiedcandidates.

“the legal defensibility of thismethod becomes more widely ap-preciated. However, the relativelyhigh cost of implementation hashindered the employment of thisapproach by more departments. Ad-ditionally, the fact that the exercisesused do not require the candidate tohave knowledge about police proce-dure raises another concern.

A department using the assess-ment center approach should followa general outline. The first phase,where the candidates take the policeofficer exam, remains unchanged.Next, test administrators contact the


police administrator, a psychologist,and a local citizen with a back-ground in social work or commu-nity service.18 Assessors shouldremain thoroughly trained and fa-miliar with the methodology ofthe process and the exercises usedand the dimensions being tested.They also should practice per-forming such ratings. Assessorsshould develop an overall rating ofeach candidate by discussing indi-vidual performance on the exercisesand then come to an agreement withother assessors on each dimension.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement agenciesthroughout the United States havea diverse choice of methods to as-sess and select their officers. Theactual assessment and selectionprocedures prove critical in thatprocess and present a prime oppor-tunity to scrutinize those who will

hold an enormous amount of au-thority. The performance of theseofficers likely will undergo strictcriticism by a more-watchful-than-ever public.

The courts have encouragedthe use of assessment centers asthe most fair and job-related methodof assessing police officer candi-dates. No other assessment toolcan better extract behavior fromcandidates that would parallel theirperformance on the job. Whenproperly executed, the assessmentcenter approach will raise emo-tions and stress that cannot beroused with other traditional testingmethods.

Administrators should place theassessment center method as anintegral part of a comprehensiveselection procedure. In doing so,they can confidently make newofficer hires, and more important,ensure residents that the highest

Type of Procedure Number of Agencies Percentage

Field Background 62 100.0 InvestigationMedical Exam 62 100.0Physical Strength 49 79.6 and Agility TestsSituational Tests 36 58.1Polygraph 35 56.5Psychiatric Exam 35 56.5Assessment Centers 14 22.6

Agency Usage (N=62)

Use of Testing Procedures

Source: P. Ash, K.B. Siora, and C.F. Britton, “Police Agency OfficerSelection Practices,” Journal of Police Science and Administration,17, no. 4 (1990): 258-69.

quality police officers serve andprotect their communities.

Endnotes

1 G. F. Coulton and H. S. Feild, “UsingAssessment Centers in Selecting Entry-LevelPolice Officers: Extravagance or JustifiedExpense?” Public Personnel Management,1995, 2: 223-243.

2 E. Fitzsimmons, “N.Y.P.D. PsychologicalScreening of Police Candidates: The ScreeningProcess, Issues and Criteria in Rejection,”Psychological Services for Law Enforcement,Library of Congress No. 85-60053 8 (Washing-ton, DC: Government Printing Office, 1986).

3 Supra note 1.4 M. Hyams, “Recruitment, Selection, and

Retention: A Matter of Commitment,” PoliceChief, September 1991, 24-27.

5 P. Ash, K. B. Slora, and C. F. Britton,“Police Agency Officer Selection Practices,”Journal of Police Science and Administra-

tion, 17, no. 4 (1990): 258-269.6 T. H. Wright, “Pre-employment Back-

ground Investigations,” FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, November 1991, 16-21.

7 D. Bradford, “Police Officer CandidateBackground Investigation: Law EnforcementManagement’s Most Effective Tool forEmploying the Most Qualified Candidate,”Public Personnel Management, 27, no. 1(1998): 423-424.

8 Supra note 5, 27, no. 1 (1998). TheAmericans With Disabilities Act (ADA)prohibits inquiries into disabilities until anagency has made a conditional offer ofemployment. This has the effect ofprohibiting broad physical examinationsprior to such an offer being made.

9 As published in Suffolk County, NewYork, Police Officer Examination Announce-ment, given May 1999.

10 Supra note 5.11 Supra note 5.12 D. Schofield, “Hiring Standards:

Ensuring Fitnress for Duty,” FBI LawEnforcement Bulletin, November 1993, 27-32.

13 Supra note 5.14 Anderson v. City of Philadelphia, 845

F.2d 1225 (3rd Cir. 1988).15 Supra note 1.16 J. Pynes, and H. J. Bemardin, “Entry-level

Police Selection: The Assessment Center Isan Alternative,” Journal of Criminal Justice,1992, 20: 41-52.

17 Supra note 1.18 Supra note 1.

December 2000 / 7

n Chesterfield County, Vir-ginia, a 16-year-old pleadedguilty to computer trespassing

The Advent of theComputer DelinquentBy ARTHUR L. BOWKER, M.A.

Contents blurb: Advanced technology has spawned a new and younger generation of computer criminals.Text blurbs: ...new avenues of delinquency have begun to develop with each technological advance....the number of juveniles who have direct access to a computer and the Internet has risen sharply.Fortunately, basic tools exist for officers to use in developing a preventive program for children.

lights, and stealing passwords froman Internet provider.5

These and other incidents illus-trate the types of computer delin-quency6 that have become com-monplace in a technologicallyadvanced society. What has led tothis problem, and what can thelaw enforcement community do todeter those of today’s youth whohave grasped the computer’s useful-ness in committing serious acts ofdelinquency?

Factors Contributing toComputer Delinquency

With the advent of the 21st cen-tury, new avenues of delinquency

have begun to develop with eachtechnological advance. Four factorscontribute to these new avenues.First, today’s youth possess moretechnological knowledge than anyprevious generation. They havegrown up with the personal com-puter and the Internet. Due to thisexposure, today’s young people canconceive readily of the potential forboth legitimate and illegitimatecomputer use.

Next, some evidence points toan apparent ethical deficit intoday’s youth, concerning appropri-ate computer use. For example,a 1997 study of undergraduatecollege students revealed that a

Ifor hacking into an Internet pro-vider’s system, causing $20,000 indamage.1 Five boys, ages 14 to 17,pleaded guilty to charges stemmingfrom counterfeiting money on oneof the youth’s home computers.2 A14-year-old boy in Mount Prospect,Illinois, pleaded guilty to posses-sion of child pornography afterdownloading child pornographicimages onto his computer.3 Five ju-veniles faced federal adjudication4

for hacking into computers at thePentagon and NASA, accidentallyshutting down an airport’s runway

© Sarah W. Guyton


substantial number had piratedsoftware.7 Many of these studentshad gained illegal access to a com-puter system to either browse or ex-change information. These findingsproved similar to those of anotherstudy done 5 years earlier. The 1997analysis further concluded that par-ents, and even teachers, may haveadvocated certain computer crimes,particularly software piracy. Thestudy also noted that youths in-volved in computer crime, similarto other types of deviance, appearedto learn this behavior through inter-action with their peers.

Additionally, the peer groupsthat juveniles interact with havechanged from school and neighbor-hood friends to a literal “globalcommunity.” Unfortunately, thislarger peer group contains hundredsof chat rooms, news groups, andWeb sites advocating pedophilia,drugs, and hate and racist groups,along with information on identityfalsification, credit card and check

fraud, and computer hacking.Through these peer contacts, manyjuveniles learn about and supportcomputer crimes.

Finally, computers themselvesmake successful completion of cer-tain acts of delinquency possible.Specifically, computer use over theInternet can conceal age and pro-vide a degree of anonymity that didnot exist previously. Youths not oldenough to operate a motor vehiclecan use their computers—in theirown bedrooms, after curfew—tobreak into a system in another coun-try. While in the past children mayhave had difficulty making fraudu-lent purchases, today they can goon-line and easily purchase thosesame age-restricted items byavoiding any suspicions based ontheir youthful appearance. Thecomputer also greatly facilitatestheir escape after the fraud becomesknown. The power of the computermakes counterfeiting or checkfraud, offenses that once required

expensive equipment and extensiveexpertise, literally “child’s play.”

As all of these factors havecome together, the number of juve-niles who have direct access to acomputer and the Internet has risensharply. According to the Office ofJustice Programs, more than 28 mil-lion children currently go on-line,and industry experts predict thatmore than 45 million young peoplewill use the Internet by 2002.8 Otherprojections indicate that by the year2002, almost 80 percent of Ameri-can teenagers will have access toon-line material.9 This analysis alsoreveals that many parents do notprovide careful oversight of thiscomputer use. For example, de-pending on the age group (eitherfrom 11 through 15 or 16 through18 years of age), 38 percent ofthe parents of the younger groupand 9 percent of the parents of theolder group reported that they sitwith their children while they areon-line.

Sixty-eight percent of parentsof on-line children between the agesof 11 and 15 said that they knowwhich Web sites their children visit,while 43 percent of the parents ofthe 16- to 18-year-olds reportedsimilar knowledge. In addition, 54percent of the parents of theyounger group revealed that theypermit unlimited on-line access fortheir children, while 75 percent ofthe parents of the older children saidthat they allowed such computerusage.10

Costs of ComputerDelinquency

The losses or damages that adelinquent can inflict have changed

Fortunately, basictools exist forofficers to usein developing a

preventive programfor children.

”Mr. Bowker serves as a probation officer with the U.S. DistrictCourt, Northern District of Ohio Probation Office in Cleveland.

“

December 2000 / 9

dramatically due to society’s in-creasing dependence on computers.Traditionally, the actions of a singledelinquent would cause very fewlosses, injuries, or deaths. In thepast, for example, it proved almostimpossible for a juvenile delinquentto steal the amount of funds that awhite collar criminal, such as anembezzler, could purloin. Today,however, a delinquent easily canuse a computer to facilitate a five-figure or other high-tech crime. Thepotential for disaster when a juve-nile hacker disrupts or manipulatessafety functions, such as traffic sig-nals, air traffic control, floodgates,or power grids, constitutes an evenmore troubling prospect.

Indirect costs of computer de-linquency also require noting. “In-nocent” juvenile exploration intocomputer systems can cause expen-sive systems to crash and inflict fi-nancial burdens to restore them.The prevalence of computer intru-sions causes companies to take ad-ditional security measures and ob-tain special computer insurance,adding to the cost of goods and ser-vices. Computer delinquency alsowastes investigative resources thatagencies could better employ. Forinstance, an attack against defensecomputers could represent the workor juvenile “exploring” or an adultterrorist bent on destroying systemsor stealing technology. Frequently,it takes a costly investigation todetermine the suspects and theirmotives.

