fbi law enforcement bulletin - april 2011

8/7/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - April 2011

1/36

April 2011

Combating Gangsters Online


2/36

1

10

24

Departments

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

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

The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodicalis necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use

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

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

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

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

FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135.

Editor

John E. Ott

Associate Editors

David W. MacWha

Stephanie Mitesser

Art Director

Stephanie L. Lowe

The Training DivisionsOutreach and Communications Unit

produces this publication withassistance from the divisions

National Academy Unit.Issues are available online at

http://www.fbi.gov.

E-mail Address

[email protected]

Cover Photo

Thinkstock.com

Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Academy,

Quantico, VA 22135.

April 2011Volume 80Number 4

Law enforcement personnel need tounderstand how to investigate gangactivity in an online environment.

A significant factor in the historyof law enforcement professionalismis training.

Officers must understand the narrowguidelines pertaining to searches ofmotor vehicles incident to the arrestof one of its occupants.

Combating

Gangsters OnlineBy Matthew ODeane

Law EnforcementProfessionalism

By Anthony J. Pinizzotto,Shannon Bohrer,

and Edward F. Davis

Searches of Motor

Vehicles Incident to Arrestin a Post-GantWorld

By Kenneth A. Myers

18 Police Practice Harnessing Technology

8 Leadership Spotlight Are You an Effective Leader?

14 Safeguard Spotlight

Exposure to Child Pornography/Exploitation Materials


3/36

April 2011 / 1

As gang members in-creasingly use theInternet, law enforce-

ment personnel need to becomemore Web savvy. Internet sites,like MySpace, YouTube, Twitter,AIM, and Facebook, continue togrow in such use, and, thus, of-

ficers need to understand how toinvestigate gang-related activityin an online environment.

will find relevant to their cases.Officers can tap into this impor-tant source of data by makingformal legal requests in a timelymanner; this process typicallyrequires a grand jury subpoena,administrative subpoena, courtorder, search warrant, or user

consent pursuant to the Elec-tronic Communications PrivacyAct (ECPA) to get the serviceproviders to comply.1 By ex-ploiting gang members online

activity, investigators use animportant weapon in the waragainst illegal gangs.

INTERNETCOMMUNICATION

Its ease of use, potentialaudience size, and reduced risk

of user detection has made theInternet one of the most promi-nent methods of gang communi-cation. Gangs of every ethnicityand age group in jurisdictions

CombatingGangsters Online

By MATTHEW ODEANE, Ph.D.

Stockphoto.com

Many of these Web sites con-tain information that investigators


4/36

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

across the nation and beyondincreasingly take advantage oftodays advanced telecommuni-

cations capabilities.Most gang members havea personal Web page (usuallythrough a free Internet service),social networking account, orchat room access. These userscan create profile pages, whichmay include general biographi-cal information; lists of theirfavorite musicians, books, andmovies; photos, at times featur-ing them and their friends dis-

playing gang-related hand signsor holding weapons; videosof themselves and associates,perhaps even talking openlyabout their exploits; and linksto related Web pages. They alsocan send and receive personalmessages and communicate pri-vately in chat rooms. The more

sophisticated home pages sharea number of common elements,such as unique slang; members

e-mail addresses; forums forgangsters opinions; sectionsdedicated to honoring deceasedmembers; and links to affiliategangs e-mail addresses andWeb sites.

Gangsters conduct varioustypes of activity online. Manyof them routinely place videoson YouTube featuring themeven, at times, singing abouttheir criminal lifestyles. Oth-

ers advertise prostitutes on theInternet. Members of gangsuse Web sites to glorify theirgroup and its members; recruitnew gangsters; inform othermembers of meetings, parties,and other relevant informa-tion; commit criminal activity,such as intellectual property

crimes, identity theft, and fraud;conduct recruitment activities;provoke rival groups through

derogatory postings; and spreadtheir message and culture.