The jurisdictional concerns oftechnological crimes also makes ad-judicating computer delinquentseven more complicated than atypical delinquency case. Normally,

adjudicating a delinquent takesplace at the local level. Issuesrevolve around keeping the case inthe juvenile court system or, if seri-ous enough, a referral to the adultsystem. Typically, few juvenilecases involve multiple jurisdic-tions. However, a juvenile hackercan cross state boundaries and eveninternational boundaries with theclick of a mouse. Moreover, it is

not inconceivable for future ju-venile offenders to cause an inter-national incident for hacking into anunfriendly foreign country’s com-puter. The jurisdictional questionscan begin to mount. Who handlesthese cases, the local authoritieswhere the juvenile resides or thestate or country of the target com-puter? Would federal prosecutorshave an interest in the case? Whodecides which jurisdiction will pros-ecute the case or whether thecharge will be made in a juvenile oradult court?

Finally, some computer delin-quents could become adult com-puter offenders. For example, sev-eral of the more infamous computeroffenders began their criminal

careers as juveniles.11 Also, re-search has shown that “...personsinvolved in computer crimes acquiretheir interest and skills at an earlyage. They are introduced to com-puters in school, and their usual ‘ca-reer path’ starts with illegally copy-ing computer programs. Seriousoffenders then get into a progres-sion of computer crimes includingtelecommunications fraud (makingfree long distance calls), unautho-rized access to other computers(hacking for fun and profit), andcredit card fraud (obtaining cash ad-vances, purchasing equipmentthrough computers).”12 Therefore,the entire criminal justice commu-nity must not ignore or downplay thesignificance of computer delin-quency because these “waywardyouths” may present future prob-lems when they enter adulthood.

Law EnforcementConsiderations

To effectively deal with thecomputer delinquent, law enforce-ment officers must make adequatepreparations. They must not forgettheir skills and rules of evidence/procedure that they employ in in-vestigating traditional delinquentbehavior. Just because youngstershave mastered computer skills doesnot mean that they can comprehendtheir actions as against the law. Forexample, a 9-year-old who scansmoney for a school project does notwarrant the same response as a 15-year-old who counterfeits andpasses money. Investigators mustestablish that delinquents havesome knowledge that their behavioris problematic. Do the delinquentsconceal their computer actions from

“...the number ofjuveniles who have

direct access toa computer andthe Internet hasrisen sharply.

”


adults? Have they used passwordsand encryption to protect their sys-tems? Did they erase or destroyfiles to conceal their actions? Whatmotivated them to commit the acts?Did they profit from their behavior?Was their offense committed to fi-nance other delinquent behavior(e.g., drug use)? Have the youthsexhibited similar behavior, eitherwith or without a computer? What ifofficers uncover evidence on theyouths’ computers that indicate thedelinquents have broken laws in

Respect for Privacy

I will respect others’ right to privacy. I willonly access, look in, or use other individuals’,organizations’, or companies’ information oncomputer or through telecommunications if Ihave the permission of the individual, organi-zation, or company who owns the information.

Respect for Property

I will respect others’ property. I will onlymake changes to or delete computer programs,files, or information that belong to others, if Ihave been given permission to do so by theperson, organization, or company who ownsthe program, file, or information.

Respect for Ownership

I will respect others’ rights to ownershipand to earn a living from their work. I will onlyuse computer software, files, or information

Code of Responsible Computing

Source: Computer Learning Foundation (http://www.computerlearning.org/RespCode.htm); accessedOctober 11, 2000.

that I own or that I have been given permissionto borrow. I will only use software programsthat have been paid for or are in the publicdomain. I will only make a backup copy ofcomputer programs I have purchased or writtenand will only use it if my original program isdamaged. I will only make copies of computerfiles and information that I own or havewritten. I will only sell computer programswhich I have written or have been authorizedto sell by the author. I will pay the developeror publisher for any shareware programs Idecide to use.

Respect for Others and the Law

I will only use computers, software, andrelated technologies for purposes that arebeneficial to others, that are not harmful(physically, financially, or otherwise) to othersor others’ property, and that are within thelaw.

several states or countries? Havinganswers to these questions will pre-pare law enforcement officers topresent their findings to the appro-priate parties for adjudication of thedelinquents.

The issue of child pornographyand the computer delinquent raisesadditional concerns for law en-forcement officers. How shouldthey respond to a 15-year-old malewho has pornographic images of a16-year-old female on his com-puter? What if this 15-year-old

male is distributing these images tohis friends? What about the 15-year-old male with pornographic im-ages of an 8-year-old female on hiscomputer? Where are they gettingthe images? Is an adult involved? Isthe youth a victim of abuse? Lawenforcement officers, in consulta-tion with prosecutors, should con-sider such scenarios before theyhave to face them.

Law enforcement officers alsoshould take a preventive approachto computer delinquency. Because

December 2000 / 11

of its potential to create havoc, com-puter delinquency warrants a seri-ous preventive program aimed atthe school-age child. In addition, thetypical computer investigation isvery time consuming and costly.Hence, the prevention of even onesuch investigation justifies thefocus on educating youths regard-ing computer ethics. Researchersagree. “At one level, basic prin-ciples of computer ethics can be in-stilled in children (and adults) fromthe time of their initial introductionto information technology.

A greater emphasis on com-puter ethics in school curriculamight also contribute to heightenedethical awareness over time. Train-ing in computing should be accom-panied by an ethical component;information making it clear that in-trusion and destruction is costly andharmful to individual human beings,and to society in general, not merelyto amorphous organizations.”13

Fortunately, basic tools exist forofficers to use in developing a pre-ventive program for children. Spe-cifically, in 1991, the ComputerLearning Foundation (CLF) and theU.S. Departments of Education andJustice began emphasizing the needto teach responsible computer useto children. The CLF began dis-seminating information to schoolson methods for teaching children tobecome responsible computer usersand developed the Code of Respon-sible Computing. In addition, theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) andthe FBI have Web sites14 that con-tain information for children aboutappropriate computer use. DOJ’sWeb site also has a lesson planfor elementary and middle school

teachers to use when coveringcomputer crime and ethics withtheir students. Law enforcement of-ficers could use these same materi-als to develop outreach programsfor schools in their communities.Such programs also could include“cyber-safety” tips to ensure thatchildren do not fall victim to preda-tors on the Internet.

2 “Students Fined for Funny Money:Sentences Suspended in Butler,” CincinnatiEnquirer, April 8, 1999.

3 Supra note 1.4 Federal prosecution of juveniles rarely

occurs because 18 U.S.C. § 5032 requires that a“substantial federal interest” exists and the statedoes not have or refuses to assume jurisdiction;the state does not have adequate services orprograms for juveniles; or the offense is aviolent felony, drug trafficking or importation,or is a firearms offense.

5 Supra note 1.6 In this article, computer delinquency refers

to any delinquent act or criminal behaviorcommitted by a juvenile where a computer wasthe tool used in the offense, was the target of adelinquent act, or contained evidence of adelinquent act.

7 A.M. Fream and W.F. Skinner, “SocialLearning Theory Analysis of Computer CrimeAmong College Students,” Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquency 24, no. 4 (November1997): 495-518.

8 U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,New Grants to Combat Internet Crimes Against

Children, May 17, 2000; available from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/about/00juvjust/000517b.html;

accessed October 11, 2000.9 “Peril and Promise: Teens by the

Numbers,” Newsweek, May 10, 1999, 38-39.10 Ibid.11 For specific examples, see Shimomura,

Tsutomu, and Markoff, Takedown: The Pursuitand Capture of Kevin Mitnick, America’s Most

Wanted Computer Outlaw (New York, NY:Hyperion, 1996), 370-372; Joshua Quittner andMichelle Statalla, Masters of Deception: TheGang that Ruled Cyberspace (New York, NY:Harper Collins, 1996); and Katie Hafner andJohn Markoff, Cyberpunk: Outlaws andHackers on the Computer Frontier (New York,NY: Touchstone, 1995), 276-321.

12 J. Thomas McEwen, “Computer Ethics,”National Institute of Justice Reports (January/February 1991): 8-10.

13 P.N. Grabosky and Russell G. Smith,Crime in the Digital Age (New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Publishers, 1998), 59.

14 DOJ’s Web site is http://www.usdoj.gov,and the FBI’s Web site is http://www.fbi.gov;accessed October 11, 2000.

Conclusion

The 21st century promisesmany technological changes for lawenforcement. While some of thesealterations will benefit the criminaljustice community, such as the useof mapping technologies to deter-mine crime trends, others, such asthe emergence of computer delin-quency, will produce negativechallenges. Only by recognizingearly on that computer delinquencyis a serious matter that inflicts fi-nancial and ethical burdens on soci-ety can the criminal justice systemhope to effectively handle theseyouths before they become mastercomputer criminals.

Endnotes

1 Arthur L. Bowker, “Juveniles andComputers: Should We Be Concerned?”Federal Probation 63, no. 2 (December 1999):40-43.

“ ...new avenues ofdelinquency have

begun to develop witheach technological

advance.

”

scene in 1935, fingerprint examiners comparedit to the prints of individuals suspected ofcommitting the murder. A positive matchproduced strong evidencefor trial and was usuallythe primary factor ingaining a conviction. Ifmonths of investigationfailed to develop a princi-pal subject, the print waseventually stored as amatter of evidence, alongwith the investigative file,in the hope that a futurelead might prompt a newcourse of investigation.Although the FBI had anextensive collection ofcriminal fingerprints, noreliable method to searchan unknown latent printagainst that collection for amatch existed.

In July 1999, theFBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services(CJIS) Division’s Integrated Automated Finger-print Identification System (IAFIS) becameoperational. IAFIS provides five key services:10-print services, subject search and criminalhistory request services, document and imagesearches, remote search services, and latentprint services. In its first 6 months of operation,IAFIS reduced the FBI’s criminal 10-printprocessing time from 45 days to less than 2hours. The system also introduced a number ofnew tools that were previously not available.

To demonstrate the IAFIS latent print searchtechnique, the FBI encouraged law enforcementrepresentatives who attended the July 2000International Association of Identification (IAI)meeting in Charleston, West Virginia, to bringwith them any latent fingerprint evidence fromunsolved cases so that the prints could be runagainst the FBI’s criminal database of 41 millionentries for a match. The Georgia Bureau ofInvestigation (GBI) took up the challenge and

brought a print collectedfrom a rape scene.Although the GBI con-curred with officers fromthe Pleasant Prairie,Wisconsin, Police Depart-ment (PPPD) that thesuspect was likely a serialcriminal because ofinvestigative similaritiesto rape cases in Georgiaand Wisconsin that hadbeen matched by DNAtesting, neither agencyhad identified a suspect.After the unsolved caseprint was scanned in, asearch of IAFIS wascompleted in less than 10minutes. This search

produced a potential subject for the GBI and thePPPD to consider.