VARIETY OFINFORMATION

Many times, officers willfind gang-related Web pages;secure sites that require pass-words accessible only to gangmembers; or links to gangstersinstant messaging, e-mail,audio, or text-messaging ser-

vices. On other occasions,investigators may locate one viaan informant who may pro-vide, if necessary, a name andpassword needed to access andexplore the site. Or, an officerwill formally request the neededinformation.

Gang members Web pagesoften help to prosecute them.While pursuing pertinent on-line information, investigators

must understand the law andrecognize exactly what they andthe service providers can do.Officers also should know howgang members use the Internetand should use against themtheir desire for recognition andrespect in their subculture.

Basic Subscriber Data

Basic subscriber informa-

tion may include gangsters firstand last names, user identifica-tion number, e-mail address,registered mobile number,

Dr. ODeane, a former detective, is an investigator with the San DiegoCounty, California, District Attorneys Office and is an adjunctprofessor at Kaplan, Brandman, and National Universities.

Its ease of use,potential audience size,and reduced risk of userdetection has made theInternet one of the mostprominent methods ofgang communication.


5/36

April 2011 / 3

Internet protocol (IP) addressat the time of sign-up, dateand time of account creation,

and most recent logins (gener-ally the last 2 to 3 days priorto processing the request). Ingeneral, successful data retriev-al depends on the investigatorfinding a gangsters user ID,group ID, or the associated username or group name; officerscan locate this information bychecking the e-mail addressesconnected with gang membersaccounts.

The author has had suc-cess by accessing and explor-ing informants accounts (upongaining their consent) to findinformation on targetsoftenfellow gang membersof in-vestigations and then taking thenecessary steps to gain addition-al data (e.g., a users name, dateof birth, address, gender, andprivate message information).When dealing with service pro-viders, investigators will benefitby having valuable informa-tion up front. Requests withoutspecifics typically require moretime and effort to identify a par-ticular user account. Generally,officers will need a court orderunder Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec-tion 2703 (d); a search warrant;or user consent.

IP Log-In RecordsInvestigators can access logsshowing the IP address assignedto users and the dates and times

that they accessed their profiles.The process required to obtainhistorical records typically in-

cludes a grand jury subpoena oradministrative subpoena underTitle 18, U.S. Code, Section2703 (c)(2); a court order; asearch warrant; or user consent.Prospectively capturing log-inIPs typically requires a pen reg-ister/trap-and-trace order underTitle 18, U.S. Code, Section3121.

Private Messages

Private messages in a gang-sters inbox remain availableuntil the individual removesthem. Service providers do notmaintain copies of messagesmarked for deletion by a userand cannot recover them oncedeleted. And, without an alreadyoperational Title III wiretap,

investigators have no access tothem. Gang members privatemessages not manually deletedstay in the sent box for 14 days.

Additionally, bulletins sent fromand held for users on serviceprovider servers are available.

To obtain messages lessthan 180 days old, investigatorsneed a search warrant underTitle 18, U.S. Code, Section2703 (a); or user consent. Forolder messages, officers need asubpoena or court order wherethe government provides priornotice to the subscriber (or de-lays notice under Title 18, U.S.Code, Section 2705), a searchwarrant, or user consent. For

example, an investigator maypresent a warrant asking theprovider for records pertainingto a particular user ID, includ-ing the persons name, postalcode, country, and e-mail ad-dress; date of account creation;IP address at account sign-up;logs showing IP address anddate stamps for account ac-cesses; and the contents ofthe users inbox and sent mailfolder.

Photoprint

The photoprint is a compila-tion of all photos uploaded andnot deleted by the user, alongwith those uploaded by anotherindividual and featuring a tagof the user of interest. A requestshould specify photo printsrelated to a particular user ID.

Officers should remember thatthese pictures typically are de-livered in PDF format and con-tain profile information, such

investigatorsmust understand the

law and recognizeexactly what they andthe service providers

can do.


6/36


as links to other photos, videos,and blogs. The process requiredto get this information involves

a grand jury or administrativesubpoena; court order in whichthe government provides priornotice to the subscriber underTitle 18, U.S. Code, Section2703 (b)(2) (or delays noticeunder Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec-tion 2705); search warrant; oruser consent.