IAFIS is a remarkable use of technology.With IAFIS, the FBI replaced a 64-year-oldfingerprint identification process that was notserving law enforcement needs with a systemthat provides timely and accurate identificationservices in a paperless environment. IAFISmakes finding the proverbial needle in thehaystack not only possible, but easy. Its vastcomputing power examines the characteristicsof fingerprints submitted by law enforcement

When investigators collected a latentfingerprint from a homicide crime

TechnologyUpdate

Unsolved CaseFingerprint Matching


© PhotoDisc

officers across the United States, converts them tosearchable code, and adds them to the currentcriminal database of some 41 million entries.When a department requests a latent search, IAFISsearches the characteristics of the latent againstthe criminal database for a possible match. Be-cause each entry in the database includes all 10fingers, the comparativeprocess proves somewhatmore tedious than might beexpected because the searchmust run against all 10fingers of the variousentries. Nevertheless, thetechnical ability to searchthis large group of knownfingerprint specimens allowsfor a previously unidentifiedpiece of evidence, in somecases a bloody print, to bematched with the name of aperson in the FBI’s criminalrecords. This identificationprovides a new course forinvestigators to explore andthe possible means to bringcriminals to justice before they can strike again.

In the previously discussed serial rape case,the PPPD contacted the GBI because they notedcommon characteristics in rapes in Wisconsin andGeorgia. The PPPD sent fingerprint and DNAsamples for examination. Through DNA testing,the GBI tied those two rapes to a rape in Florence,Kentucky, but they still had not identified theindividual responsible. The GBI provided theWisconsin print for examination at the IAI meetingafter their exhaustive investigation efforts with thePPPD, including a requested subject analysis bythe FBI’s Violent Crime Apprehension Program(VICAP), had yielded no viable leads. In a fewminutes, the search produced the name of asuspect from Georgia. The victims worked as

clerks at retail strip malls near interstates. Thesuspect was located in jail at Lawrenceville,Georgia, where he was being held on an unre-lated crime. The GBI was granted a searchwarrant to obtain a blood sample. Although hedenied any involvement in the murders, his bloodwas matched to DNA samples from the serial

rapes. A few days afterthe sample was taken, hehanged himself in his jailcell with a bed sheet. Heimplicated himself in otherrapes before his death.Efforts continue to resolvethese claims.

The lessons from thisinvestigation demonstratethe value of the IAFISlatent search technique. Inspite of exhaustive investi-gate efforts, neither theGBI, PPPD, DNA testing,nor the FBI’s NationalCenter for the Analysis ofViolent Crime (NCAVC)were able to identify a

suspect for these serial crimes. The IAFIStechnique undoubtedly prevented further violentacts, a major step forward in investigativetechniques from the 1935 standard. Law en-forcement officers are encouraged to review un-solved pending and closed investigative files toidentify latent fingerprints that they can submit toCJIS for a latent print services comparison.

Agencies may submit fingerprints in their original form,but digital format submissions are preferred. Agenciesinterested in conducting such examinations shouldcontact Linda Click, Northeast Region, (304) 625-2767; Todd Commodore, North Central Region,(304) 625-2803; Kim Smith, South Region, (304)625-2761; or Stephanie Louk, West Region, (304)625-2753.

TechnologyUpdate

“

”

[IAFIS] examines thecharacteristics of

fingerprints submitted bylaw enforcement officersacross the United States,

converts them tosearchable code, and

adds them to the currentcriminal database of some

41 million entries.

December 2000 / 13


Legal Digest

he Americans With Dis-abilities Act (ADA)1 pro-tects individuals with dis-

the ADA. To be protected, indi-viduals with disabilities must dem-onstrate that they are otherwisequalified for the job they seek, canperform the essential functions ofthat job with or without reasonableaccommodation, and have a disabil-ity that substantially limits a majorlife activity and suffered discrimi-nation because of their disability.6

WORKPLACEDISCRIMINATION

The ADA prohibits employerdiscrimination against qualified

individuals with a disability becauseof their disability in regard to appli-cation procedures, hiring and firing,promotions, pay, training, and other“terms, conditions, and privilegesof employment.”7 This broad prohi-bition applies to the entire range ofemployer-employee relations, in-cluding such matters as testing,work assignments, discipline,leave, benefits, and lay-offs and re-calls. In addition, the ADA prohib-its retaliation against, and coercionof, individuals who seek the protec-tion of the act, or in any way helpthose who do.8

Congress provided several ex-amples of workplace discrimination,such as9—

• limiting, segregating, orclassifying disabled jobapplicants or employees in away that denies them employ-ment opportunities because oftheir disability;

• using the services of organiza-tions, such as employmentagencies, referral services,labor unions, or healthcareproviders, that discriminateagainst the disabled;

• using standards, criteria, oradministrative methods thatdiscriminate on the basis ofdisability or perpetuate suchdiscrimination;

Tabilities from discrimination basedupon their disability. The protectionextends to discrimination in a broadrange of activities, including publicservices,2 public accommodations,3

and employment.4 The ADA’s pro-hibition against disability discrimi-nation applies to the vast majorityof private and public employers inthe United States.5

However, not all individualswith disabilities are protected by

Prohibited DiscriminationUnder the Americans withDisabilities ActBy THOMAS D. COLBRIDGE, J.D.

© PhotoDisc

December 2000 / 15

• denying employment or jobbenefits to individuals becausethey have an association orrelationship with someonewho is disabled;

• not making a reasonableaccommodation for the knowndisabilities of qualifiedapplicants or employees ordenying employment oppor-tunities to them because ofthe obligation to reasonablyaccommodate their disabilities;

• using qualification standards,employment tests, or selectioncriteria that screen out or tendto screen out the disabledunless they are job relatedand consistent with businessnecessity; and

• using employment tests thatmeasure applicants’ disabili-ties, instead of their abilityto do the job.

This is not an exhaustive list ofall forms of workplace discrimina-tion prohibited by the ADA. Someof these examples apply only to spe-cific stages in the employer-em-ployee relationship. However, oneform of workplace discrimina-tion—the failure to reasonably ac-commodate the known disabilitiesof applicants and employees—ap-plies to all stages of the employ-ment process. A discussion of theimpact of the ADA on the work-place must begin with an under-standing of the concept of reason-able accommodation.

REASONABLEACCOMMODATION

The ADA itself does not spe-cifically define the term “reason-able accommodation.” It merely

provides examples of employers’actions that may constitute reason-able accommodation. The list in-cludes making physical facilitiesaccessible to and usable by disabledpersons; restructuring jobs; chang-ing work schedules; initiating reas-signments; modifying or acquiringequipment; changing tests, trainingmaterials, or policies; and providingreaders or interpreters.10

Reasonable accommodation ofdisabilities is best understood interms of ADA philosophy. Anaccommodation is any change inthe workplace environment or inthe way things are done in theworkplace that gives individualswith disabilities equal employmentopportunities.11

The Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC) has es-tablished general guidelines regard-ing the reasonable accommodationrequirement. The accommodationprovided by the employer must beeffective. That means it must giveindividuals with disabilities the sameopportunities as individuals withoutdisabilities to compete for and

perform jobs and to enjoy all of thebenefits of the job.12 It does notmean that the accommodationmust ensure absolute equality ofopportunity.13

The reasonable accommodationrequirement applies only to needs inthe workplace. It is not required tomeet the personal needs of the em-ployee with a disability or to fulfillpersonal preferences.14 For ex-ample, employers do not have toaccommodate disabled employees’preferences to work in warmer cli-mates or provide them with devisesthat assist them in their lives bothon and off the job.

An employer is obligated to ac-commodate only those persons whoqualify for ADA protection,15 andthe accommodation obligationapplies only to known disabilities.16

Some disabilities are obvious, suchas blindness or the loss of a limb.However, when the disability is notobvious, applicants and employeeswith disabilities have the respon-sibility to tell employers that ac-commodation is needed.17 Employ-ees do not have to use any “magic

“

”

...the ADA obligatesemployers toreasonably

accommodate thedisabilities of

employees andapplicants.

Special Agent Colbridge is a legalinstructor at the FBI Academy.


words” when seeking an accommo-dation. They simply must provideenough information to employers toalert them that accommodation maybe needed.18 When accommodationof a hidden disability is requested,employers are permitted to ask fordocumentation to support the re-quest.19 While it is the disabled em-ployees’ obligation to seek an ac-commodation, the EEOC requiresthat employers notify applicants andemployees that accommodation isavailable if needed.20 Employersshould post notices outlining accom-modation availability and shouldconsider including the informationin employment applications, va-cancy notices, and personnel policymanuals.

When the need for reasonableaccommodation is established, theADA encourages the individualswith disabilities and their employ-ers to discuss the best ways to re-move impediments caused by thedisability.21 The solution may beobvious and simple, and the prob-lem quickly resolved. If the solutionis not so obvious, the EEOC recom-mends an employer-employee dia-logue involving several steps.

The parties should determineboth the purpose and essential func-tions of the job held or sought by theindividual with a disability.22 Theyshould then precisely identify thejob-related limitations imposed bythe disability and the various meansby which the limitations may beaccommodated to allow the dis-abled persons to perform the essen-tial functions of the job. Employersshould consider the preferences ofthe employees and applicants withdisabilities, and they should identify

accommodations together.23 If ei-ther the employees with disabilitiesor employers refuse to participatein, or obstruct, this interactive pro-cess, courts are likely to give theman unsympathetic reception.24

If several effective accommo-dations are identified through thesediscussions, employers are free tochoose among the possibilities,considering both cost and disrup-tion to the business.25 If employersoffer a reasonable accommodation,

to perform those functions, not toforce employers to change the waythey do business.

THE UNDUE HARDSHIPLIMITATION

The ADA requires that employ-ers make only reasonable accom-modations for the disabled. Con-gress stated that employers need notaccommodate individuals with dis-abilities if the accommodation“would impose an undue hardshipon the operation of the business ofthe covered entity.”29

The ADA defines an unduehardship as an act involving signifi-cant difficulty or expense.30 Con-gress specified these factors to beconsidered when deciding if accom-modations are unduly burdensome:the nature of the accommodationsand their costs; the total financialresources of the facility conside-ring the accommodations; the em-ployer’s overall resources, includ-ing financial resources, size, numberof employees, and the type and lo-cation of the employer’s facilities;the nature of the operation of theemployer; and the overall impact ofthe accommodations on theemployer’s operation.31 Clearly,large employers with substantial re-sources will have a more difficulttime convincing the EEOC and thecourts that accommodations are un-reasonable.

OTHER EXAMPLESOF WORKPLACEDISCRIMINATION

The ADA identifies severalother employment practices that arediscriminatory. Such practices arealso prohibited by the statute.

the individuals with disabilities arefree to reject it.26 However, ifdisabled employees cannot per-form the essential functions of thejob without that accommodation,the employees may not be con-sidered qualified under the ADAand, therefore, not protected by itsprovisions.27

One more general consider-ation regarding the reasonable ac-commodation is important. Em-ployers are not required to changethe essential functions of a job inorder to accommodate a person’sdisability.28 The purpose of thereasonable accommodation is topermit the individual with a disability

“...the ADA prohibitsretaliation against,and coercion of,

individuals who seekthe protection of the

act, or in any wayhelp those who do.

”

Limiting, Segregating, orClassifying the Disabled

Limiting, segregating, or classi-fying the disabled in a way that ad-versely affects their job oppor-tunities also is discrimination.32

This prohibition is included to ensurethat employers do not limit the em-ployment opportunities of the dis-abled based upon myths and stereo-types or steer the disabled intocertain work areas, job classifica-tions, or promotional paths. The aimof the ADA is to ensure that thedisabled are assessed on an indi-vidualized, case-by-case basis, andjudged according to their abilities,rather than by their disabilities. Em-ployers should not presume to knoweither what is best for disabled em-ployees or what their capabilitiesare.33

DiscriminatoryContractual Arrangements

It is also discrimination for anemployer to participate in contrac-tual or other arrangements that sub-ject its applicants and employeeswith disabilities to discrimination.34

As one court put it, the ADA pro-hibits “an entity from doing througha contractual relationship what itmay not do directly.”35 For ex-ample, using an employment or re-ferral agency that discriminatesagainst the disabled to screen appli-cants could subject employers todiscrimination claims under theADA.

Two concepts are important re-garding this form of discrimination.Employers are liable only for dis-crimination suffered by their ownemployees as a result of thesearrangements. They are not liable

because of the contractual arrange-ment for discrimination by thecontractor against the contractor’sown disabled employees.36 In addi-tion, the EEOC has made it clearthat employers are liable for anydiscrimination suffered by its em-ployees whether or not employersintended for the contractual rela-tionship to be discriminatory. 37

of the ADA designed to preventadverse job actions by employersbased upon unfounded assumptionsand stereotypes arising from em-ployees’ associations with the dis-abled.40 Examples of this form ofprohibited discrimination includeemployers’ refusal to hire appli-cants based upon an unfounded as-sumption that they would miss workto care for a disabled relative orfiring employees who do AIDS vol-unteer work out of an unfoundedfear that the employees will con-tract AIDS.41

While the ADA prohibits dis-crimination against otherwisequalified applicants and employeesbecause of their association or rela-tionship with disabled persons, theADA does not require the employerto accommodate the relative’s orassociate’s disability. For example,employees who have disabledspouses are not entitled to flexiblework schedules or additional timeoff beyond that mandated by law orcontract to care for the family mem-ber with a disability. The accommo-dation obligation extends onlyto qualified disabled applicants oremployees.42

Utilization of QualificationStandards, Criteria, and Tests

Broadly stated, the ADA pro-hibits all employer discriminationagainst qualified individuals withdisabilities in regard to all aspectsof the employment relationship.43

The final three examples of dis-crimination included in the ADAmake it clear that Congressintended to bar disability discrim-ination not only in hiring andfiring decisions, but also in all

Relationship or Associationwith Disabled Persons

The ADA also prohibits em-ployers from discriminating againstapplicants or employees because oftheir association or relationshipwith people known by the employerto be disabled.38 In other words, ifapplicants or employees are other-wise qualified for employment, em-ployers may not deny them job op-portunities or benefits simplybecause they fear their associates orrelations with disabilities will in-crease the employers’ medical costsor cause excessive absenteeism bytheir employees. This protection ex-tends to otherwise qualified personseven if they are not disabled them-selves.39 This is another provision

December 2000 / 17


employment decisions impacting thedisabled. These additional em-ployment decisions include thoseregarding advancement, com-pensation, training, and “otherterms, conditions, and privileges ofemployment.”44

Specifically, the ADA prohibitscovered employers from using any“standard, criteria, or methods ofadministration” that result in dis-crimination against the disabled.45

This broad language has no limita-tion regarding the types of employ-ment actions covered by the statute.Consequently, applicants and em-ployees with disabilities may use theADA to attack employer decisionsregarding hiring, firing, promotions,transfers, compensation, reductionsin force, provision of benefits—liter-ally any employment decision thatadversely impacts them.

Employers also are prohibitedfrom using qualification standards,employment tests, and other selec-tion criteria that “screen out or tendto screen out” a class of individualswith disabilities, unless the test,standard, or criteria is shown to beboth job related and consistentwith business necessity.46 The pro-hibition extends to all types of se-lection criteria, including employ-ment tests, vision and hearingrequirements, and other physicalrequirements.47

Finally, employers are pro-hibited from selecting andadministering employment teststhat measure only individuals’ dis-abilities rather than their actualabilities, skills, and aptitude to dothe job.48 This provision is meant toensure that the disabled who areotherwise qualified for employment

are not barred from employmentsimply because their disability pre-vents them from taking a test. Forexample, people with dyslexia maynot be able to take a written test. Ifemployers are aware of the appli-cants’ dyslexia, they are required toreasonably accommodate their dis-ability during the testing procedure(i.e., provide a reader or offer anoral test).49 The only exception tothis requirement is where the test ismeant to judge a specific skill that isrequired to do the job being sought.For example, if applicants must beable to read to perform the job being

tend to screen out”52 the disabledis prohibited.

Prohibited unintentional dis-crimination against the disabled isknown as disparate impact53 (as op-posed to disparate treatment or in-tentional discrimination). In orderto challenge an employment stan-dard or test under the ADA, dis-abled people only must show thatthe challenged standard or test has adisproportionate adverse impact54

on the disabled claimant or on dis-abled people as a whole. They donot have to prove that the employerintended for the standard or test tobe, or even knew that the standardor test was, discriminatory.

MEDICAL EXAMINATIONSAND INQUIRIES

The Preemployment Stage

During the preemployment (ap-plication) stage of the employmentprocess, employers are not permit-ted to ask any questions or conductany medical examinations that iden-tify applicants’ disabilities or thenature and extent of their disabili-ties.55 This prohibition may even ap-ply if applicants are not disabled.56

Employers can, however, makepreemployment inquiries concerningapplicants’ ability to perform, withor without reasonable accommoda-tion, essential, job related func-tions.57 For example, employersmay ask one-legged applicants for ahome washing machine repairmanposition to explain or demonstratehow they would negotiate basementsteps carrying repair tools. How-ever, the employer may not inquireregarding the nature or severity ofthe disability.58

sought, employers are permitted totest for that skill, without accommo-dation, because applicants who can-not read are not qualified for theposition and, therefore, not pro-tected by the ADA.50

The language that Congressused in prohibiting the use of dis-criminatory employment standards,criteria, and tests makes it clear thatboth intentional and unintentionaldiscrimination violate the act. Usingstandards that “have the effect”51

of discrimination on the basis ofdisability or that “screen out or

“When accommodationof a hidden disability

is requested,employers are

permitted to ask fordocumentation to

support the request.

”

December 2000 / 19

The Conditional Offer Stage

Once employers decide to hireapplicants, they may require thoseapplicants to undergo medical ex-aminations and even make their joboffers conditional on passing themedical examinations.59 There is norequirement that these medical ex-aminations be job related or a mat-ter of business necessity. The onlyprerequisites established by thestatute are that employers requirethat all applicants (disabled andnondisabled) be subject to medicalexaminations and all medical infor-mation be kept confidential.60

If medical examinations con-ducted at the conditional offer stagereveal a disability, employers arerequired to consider reasonableaccommodations that would per-mit the disabled applicant to per-form the essential functions of thejob. If no reasonable accommoda-tion is possible, employers maywithdraw the conditional offer ofemployment.61

Medical Examinationsof Employees

Employers may require theiremployees to undergo medical ex-aminations or inquire if they aredisabled only if the inquiry or ex-amination is job related and a matterof business necessity. Practically,this limitation means that employ-ers may make inquiries regardingemployees’ disabilities or requiremedical examinations only whenquestions arise concerning their em-ployees’ ability to perform the es-sential functions of their jobs orwhen employers are required to bymedical standards, law, or business

necessity.62 Courts have taken theview that requiring employees to un-dergo fitness-for-duty examinationsdoes not violate the ADA whenthere is an honest question regard-ing the employees’ ability to per-form the essential functions of thejob or whether employees representa danger.63

employment process and may re-quire applicants and employees tosubmit to drug tests, whether or notthe tests are job-related and a mat-ter of business necessity.68

DEFENSES TODISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

In order to win a disability dis-crimination case, plaintiffs must es-tablish that they are qualified for theposition sought, can perform the es-sential functions of the job with orwithout reasonable accommodation,and suffered an adverse employ-ment action because they are dis-abled.69 If plaintiffs cannot proveany one of these elements, theirclaims may be dismissed.70

Nondiscriminatory Reasons

Once ADA claimants haveproved the basic elements of theircases, the burden shifts to employ-ers to show that the adverseemployment action was taken forlegitimate, nondiscriminatory rea-sons.71 If employers come forwardwith such reasons, the burden willshift back to the claimant to showthat the legitimate reasons offeredby employers are pretexts for dis-ability discrimination.72

Undue Hardship Limitations

Although the ADA obligatesemployers to reasonably accommo-date the disabilities of employeesand applicants, it does not requireaccommodations if they would cre-ate undue hardships on employers.73

Consequently, employers may de-fend against law suits by showingthat they failed to accommodateplaintiffs’ disabilities because theaccommodation was too costly,

Many employers have volun-tary wellness programs that includetesting for high blood pressure,weight, and disease. The ADA doesnot prohibit such medical screeningif the programs are voluntary, theinformation collected is kept confi-dential, and the information is notused to limit eligibility for healthbenefits.64

Drug Testing

Tests for the use of illegaldrugs65 are not considered medicalexaminations for purposes of theADA.66 In fact, the ADA is neutralregarding the issue of testing forillegal drugs.67 Employers conse-quently may inquire about appli-cants’ or employees’ current illegaluse of drugs at any stage of the

© Digital Stock


disruptive, extensive, or would fun-damentally alter the nature or op-eration of their business.74

Job related, Business-necessityQualifications and Standards

Some claims of disability dis-crimination allege that the em-ployer used employment qualifica-tions, standards, or tests thatscreened out or tended to screen outthe disabled. Even if that proves tobe true, employers may defend thestandards or tests by showing theyare job related, matters of businessnecessity, and that the disabilitycannot otherwise be reasonably ac-commodated.75 A standard or test isjob related if it concerns any skill ortrait that is required to do the jobunder consideration. It is a matter ofbusiness necessity if it concerns anessential function of the job appliedfor or desired.