Videos

Gang members often post

videos of themselves, some-times conducting incriminatingactivity, on Web sites, such asYouTube. These videos providean excellent way to prove thatindividuals in an investiga-tion are gang members. As thevideos are public domain, theyneed simply to be downloaded.Later, they can serve as valuableevidence for a jury.

Forensic EvidenceIn many cases, a tremen-

dous amount of information,such as instant messenger chatand client logs, may exist on thegangsters personal computerof course, not in the possessionof the service provider. Cookiedata can remain on a gangsterscomputer for extended periodsof time if the individual did not

clear it after using the machineto access an ISP account. In-vestigators easily can find thatinformation. The same is truewith cached pageselectronic

copies of viewed pagesstoredon the local machine until theuser or computer removes them.

This can include viewedimages.To obtain such information,

investigators should includepersonal computers in all gang-related search warrants whenappropriate and should searchand seize the machines in ac-cordance with these warrants togather as much evidence against

officers can have a program thatnot only will follow people inreal time but provide turn-by-

turn directions on how to getto them. Gangsters often wanttheir friends to know wherethey are, but, if their friendsknow, so can their enemies.Many of these individuals adda location to their tweets lettingall of their friends know wherethey are. This, of course, can beused by rival gang members tofind or set them up by intercept-ing tweets or by having associ-

ates pass these messages alongto them.

PROCUREMENTPROCEDURES

For information requests,service providers need the iden-tity of requesting officers; theiragency; employer-issued e-mailaddress; telephone contact,including area code and exten-sion; and department mailing

address (a post office box oftenwill prove insufficient). Theyalso must have a response duedate, which typically shouldallow them at least 2 to 4 weeksfor processing. Service provid-ers also should receive frominvestigators specific detailspertaining to the account, suchas dates of interestdata per-taining to large periods of time

may be unavailable or laborintensive to retrieve. Most ofthe communication betweenthe requesting officer and theservice provider will be via

a gangster as possible. Thesesearch warrants are defined un-der Title 18, U.S. Code, Section2703.

Location Tools

Investigators also can takeadvantage of applications thatcan allow someone to locatea cellular telephone from a

computer or another cell phone.While designed to locate a lostcellular device, these applica-tions can find a potential victimjust as well. For a nominal cost,

iStockphoto.com


7/36

April 2011 / 5

e-mail, including the returneddata, which also may be mailedon storage media.

Many times, such requestsinvolve costs that may needmanagement approval. Serviceproviders typically reserve theright to charge reasonable fees,where permissible, to cover thecost of replying to user data re-quests, such as search warrantsor subpoenas. Title 18, U.S.Code, Section 2706, defines andgoverns these compensationmatters. This does not require

government agencies seekingcertain categories of informa-tion to pay for subpoena com-pliance unless the request isoverly burdensome.

Search Warrants

As with all warrants, inves-tigators need to explain whythey need the information. Forexample, officers may want totell the judge that based on their

training and experience, theyknow that gang members andtheir crimes are inherently con-spiratorial in nature and involvecontinual and regular contactbetween the gangsters. As such,the investigators would believethat by securing the requestedinformation for the appropriatetime period that they will collectsufficient evidence to identify

the criminals.And, just like every othersearch warrant, officers need toidentify the account informationof interest and the items they

intend to seize. Further, in-vestigators should specify theaddress, but include language

covering allstorage locationsowned, maintained, controlled,or operated by the provider.This is in case the data is storedat a location other than theheadquarters address.

of future process or sign formsthat promise such.

In these situations, service

providers will supply informa-tion pursuant to Title 18, U.S.Code, Sections 2702 (b)(6)(C)and 2702 (c)(4). Emergency dis-closures are not compelled, butvoluntary on the part of the pro-vider, who may refuse withoutlegal consequence. Often, theyseek information, the amountof their choice, to enable themto determine whether an emer-gency exists. Typically, an

emergency disclosure statementby law enforcement, includinga description of the nature ofthe emergency (e.g., potentialbodily harm or kidnapping), isrequired; and, even though theguidelines may vary slightlybetween service providers, mostrequire essentially the samefacts.