Direct Threat Limitation

The ADA also permits employ-ers to take adverse employment ac-tions against the disabled if they candemonstrate that they pose a directthreat to the health or safety of otheremployees.76 The Supreme Courthas made it clear that the threat mustbe a significant one, as viewed fromthe perspective of employers.77 Toclaim this defense, employers mustshow that the threat assessment isobjectively reasonable, meaning itis based upon medical or other ob-jective evidence. A mere belief thatthe disabled person poses a danger,even if held in good faith, is notenough to claim this defense.78

CONCLUSION

Any employers’ decision or ac-tion that adversely impacts disabled

applicants or employees subjectsthem to claims of disabilitydiscrimination under the ADA. Dis-ability discrimination claims canarise from decisions made duringthe application process, as well asduring the employer-employee rela-tionship. Discrimination claims caneven arise when employers do notintentionally discriminate.

Many claims of workplace dis-crimination allege a failure to rea-sonably accommodate known dis-abilities of applicants or employees.The ADA obligates employers tomake such accommodations unlessto do so would create an undue

If a claim of disability discrimi-nation is made, employers may usevarious defenses. They may arguethat their decision was made forlegitimate, nondiscriminatory rea-sons. They also may show that theycould make no reasonable accom-modation for the person’s disabilitywithout undue hardship. If the claimis that the employer’s test or stan-dard resulted in discrimination, em-ployers may show that the standardor test is job related and a matter ofbusiness necessity. Employers alsomay demonstrate that hiring orkeeping the disabled employeewould pose a direct risk of harm toothers in the workplace.

Endnotes

1 42 USC 12101 et. seq.2 42 USC 12131-12165.3 42 USC 12181-12189.4 42 USC 12111-12134.5 The United States (with the exception of

Congress for some purposes), Indian tribes, andtax exempt bona fide private membership clubsare not covered by the act. See 42 USC1211(5)(B). The act also exempts employerswith fewer that fifteen employees. See 42 USC12111(5)(A). The application of the ADA tostates and state agencies is unclear. Some courtshave held that states are not subject to the ADAbecause of the provisions of the EleventhAmendment to the Constitution. See Alsbrookv. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 (8th Cir.1999).

6 For a more comprehensive discussion ofindividuals’ qualification for ADA protection,see Thomas D. Colbridge, “The Americans withDisabilities Act,” FBI Law EnforcementBulletin, September 2000, 26-31.

7 42 USC 12112(a). 8 42 USC 12203. 9 42 USC 12112(b)(1)-(7).10 42 USC 12111(9)(A) and (B).11 29 CFR Pt.1630, App. 1630.2(o).12 Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, “Enforcement Guidance:Reasonable Accommodation and UndueHardship under the Americans with DisabilitiesAct,” March 1, 1999.

“Employers are notrequired to change

the essentialfunctions of a job

in order toaccommodate a

person’s disability.

hardship for them. The ADA alsorecognizes other forms of work-place discrimination: classifyingthe disabled in a way that limitstheir employment opportunities; us-ing tests and standards that ad-versely impact the disabled; dis-criminating against people whohave a relationship with a disabledperson; and entering into a con-tract that results in, or perpetu-ates, disability discrimination againstthe employers’ own applicants oremployees.

”

December 2000 / 21

13 Id. See also Richard N. Block andBenjamin W. Wolkinson, Employment Law:The Workplace Rights of Employees and

Employers, (Oxford, UK: BlackwellPublishers, Inc. 1999), 143-144.

14 29 CFR Pt. 1630, App., 1630.9.15 Supra note 6.16 42 USC 12112(b)(5)(A).17 Burch v. Coca-Cola Co., 119 F.3d 305

(5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied 118 S. Ct. 871(1988).

18 Taylor v. Principal Financial Group,Inc., 93 F.3d 155, cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 586(1996).

19 29 CFR Pt. 1630, App., 1630.9.20 Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, “Technical assistance in theemployment provisions of the ADA: explana-tion of key legal requirements,” Bureau ofNational Affairs, January 28, 1992, DailyLabor Report, No.18.

21 Id. See also Stewart v. Happy Herman’sCheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.1997).

22 For a discussion of the concept of“essential functions” of a job, see supra note 6(Colbridge).

23 Supra note 16.24 Schmidt v. Methodist Hospital of Indiana,

Inc. 89 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 1996).25 Supra note 16.26 42 USC 12201(d).27 Keever v. City of Middletown, 145 F.3d

809 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 407(1998).

28 29 CFR Pt. 1630, App. 1630 2(o); Bensonv. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 62 F.3d 1108 (8thCir. 1995).

29 42 USC 12112(b)(5)(A).30 42 USC 12111 10(A).31 42 USC 12111 10(B).32 42 USC 12112(b)(1).33 29 CFR 1630.5.34 42 USC 12112(b)(2).35 Piquard v. City of East Peoria, 887

F.Supp 1106 (C.D.Ill. 1995).36 29 CFR Pt. 1630,App., 1630.6.3 Id.38 42 USC 12112(b)(4).39 29 CFR Pt. 1630, App. 1630.8.40 Oliveras-Sifre v. Puerto Rico Department

of Health, 241 F.3d 23 (1st Cir. 2000).41 29 CFR Pt. 1630, App., 1630.8.42 Der Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129

F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997).43 42 USC 12112(a).

see Thomas D. Colbridge, “Defining DisabilityUnder The Americans with Disabilities Act,”FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, October 2000,28-32.

66 42 USC 12114(d)(1).67 42 USC 12114(d)(2).68 Buckley v. Consolidated Edison of New

York, Incorporated, 155 F.3d 150 (2nd Cir.1998).

69 McPaul v. Board of Commissioners ofMadison County, 2000 WL 1156427 (7th Cir.2000); Otting v. J.C. Penney Company, 2000WL 1060385 (8th Cir. 2000).

70 For a fuller discussion of the concepts ofqualified individuals and disability under theADA, see supra note 6 (Colbridge); andsupra note 65 (Colbridge) October 2000,28-32.

71 McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S.792 (1973)(Title VII); Kocsis v. Mulit-CareManagement, Inc., 97 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1996).

72 Id.; Collings v. Longview Fibre Co., 63F.3d 828 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 116 S.Ct. 711.

73 42 USC 12112(b)(5)(A).74 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.2(p);

Cisneros v. Wilson, 2000 WL 1336658 (10thCir. 2000); Holbrook v. Kerrville StateHospital, 112 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 1998).

75 42 USC 12113(a).76 42 USC 12113(b); Bragdon v. Abbott,

118 S. Ct. 2196 (1998); Rizzo v. Child’s WorldLearning Centers, Inc., 213 F.3d 209 (5th Cir.2000).

77 School Board of Nassau County v. Arline,480 U.S. 273 (1987) (Rehabilitation Act case);Bragdon v. Abbott, supra note 74.

78 Id.

44 Id.45 42 USC 12112(b)(3).46 42 USC 12112(b)(6).47 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.10.48 42 USC 12112(b)(7).49 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.11.50 Id.51 Supra note 45.52 Supra note 46.53 See generally Griggs v. Duke Power

Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)(disparatetreatment claim under Title VII); Watson v.Forth Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977(1988)(Title VII claim); and Smith v. XeroxCorporation, 196 F.3d 358 (2nd Cir. 1999).

54 A disproportionate adverse impact isjudged on a case-by-case basis. Generally, theEEOC considers an adverse impactdisproportionate if the selection rate for theprotected class (in this case, disabledpersons) is less than 80 percent (4/5ths) ofthe class with the highest selection rate. Thisstandard is known as the “4/5ths Rule.” 29CFR 1607.4(D).

55 42 USC 12112(d)(2)(A); Harris v. Harris& Hart, Inc., 206 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2000).

56 Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc, 160 F.3d 591(10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied Steeltek, Inc. v.Griffin, 526 U.S. 1056 (1999).

57 42 USC 12112(d)(2)(B).58 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.14(a).59 42 USC 12112(d)(3); 29 CFR Pt.1630,

App., 1630.14(b); Buchanan v. City of SanAntonio, 85 F.3d 196 (5th Cir. 1996);Holiday v. City of Chattanooga, 206 F.3d637 (6th Cir. 2000).

60 42 USC 12112(d)(3)(A)and(B). Thereare three exceptions to this confidentialityrequirement: supervisors and managers may begiven medical information regarding restric-tions on the work and duties of the employee, aswell as an accommodations that may benecessary; safety personnel may be told ofconditions that may require their attention; andgovernment com-pliance officials may besupplied relevant information.

61 Supra note 59.62 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.14(c)63 Yin v. State of California, 95 F.3d 864

(9th Cir. 1996); Sullivan v. River Valley SchoolDistrict, 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999); Krochav. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507 (7th Cir.2000).

64 29 CFR Pt.1630, App., 1630.14(d).65 For a more comprehensive discussion of

the ADA’s treatment of drug and alcohol abuse,

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.


oday’s modern law enforcement agency rivalsnearly any Fortune 500 corporation in com-

Fine Tuning YourNews BriefingBy Ancil B. Sparks and Dennis D. Staszak

cooperation, without intentional deception. When anewsworthy event occurs, PIOs should disseminatefacts to the public as quickly as possible by bringingthem to the attention of the media. To accomplish this,PIOs frequently employ a news briefing. Using thismethod, the department quickly disseminates theinformation, the media accurately can report a story,and, ultimately, the public receives factual informa-tion and becomes better informed.

To assess their agencies’ news briefing program,PIOs should ask themselves two questions. Are theysatisfied with stable media relations programs andgood news briefings? Do they constantly strive topresent the information in the best means possible?With some fine tuning and recollection of what themedia wants, PIOs can turn news briefings intocomprehensive, first-rate performances that provevaluable to the department and the community.