Pursuant to Title 18, U.S.Code, Sections 2702 (b)(7) and2702 (c), officers need to giveas much information as pos-sible to persuade the provider tosupply the information needed.Investigators should seek onlyinformation they believe willassist them in protecting thosepotentially affected by the emer-gency. Officers must attest thatthe request is true and accurateto the best of their knowledge

and sign the request.

User Consent

Similar to when they knockon doors and ask for consent

A search of

the cyber worldshould be part ofevery major ganginvestigation.

Emergency Disclosures

Web providers voluntarilycan disclose information, in-cluding user identity, log-ininformation, private messages,and other data, to federal, state,or local authorities when theybelieve in good faith that anemergency involving dangerof death or serious physicalinjury to any person requiressuch disclosure without delay.Emergency disclosures must

meet the threshold requirementsof the ECPA as demonstrated inwriting by the requestor. Lawenforcement officers must becareful not to include a promise


8/36


to search, officers can do es-sentially the same with Internetservice providers. Informationcan be obtained pursuant to the

voluntary consent of the userper Title 18, U.S. Code, Sec-tions 2702 (b)(3) and 2702 (c)(2). Authentication of the trueidentity of the user must beprovided and articulated in theconsent request (e.g., a nota-rized consent letter).

OTHER REQUESTS

Disabling Accounts

Most providers will not dis-able an account if it will jeopar-dize an ongoing investigation.Officers not wanting targets toknow that their account is being

note that gangsters can continuemodifying the information ontheir page as before and that

these actions will not affectthe stored copy retained by theservice provider.

Officers should not rou-tinely seek preservation of alldata, only what they intend toobtain through the legal pro-cess. Otherwise, providers willbe preserving, in some cases,a vast amount of data, perhapsnot valuable to law enforcementpersonnel.

Officers should tell serviceproviders that failure to complywith the request could subjectthem to liability under Title 18,U.S. Code, Section 2707 andask that they do not disclose theexistence of the request to thesubscriber or any other personunless necessary. Investiga-tors also must ensure that theyprovide a means for providersto contact them; they furthershould thank these individualsfor cooperating. Once informa-tion in an active account hasbeen preserved, the account willremain active, and the user willnot be prevented from logginginto it. Any request to restrictthe users access to the profileshould be based on investiga-tors assessment of whether thiswould impede the investigation.

CASE EXAMPLES

To gain a greater under-standing of how gang membersonline activities can help in

investigated shouldclearly specifynot to disable an

account until aparticular date.Conversely, inves-tigators who wantan account disabledimmediatelytostop threats, forexampleand whodo not care if thetarget knows canindicate that it isnot a problem to

disable the account.

PreservingRecords

In accordancewith Title 18, U.S.Code, Section2703 (f), providers

must comply with requests bylaw enforcement to preserveinformation for 90 days with anextension for another 90 days

upon a renewed request perTitle 18, U.S. Code, Section2703 (f)(2). Pending the issu-ance of a subpoena or searchwarrant, providers will preserveinformation in accordance withthe law but will not producedata until receipt of a valid legalrequest. When service providersreceive a preservation request,they merely save a copy of the

information they possess, whichwill be retained and later pro-vided to law enforcement uponpresentation of legal process.However, investigators should

Thinkstock.com


9/36

April 2011 / 7

investigations, officers canbenefit from real-world ex-amples. To this end, the author

offers three cases.Case #1

A gang member testifiedin court against his associateswho committed two murders.Just prior to taking the stand,the witness received threats viainstant messaging, which herelied on to stay updated aboutgoings-on in the gang. Particu-larly disturbing were a common

greeting for his fellow gangmembers followed by a threatto his family and a listing ofhis home address. Clearly, thissituation demanded immediateattention.

With the witness consent,the author examined the phoneand obtained the necessaryinformation to get a warrantto identify the source of thethreats. The service provider

was contacted, and a warrantwas drafted that resulted about5 hours later in the identifi-cation of the account holdersending the threats. The follow-ing day, the fugitive task forcearrested this individual. As itturned out, a gangster in courthad been relaying informationto a fellow gang member inanother state. This individual

then forwarded the texts to thewitness in an attempt to gethim to recant or fail to testify.Fortunately, it did not work.The witness took the stand and

testified, and a bold statementwas made to the gang: Thosewho make threats against a wit-

ness in a gang casein personor onlinewill be held account-able for their actions.

Case #2

In another case, four gangmembers arrested for involve-ment in a shooting were await-ing trial in county jail. Allinitially claimed they were notactive members. However, a

communicating that he was ona murder mission. He provid-ed his gang name, moniker, and

specific photos showing his tat-toos; his identity and home ad-dress later were determined.After a short surveillance, offi-cers arrested him and conduct-ed a search of his car and home,finding several guns and a lot ofgang evidence. The arrest nev-er would have been made if notfor the creative and proactive ap-proach taken by investigators touse the gangs desire for recog-

nition against them.

CONCLUSION

Investigators have access tomuch information online thatcan help them in their casesagainst gang members. A searchof the cyber world should bepart of every major gang in-vestigation; it should not bean untapped resource in anyjurisdiction. Officers should

take advantage of the informa-tion superhighway to make thecommunity safer and success-fully prosecute gangsters byusing against them their desireto be well-known, respected, andfeared. It takes effort and timebut has proven in many cases tobe well worth it.

Endnotes1 Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2701, et

seq. For additional guidance on the issues

discussed in this article, access the Web site

of the U.S. Department of Justice, Comput-

er Crime and Intellectual Property Section

(CCIPS) at http://www.cybercrime.gov/.

visitor took cell phone picturessubsequently posted on MyS-pace of two of them throwingup gang signs while waiting ina holding tank for the trial tobegin. Once confronted with thephotos, they stopped their deni-als of gang affiliation. Further,investigators knew when andwhere the photos were taken.

Case #3

On a Web page, a gangmember had pictures of him-self holding several guns and

Gang membersWeb pages oftenhelp to prosecute

them.


10/36

Leadership Spotlight

Regardless of our rank or assignment,we all are potential leaders. Most ofus talk about, aspire to, learn of, and, at times,fail at leadership. You may picture it in yourminds eye but be unable to explain or describeleadership. We all know various types of lead-ers, including those we would follow into theworst of situations, expecting success. How-ever, others we probably would not want evento accompa-ny across thestreet.

The posi-tive and nega-tive attributesthat encom-pass a leadership style vary just as we do. Forsome individuals, leadership comes naturally.Others must try many styles and approachesbefore finding the one that works for them.Some never may find the right fit. Ultimately,

there are good, bad, and weak leaders.All such personnel can be grouped intothree categories: leaders, evil managers, andineffective managers.1 Leaders tend to gener-ate commitment in most people they supervise.They lead by example, both professionallyand personally. Though they fail on occasion,overall they consistently discipline themselvesto demonstrate recognized leadership behav-iors in their dealings with others.2 You willremember these leaders when you look backon your career as a police officer. Such high-

quality leaders may have confronted you fromtime to time, but they also listened to you and

Are You an Effective Leader?

knew more about you than, perhaps, some ofyour friends.

Evil managers are the antithesis of theirleader counterparts. They are consistently de-structive to the organizational culture and toemployees, and they are widely distrusted anddespised throughout the agency. They are ego-tistical and self-centered, and they have a pred-atory perspective on others. They may have

strong ethicaland characterproblems andoften engagein inappropri-ate behavior.3

You will re-member these individuals and swear that younever will treat others as they did.