PREINTERVIEW PLANNING

Designated PIOs or department spokespersonsshould consider numerous factors prior to conductinga meaningful news briefing. For instance, whenpossible, the PIOs should prepare by considering thetarget audience, anticipating questions, and practicingresponses to the questions. Further, PIOs should havean agreement or establish ground rules with the mediaprior to conducting the actual briefing. In fact, PIOscan inform reporters of particular topics they will notdiscuss during the interview, or they can agree toprovide related resource material (e.g., maps anddiagrams) after the briefing.

Analyzing the Audience

PIOs often overlook the fact that professionalreporters represent a conduit for relaying news to thecommunity. Law enforcement officials should re-member that when they talk to a reporter, they aretalking, essentially, to their community. Departmentspokespersons should conduct news briefings asthough actual community members are sitting in frontof them and listening to every word spoken. Usingthis technique may force PIOs to change their lan-guage and demeanor. They must remember that anews briefing not only conveys information, butprovides assurance to the citizens that the departmentserves its community. Similarly, law enforcement

plexity, their use of technology, and especially theirvalue to the community. As with any large corpora-tion, law enforcement agencies quickly can becomethe focus of media attention around the world whena crisis or major event occurs. Today, the publicrecognizes that law enforcement activities impactmore than just the crime rate—they can affect citi-zens’ health and social welfare and impact environ-mental and economic issues as well. Most law en-forcement executives recognize that they no longerhave a choice whether they deal with the media.Because the media covers issues of public interest,prudent managers should realize the importance ofproactively using the media as a tool to get theirdepartment’s message out to the community.

Most public information officers (PIOs) and lawenforcement spokespersons have a stable relation-ship with the media and a policy of openness and

T

Focus on the Media

© Mark C. Ide

December 2000 / 23

spokespersons always must remember that theiragency’s employees also listen to what they sayand how they say it and form opinions on theirmanagement’s leadership and support of their agency.

Anticipating the Questions

When law enforcement responds to a crisis, PIOsimmediately should consider the need to hold a newsconference and make a statement to the media. Whenthe media questioning begins, PIOs often respondwith statements, such as “I can’t comment on thatright now,” or “we are not releasing that informationyet.” Although in many cases PIOs have justificationto refuse comment on certain information, theyfrequently use those standardrefrains when unprepared toanswer a particular question.

Department spokespersonsshould take time to write downquestions that reporters could askand develop responses to them aswell. This may help PIOs recallanswers to questions asked laterand will allow for reflection on themost appropriate way to answerthe questions. Additionally, PIOsshould write down at least threequestions they would feel mostuncomfortable answering if askedby a reporter. Depending on other critical issuesinvolving the department (e.g., prior controversial useof deadly force), these written questions and answersmay or may not be on the current topic. PIOs shouldexercise time and patience when writing answers tothese questions and preparing suitable, polite, anddiplomatic statements to help keep discussions focusedon the current issue. In doing so, department spokes-persons can reinforce their own self-confidence.

Prior to actually holding the news briefing, PIOsshould practice aloud and enlist the help of their staffto help conduct a mock interview. This rehearsal willhelp them become better organized and more informedabout the topic.

PUTTING “LIFE” IN THE NEWS BRIEFING

To keep a story interesting, most reportersincorporate certain features in their report, such as

appropriate visuals, relevant sound bites, and the“human element.” Too frequently and quite uninten-tionally, PIOs conduct the news briefing withoutgiving serious thought to these features. Oftentimes,PIOs merely provide routine facts, display seizeddrugs or weapons, and then end the briefing. Mostreporters want additional information to make a storymore thorough for the public. Many times, PIOs canprovide extra information by simply giving additionalthought to the preparation and structure of the newsbriefing.

PIOs can stimulate a briefing by detailing the“how” and “why” of the issue. This will provide thereporter with a more detailed account of what hap-

pened and may help preventspeculation by the reporter “fillingin the blanks.”

Many law enforcementagencies have added additional lifeto news briefings by making theofficer, lead detective, or depart-ment subject-matter expert avail-able to answer questions uponconclusion of the prepared remarksby PIOs. Those officers who donot face the media on a routinebasis may experience anxiety orhave some reluctance about facingthe media; however, these symp-

toms vanish quickly if the officer has received priorpolice-media relations training and assistance inunderstanding and interpreting the department’s mediapolicy. Oftentimes, involving officers in news briefingsand helping them become more comfortable in re-sponding to questions, by preparing them beforehand,may even lead officers to a sense of self-pride inappearing on television and confidently representingtheir department.

POSTINTERVIEW CRITIQUE

Far too often, the absence of controversy or abilityto avoid probing questions leaves PIOs with themistaken belief that the news briefing went well,which leads them to conducting each briefing in asimilar style. After each briefing, they await, oftendays or weeks, for the next briefing while continuingwith their regular duties.

“...PIOs should havean agreement orestablish ground

rules with the mediaprior to conductingthe actual briefing.

”


PIOs should not have merely adequate newsbriefings, as this often leads an agency to a state ofcomplacency or even stagnation. PIOs can improveperformance effectively by critically examining andcritiquing their own actions and reactions afterconducting a news briefing. PIOs should consideroccasionally video recording a briefing for laterreview to determine any mannerisms, responses, oridiosyncracies that they can improve to result in moreeffective news briefings. In doing so, departmentspokespersons will find ways to physically, psycho-logically, or academically prepare themselves andbecome a believable and influential representativeof the department.

CONCLUSION

A news briefing can either glorify or destroy thereputation of the principle information officer, as well

Special Agents Sparks and Staszak teach mediarelations at the FBI Academy.

as the law enforcement agency itself. By coming tothe briefing prepared and conducting the interviewwith confidence, control, and professionalism, PIOswill help to deliver a message in a manner that thepublic will receive well. Creating an atmosphere ofmutual understanding, trust, and respect will solidifythe department, the media, and most important, thecommunity.

The PIOs should use each news briefing as anopportunity to convey a message to the public in themost effective and professional way. Criticallyreviewing and examining each media briefing will leadto changes that will make future briefings moredynamic and comprehensive.

Subscribe Now

December 2000 / 25

ADMINISTRATION

“Put It in Writing: The PolicePolicy Manual,” MichaelCarpenter, October, p. 1.

“Reviewing Use of Force: ASystematic Approach,” SamW. Lathrop, October, p. 16.

BOOK REVIEWS

Community Education andCrime Prevention: Confront-ing Foreground and Back-ground Causes of CriminalBehavior, reviewed by DjanaE. Trofimoff, August, p. 14.

Criminal Investigation Hand-book: Strategy, Law, andScience, reviewed by G.Joseph Bradley, April, p. 21.

Environmental Crime: EvidenceGathering and InvestigativeTechniques, reviewed byMichael A. Hardee,September, p. 25.

Gang Intelligence Manual:Identifying and UnderstandingModern-Day Violent Gangs inthe United States, reviewedby Louis Savelli, January,p. 18.

The Leadership Challenge,reviewed by Louis A. Dirker,October, p. 21.

Police Auditing: Theories andPractices, reviewed by LarryR. Moore, November, p. 17.

Police Management, reviewedby Larry R. Moore, July, p. 25.

Police Supervision, reviewed byArthur Bowker, May, p. 25.

Problem-Oriented Policing:Crime-Specific Problems,Critical Issues, and MakingPOP Work, reviewed by Ron-ald W. Glensor, March, p. 26.

Victims of Crimes, reviewed byThomas E. Baker, June, p. 17.

COOPERATION

“Joint Employee AssistancePrograms,” Mark Huguley,November, p. 23.

“Nationwide Application of theIncident Command System:Standardization is the Key,”Michael D. Cardwell andPatrick T. Cooney, October,p. 10.

“Policing in a Global Society,”Jeffrey L. Patterson, April,p. 7.

CRIME PROBLEMS

“Russian Organized Crime:A Criminal Hydra,” ScottO’Neal, May, p. 1.

“Sex Offender RegistrationEnforcement: A ProactiveStance to MonitoringConvicted Sex Offenders,”Bernard C. Parks andDiane Webb, October, p. 6.

“Stealing Secrets Solved: Exam-ining the Economic EspionageAct of 1996,” Thomas R.Stutler, November, p. 11.

DRUGS

“Clandestine Drug Labs: Chem-ical Time Bombs,” GuyHargreaves, April, p. 1.

ETHICS

“Color of Law Investigations,”John R. Schafer, August, p. 15.

FORENSICS

“HIV/AIDS in Law Enforce-ment: ‘What-If’ Scenarios,”John Cooley, February, p. 1.

“The Microscopic Slide: APotential DNA Reservoir,”John E. Smialek, CharlotteWord, and Arthur E.Westveer, November, p. 18.

INVESTIGATIONS

“Interacting with ‘Cults’:A Policing Model,” AdamSzubin, Carl J. Jensen, III; andRod Gregg, September, p. 16.

“Labeling Automobile Parts toCombat Theft,” Peter Finn,April, p. 10.

“Stalking-Investigation Strate-gies,” George E. Wattendorf,March, p. 10.

2000 Subject Index

CORRECTIONS

“Correctional Criminal Investiga-tors: The New Cops on theBeat,” William R. Bell, June,p. 6.

CRIME DATA

“Rethinking Investigative Priori-ties,” Gary J. Glemboski,August, p. 6.

JUVENILES

“Implementing Juvenile CurfewPrograms,” J. Richard Ward,Jr., March, p. 15.

“Juvenile Sexual Homicide,”John A. Hunter, Robert R.Hazelwood, and DavidSlesinger, March, p. 1.

“Police Eliminating Truancy:A PET Project,” William B.Berger and Susan Wind,February, p. 16.

“Runaway or Abduction?Assessment Tools for theFirst Responder,” André B.Simons and Jeannine Willie,November, p. 1.

“Violent Crimes Among Juve-niles: Behavioral Aspects,”William Andrew Corbitt, June,p. 18.

LEGAL ISSUES

“The Americans with Dis-abilities Act,” Thomas D.Colbridge, September, p. 26.

“Anonymous Tips and Frisks:Determining ReasonableSuspicion,” Michael J.Bulzomi, August, p. 28.

“Defining Disability Under theAmericans with DisabilitiesAct,” Thomas D. Colbridge,October, p. 28.

“Drug Detection Dogs: LegalConsiderations,” Michael J.Bulzomi, January, p. 27.

“Electronic Surveillance: AMatter of Necessity,” ThomasD. Colbridge, February, p. 25.

“Flight as Justification forSeizure: Supreme CourtRulings,” Michael E. Brooks,June, p. 28.

“Media Ride-Alongs: FourthAmendment Constraints,”Kimberly A. Crawford, July,p. 26.

“Prohibited DiscriminationUnder the Americans withDisabilities Act,” Thomas D.Colbridge, December, p. 14.

“Proving Guilty Knowledge,”Edward M. Hendrie, April,p. 22.

“The Qualified Privilege toProtect Sensitive InvestigativeTechniques from Disclosure,”Jayme S. Walker, May, p. 26.

“Sex Offender Registration:Community NotificationLaws,” Alan D. Scholle,July, p. 17.

“Supreme Court Cases: 1999-2000 Term,” Sophia Y. Kil,November, p. 28.

“The Supreme Court RevisitsMiranda,” Lisa A. Regini,March, p. 27.

MANAGEMENT

“An Effective AssessmentCenter Program: EssentialComponents,” Thurston L.Cosner and Wayne C.Baumgart, June, p. 1.

“Law Enforcement’s Responseto Small Aircraft Accidents,”Matthew L. Lease and Tod W.Burke, February, p. 11.

“Managing Protests on PublicLand,” Thomas R. King,September, p. 10.

“Management Training forPolice Supervisors: A Cost-effective Approach,” PatrickMahaney, July, p. 7.

“Planning for the Future,”Robert B. Richards, January,p. 8.

“Police Officer CandidateAssessment and Selection,”David A. DeCicco, December,p. 1.


OPERATIONS

“The Financial Crimes TaskForce of SouthwesternPennsylvania,” KennethW. Newman and JohnWisniewski, February, p. 20.

“Myths of Underwater RecoveryOperations,” Ronald F.Becker, September, p. 1.

“Operation Clean Sweep:Curbing Street-Level DrugTrafficking,” Michael A.Meyers, May, p. 22.

“Reducing Violent BankRobberies in Los Angeles,”William J. Rehder,January, p. 13.

“Working with Informants:Operational Recommenda-tions,” James E. Hight,May, p. 6.

PERSONNNEL

“British Policing and the OttawaShift System: Easing the Stressof Rotating Shifts,” MikeSimpson and SuzanneRichbell, January, p. 19.

“Mentoring for Law Enforce-ment,” Julie Williams,March, p. 19.

POLICE-COMMUNITYRELATIONS

“The Citizen Police Academy:Success Through CommunityPartnerships,” Giant AbutalebiAryani, Terry D. Garrett, andCarl L. Alsabrook, May, p. 16.

“The Community OutreachProgram: Putting a Face onLaw Enforcement,” WilliamHolley and Maria Fazalare,September, p. 6.

“Getting Along with CitizenOversight,” Peter Finn,August, p. 22.

“A Medical Model for Commu-nity Policing,” Joseph A.Harpold, June, p. 23.

Sending to Law EnforcementOfficers?” Anthony J.Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis,and Charles E. Miller,July, p. 1.

TECHNOLOGY

“The Advent of the ComputerDelinquent,” Arthur L.Bowker, December, p. 7.

“Biometrics: Solving Cases ofMistaken Identity and More,”Stephen Coleman, June, p. 9.

“Investigative Uses of Comput-ers: Analytical Time Lines,”Craig W. Meyer and Gary M.Morgan, August, p. 1.

“NCIC 2000,” Stephanie L. Hitt,July, p. 12.

“Protecting Children on theElectronic Frontier: A LawEnforcement Challenge,”Matt Parsons, October, p. 22.

“Unsolved Case FingerprintMatching,” December, p. 12.

TERRORISM

“Exercise ‘Baseline’: Trainingfor Terrorism,” Gary J. Rohen,January, p. 1.

TRAINING

“The Interview Challenge:Mike Simmen Versus the FBI”Owen Einspahr, April, p. 16.

“Training Patrol Officers toMediate Disputes,” Christo-pher Cooper, February, p. 7.

WHITE COLLAR CRIME

“Identity Theft: A Fast-growingCrime,” Matthew L. Lease andTod W. Burke, August, p. 8.

POLICE PROBLEMS

“Establishing a Foot PursuitPolicy: Running into Danger,”Shannon Bohrer, Edward F.Davis, and Thomas J. Garrity,May, p. 10.

“Fine Tuning Your NewsBriefing,” Ancil B. Sparks andDennis D. Staszak, December,p. 22.

“Professional Police TrafficStops: Strategies to AddressRacial Profiling,” GradyCarrick, November, p. 8.

RESEARCH

“Officers’ Perceptual Shorthand:What Messages are Offenders

December 2000 / 27


A

Alsabrook, Carl L., Officer,Rockwall, Texas, PoliceDepartment, “The CitizenPolice Academy: SuccessThrough Community Partner-ships,” May, p. 16.

Aryani, Giant Abutalebi,Vibhooti Shukla Fellow,University of Texas’ School ofSocial Sciences, Dallas, Texas,“The Citizen Police Academy:Success Through CommunityPartnerships,” May, p. 16.

B

Baumgart, Wayne C., Chief,Euclid, Ohio, Police Depart-ment, “An Effective Assess-ment Center Program: Essen-tial Components,” June, p. 1.

Becker, Ronald F., Director,Underwater Institute, South-west Texas State University,San Marcos, Texas, “Myths ofUnderwater Recovery Opera-tions,” September, p. 1.

Bell, William R., CriminalInvestigator, Department ofCorrections, Canon City,Colorado, “CorrectionalCriminal Investigators: TheNew Cops on the Beat,”June, p. 6.

Berger, William B, Chief, NorthMiami Beach, Florida, PoliceDepartment, “Police Eliminat-ing Truancy: A PET Project,”February, p. 16.

Bohrer, Shannon, FirearmsInstructor, Maryland Policeand Correctional TrainingCommissions, Sykesville,Maryland, “Establishing aFoot Pursuit Policy: Runninginto Danger,” May, p. 10.

Bowker, Arthur L., ProbationOfficer, U.S. District Court,Cleveland, Ohio, “The Adventof the Computer Delinquent,”December, p. 7.

Brooks, Michael E., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Flightas Justification for Seizure:Supreme Court Rulings,”June, p. 28.

Bulzomi, Michael J., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Anony-mous Tips and Frisks: Deter-mining Reasonable Suspi-cion,” August, p. 28; and“Drug Detection Dogs: LegalConsiderations,” January,p. 27.

Burke, Tod W., AssociateProfessor, Radford University,Radford, Virginia, “IdentityTheft: A Fast-growing Crime,”

August, p. 8; and “LawEnforcement’s Response toSmall Aircraft Accidents,”February, p. 11.

C

Cardwell, Michael D., DeputyChief, San Bernardino County,California, Sheriff’s Depart-ment, “Nationwide Applica-tion of the Incident CommandSystem: Standardization is theKey,” October, p. 10.

Carpenter, Michael, AssistantProfessor, Adirondack Com-munity College, Queensbury,New York, “Put It in Writing:The Police Policy Manual,”October, p. 1.

Carrick, Grady, Major, FloridaHighway Patrol, NortheastFlorida, “Professional PoliceTraffic Stops: Strategies toAddress Racial Profiling,”November, p. 8.

2000 Author Index

December 2000 / 29

Colbridge, Thomas D., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “TheAmericans with DisabilitiesAct,” September, p. 26;“Defining Disability Under theAmericans with DisabilitiesAct,” October, p. 28; “Elec-tronic Surveillance: A Matterof Necessity,” February, p. 25;and “Prohibited Discrimina-tion Under the Americans withDisabilities Act,” December,p. 14.

Coleman, Stephen, AssociateProfessor, Metropolitan StateUniversity’s School of LawEnforcement, Criminal Justice,and Public Safety, St. Paul,Minnesota, “Biometrics:Solving Cases of MistakenIdentity and More,” June, p. 9.

Cooley, John, Sergeant, LosAngeles, California, PoliceDepartment, “HIV/AIDS inLaw Enforcement: ‘What-If’Scenarios,” February, p. 1.

Cooney, Patrick T., DeputyChief, California Governor’sOffice of Emergency Services,Sacramento, California,“Nationwide Application ofthe Incident Command Sys-tem: Standardization is theKey,” October, p. 10.

Cooper, Christopher, AssistantProfessor, St. Xavier Univer-sity, Chicago, Illinois, “Train-ing Patrol Officers to MediateDisputes,” February, p. 7.

Corbitt, William Andrew,Officer, University of Tennes-see Police Department, Knox-ville, Tennessee, “ViolentCrimes Among Juveniles:

Behavioral Aspects,” June,p. 18.

Cosner, Thurston L., Psycholo-gist, “An Effective AssessmentCenter Program: EssentialComponents,” June, p. 1.

Crawford, Kimberly A., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “MediaRide-Alongs: Fourth Amend-ment Constraints,” July, p. 26.

D

Davis, Edward F., Instructor,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Establishing a FootPursuit Policy: Running intoDanger,” May, p. 10; and“Officers’ Perceptual Short-hand: What Messages AreOffenders Sending to LawEnforcement Officers?”July, p. 1.

DeCicco, David A., Officer,Clarkstown, New York, Police

Department, “Police OfficerCandidate Assessment andSelection,” December, p. 1.

E

Einspahr, Owen, Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “The InterviewChallenge: Mike SimmenVersus the FBI,” April, p. 16.

F

Fazalare, Maria, CommunityOutreach Specialist, FBI,Clarksburg, West Virginia,“The Community OutreachProgram: Putting a Faceon Law Enforcement,”September, p. 6.

Finn, Peter, Special Officer,Belmont, Massachusetts,Police Department, “GettingAlong with Citizen Oversight,”August, p. 22; and “LabelingAutomobile Parts to CombatTheft,” April, p. 10.

G

Garrett, Terry D., Sergeant,Rockwall, Texas, PoliceDepartment, “The CitizenPolice Academy: SuccessThrough Community Partner-ships,” May, p. 16.

Garrity, Thomas J., Jr., Chief,Collingswood, New Jersey,Police Department, “Establish-ing a Foot Pursuit Policy:Running into Danger,”May, p. 10.

Glemboski, Gary J., Lieutenant,Savannah, Georgia, PoliceDepartment, “RethinkingInvestigative Priorities,”August, p. 6.


Gregg, Rod, Lieutenant, Garland,Texas, Police Department,“Interacting with ‘Cults’: APolicing Model,” September,p. 16.

H

Hargreaves, Guy, Special Agent,DEA, Arlington, Virginia,“Clandestine Drug Labs:Chemical Time Bombs,”April, p. 1.

Harpold, Joseph A., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “A Medi-cal Model for CommunityPolicing,” June, p. 23.

Hazelwood, Robert R., VicePresident, The AcademyGroup, Inc., Manassas,Virginia, “Juvenile SexualHomicide,” March, p. 1.

Hendrie, Edward M., SpecialAgent, DEA, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “ProvingGuilty Knowledge: Caught

Red-Handed or EmptyHeaded?” April, p. 22.

Hight, James E., Special Agent,FBI, Tulsa, Oklahoma, “Work-ing with Informants: Opera-tional Recommendations,”May, p. 6.

Hitt, Stephanie L., FBI,Clarksburg, West Virginia,“NCIC 2000,” July, p. 12.

Holley, William, CommunityOutreach Program Manager,FBI, Clarksburg, West Vir-ginia, “The CommunityOutreach Program: Putting aFace on Law Enforcement,”September, p. 6.

Huguley, Mark, Major, SouthCarolina Law EnforcementDivision, Columbia, SouthCarolina, “Joint EmployeeAssistance Programs,”November, p. 23.

Hunter, John A., AssociateProfessor, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville,Virginia, “Juvenile SexualHomicide,” March, p. 1.

J

Jensen, Carl J., III, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Interact-ing with ‘Cults’: A PolicingModel,” September, p. 16.

K

Kil, Sophia Y., Honors Intern,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Supreme CourtCases: 1999-2000 Term,”November, p. 28.

King, Thomas R., Special Agent(retired), U. S. Department of

Agriculture, Missoula, Mon-tana, “Managing Protests onPublic Land,” September,p. 10.

L

Lathrop, Sam W., Captain,Beloit, Wisconsin, PoliceDepartment, “ReviewingUse of Force: A SystematicApproach,” October, p. 16.

Lease, Matthew L., GraduateStudent-Researcher, RadfordUniversity, Radford, Virginia,“Identity Theft: A Fast-growing Crime,” August, p. 8;and “Law Enforcement’sResponse to Small AircraftAccidents,” February, p. 11.

M

Mahaney, Patrick, Instructor,Federal Law EnforcementTraining Center, Glynco,Georgia, “ManagementTraining for Police Super-visors: A Cost-effectiveApproach,” July, p. 7.

December 2000 / 31

Meyer, Craig W., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Investigative Usesof Computers: Analytical TimeLines,” August, p. 1.

Meyers, Michael A., Chief,Rialto, California, PoliceDepartment, “Operation CleanSweep: Curbing Street-LevelDrug Trafficking,” May, p. 22.

Miller, Charles E., Instructor,FBI, Clarksburg, West Vir-ginia, “Officers’ PerceptualShorthand: What MessagesAre Offenders Sending to LawEnforcement Officers?” July,p. 1.

Morgan, Gary M., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Investiga-tive Uses of Computers:Analytical Time Lines,”August, p. 1.

N

Newman, Kenneth W., DeputyChief, U. S. Postal InspectionService, Washington, DC,“The Financial Crimes TaskForce of Southwestern Penn-sylvania,” February, p. 20.

O

O’Neal, Scott, Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Russian OrganizedCrime: A Criminal Hydra,”May, p. 1.

P

Parks, Bernard C., Chief, LosAngeles, California, PoliceDepartment, “Sex OffenderRegistration Enforcement: A

Proactive Stance to MonitoringConvicted Sex Offenders,”October, p. 6.

Parsons, Matt, Special Agent,U.S. Naval Criminal Investiga-tive Service, Washington, DC,“Protecting Children on theElectronic Frontier: A LawEnforcement Challenge,”October, p. 22.

Patterson, Jeffrey L., Captain,Clearwater, Florida, PoliceDepartment, “Policing in aGlobal Society,” April, p. 7.

Pinizzotto, Anthony J., ForensicPsychologist, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Officers’Perceptual Shorthand: WhatMessages Are OffendersSending to Law EnforcementOfficers?” July, p. 1.

R

Regini, Lisa A., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,

Virginia, “The Supreme CourtRevisits Miranda,” March,p. 27.

Rehder, William J., SpecialAgent, FBI, Los Angeles,California, “Reducing ViolentBank Robberies in Los Ange-les,” January, p. 13.

Richards, Robert B., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Planningfor the Future,” January, p. 8.

Richbell, Suzanne, Lecturer,Sheffield University Manage-ment School, Sheffield, En-gland, “British Policing andthe Ottawa Shift System:Easing the Stress of RotatingShifts,” January, p. 19.

Rohen, Gary J., Special Agent,FBI, Washington, DC, “Exer-cise ‘Baseline’: Training forTerrorism,” January, p. 1.

S

Schafer, John R., Special Agent,FBI, Lancaster, California,“Color of Law Investigations,”August, p. 15.

Scholle, Alan D., Special Agent,Department of Public Safety,Cedar Falls, Iowa, “SexOffender Registration: Com-munity Notification Laws,”July, p. 17.

Simons, André B., SpecialAgent, FBI, Redding, Califor-nia, “Runaway or Abduction?Assessment Tools for the FirstResponder,” November, p. 1.

Simpson, Mike, Instructor,Sheffield University Manage-ment School, Sheffield,


England, “British Policing andthe Ottawa Shift System:Easing the Stress of RotatingShifts,” January, p. 19.

Slesinger, David, DoctoralStudent, Virginia ConsortiumProgram in Clinical Psychol-ogy, Virginia Beach, Virginia,“Juvenile Sexual Homicide,”March, p. 1.

Smialek, John E., Chief MedicalExaminer, Forensic PathologyDivision, University of Mary-land, College Park, Maryland,“The Microscopic Slide: APotential DNA Reservoir,”November, p. 18.

Sparks, Ancil B., Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, “Fine Tuning YourNews Briefing,” December,p. 22.

Staszak, Dennis D., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “Fine

Tuning Your News Briefing,”December, p. 22.

Stutler, Thomas R., SpecialAgent, FBI, Oakland, Califor-nia, “Stealing Secrets Solved:Examining the EconomicEspionage Act of 1996,”November, p. 11.

Szubin, Adam, Graduate,Harvard Law School, “Inter-acting with ‘Cults’: A PolicingModel,” September, p. 16.

W

Walker, Jayme S., Instructor,DEA, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, “TheQualified Privilege to ProtectSensitive Investigative Tech-niques from Disclosure,”May, p. 26.

Ward, Richard J., Jr., Sergeant,Charlottesville, Virginia,Police Department, “Imple-menting Juvenile CurfewPrograms,” March, p. 15.

Wattendorf, George E., Dover,New Hampshire, PoliceDepartment, “Stalking-Investigation Strategies,”March, p. 10.

Webb, Diane, Detective, LosAngeles, California, PoliceDepartment, “Sex OffenderRegistration Enforcement: AProactive Stance to Monitor-ing Convicted Sex Offenders,”October, p. 6.

Westveer, Arthur E., ViolentCrime Specialist, FBI Acad-emy, Quantico, Virginia, “TheMicroscopic Slide: A PotentialDNA Reservoir,” November,p. 18.

Williams, Julie, Captain, Lan-sing, Michigan, Police Depart-ment, “Mentoring for LawEnforcement,” March, p. 19.

Willie Jeannine, Department ofJustice, Sacramento, Califor-nia, “Runaway or Abduction?Assessment Tools for the FirstResponder,” November, p. 1.

Wind, Susan, Program Director,North Miami Beach, Florida,Police Department, “PoliceEliminating Truancy: A PETProject,” February, p. 16.

Wisniewski, John A., Inspector,U. S. Postal Inspection Ser-vice, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,“The Financial Crimes TaskForce of Southwestern Penn-sylvania,” February, p. 20.

Word, Charlotte, ForensicLaboratory Deputy Director,Germantown, Maryland, “TheMicroscopic Slide: A PotentialDNA Reservoir,” November,p. 18.

The Bulletin Notes

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

Officer Fench Officer Milliman

Officers Ralph Fench and Chris Milliman of theForest Park, Georgia, Police Department responded to aburglary at a jewelry store. Upon arrival, they observed asuspect brandishing a pistol inside the store. The officerschased the suspect as he fled the store on foot. As thesubject started to cross a busy state highway, he pointedhis weapon at Officer Fench and the officers fired atthe suspect, who jumped in front of and stopped a carcarrying two females. The suspect, still armed, forced hisway into the driver’s seat. Reaching the vehicle, OfficerMilliman struggled with the suspect while Officer Fenchapproached the passenger side, seized the weapon, and

disarmed the suspect. The brave actions of OfficersFench and Milliman resulted in the arrest of thesuspect and saved two innocent motorists from injuryor kidnapping.

Officer Fitzgerald Officer Oehmke Lieutenant Nasalroad

Shortly after midnight,Officers Patrick Fitzgerald andMichael Oehmke and LieutenantLonnie Nasalroad of the St.Peters, Missouri, Police Depart-ment responded to a structure firewhere they learned that an indi-vidual with physical disabilitieswas inside. Officers Fitzgeraldand Oehmke and LieutenantNasalroad entered the burningbuilding and located the victim,

who weighs approximately 800 pounds, in a rear bedroom. The victim, who initially was unwilling toaccompany the officers from the residence, laid down on the floor so the officers could drag him tosafety. The courageous actions of Officers Fitzgerald and Oehmke and Lieutenant Nasalroad preventedthe victim from suffering serious physical injury or death.

Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be basedon either the rescue of one or more citizens orarrest(s) made at unusual risk to an officer’s safety.Submissions should include a short write-up(maximum of 250 words), a separate photograph ofeach nominee (limit 3), and a letter from thedepartment’s ranking officer endorsing the nomina-tion. Submissions should be sent to the Editor, FBILaw Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy, MadisonBuilding, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

PeriodicalsPostage and Fees PaidPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688ISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeU.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of InvestigationFederal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Law Enforcement BulletinFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535-0001Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official BusinessOfficial Business

Penalty for Private Use $300Penalty for Private Use $300

Patch Call

The patch of the Orange, Texas, Police Depart-The patch of the Orange, Texas, Police Depart-ment features the colors of the Lone Star state. An oilment features the colors of the Lone Star state. An oilwell and green trees on the patch depict two of thewell and green trees on the patch depict two of thearea’s largest industries—oil and lumber.area’s largest industries—oil and lumber.

The St. Joseph, Missouri, Police DepartmentThe St. Joseph, Missouri, Police Departmentpatch features the Pony Express rider traversing thepatch features the Pony Express rider traversing thegreat plains on the way to Sacramento, California.great plains on the way to Sacramento, California.The date “1860” depicted on the patch is the yearThe date “1860” depicted on the patch is the yearthe Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri.the Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri.

1 7 14 - leb

Documents