Ineffective managersare basically ethi-cal and caring people like their leader counter-parts; however, they do not consistently prac-

tice and demonstrate good leadership behaviorwith their subordinates. They are not dislikedby the rank and file, but neither are they re-spected. They are perceived by most as wishy-washy and inconsistent. Employees cannottrust them to stand behind them.4 These in-dividuals may know something about goodleadership, but they cannot accomplish it. Ona positive note, they basically are good peoplewho can improve if they so desire. Such per-sonnel may be new in their positions and havemuch to learn. Perhaps they have lost their way

and, with proper guidance and support, canturn their leadership abilities around.



11/36

April 2011 / 9

Commander Cory Amend of the Broomfield, Colorado,Police Department prepared thisLeadership Spotlight.

Leadership is an individual matter. Whatworks for one person may not work forsomeone else. Also, leadership encompassesmany things: knowledge, skills, attitude,presence, perseverance, humility, adapt-ability, and creativity. You can follow strate-gies that may help improve your leadershipabilities.

Find a mentor. Locate someoneyou trust and learn from them. Ask themwhat has and has not proven successful.Explain your thought processes and howyou made some of your decisions. Hope-fully, these conversations will exposeyou to new thoughts and experienceswithout the firsthand pain of someoneelses mistakes.

Seek feedback. Find other peoplewilling to provide honest, criticalfeedback. Seek it at various times andfor different reasons. Do not ask forfeedback only when you want positivereinforcement. Some of the most effec-tive feedback comes after unsuccessfuldecisions. It also may prove ideal to havethis feedback from a variety of levels orperspectives. If possible, find someoneabove your rank, another at your level,and a third below your rankperhaps,the most difficult source from which toreceive honest feedback.

Read. Some of the most successfulleaders have been avid readers. Writerand politician Joseph Addison wrote,

Reading is to the mind what exerciseis to the body. Discover different pointsof view on all sorts of topics. Read aboutthings you like. Learn about things unfa-miliar to you. Become a student oflearning.

Be empathetic. People around youwant to know they can bring things toyour attentionboth good and bad. Be a

listener. You do not always have to be aproblem solver. Theodore Roosevelt oncesaid, Nobody cares how much you know,until they know how much you care.How do we move organizations forward ifthe people around us are afraid to talk withus about critical issues?

Ultimately, your leadership style is up toyou. Maybe you still are figuring out yourleadership style. Or, perhaps you already area top leader. Chances are you are not thereyet, but, you can get there. Like many otherimportant things in life, being a good leadertakes hard work and continued effort.

Endnotes1 Jack Enter, Challenging the Law Enforcement Organi-

zation (Dacula, GA: Narrow Road Press, 2006).2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Ibid.


12/36


American law enforcementis professional, effec-tive, efficient, and, often,

regarded as a model to followworldwide. Some would hold thata significant factor in the historyof this professionalism is train-ing, which imparts the knowledge,skills, and attitudes that form itsfoundation.

The recent deep economicdecline in this country negativelyaffected city, county, and state

governments. In response, theseentities made drastic budget cutsthat impacted most public serviceorganizations in all jurisdictions.Law enforcement executives nowmust reduce budgets that, in manycases, they viewed as inadequateto begin with. Deciding whatto cut while, at the same time,continuing to provide adequatesafety to their communities andmembers of their agencies is a

daunting task. Historically, chiefsand sheriffs have attempted tocover budget cuts by not replacingmembers who retire or leave theiragencies. Today, this measure maynot make up the budget shortfall.Some view decreasing recruittraining as preferable to eliminat-ing current employees. Addition-ally, in-service training frequentlyis reduced to the minimum state

Police Officer Standards andTraining (POST) requirements.While often hard to justify, how-ever, training constitutes the glueof effectiveness that forms thefoundation for successful lawenforcement efforts.

Law EnforcementProfessionalismTraining Is the KeyBy ANTHONY J. PINIZZOTTO, Ph.D., SHANNON BOHRER, M.B.A.,

and EDWARD F. DAVIS, M.A.

Mark C. Ide


13/36

April 2011 / 11

Mr. Bohrer, a retired Maryland State

Police sergeant and range masterfor the Maryland Police and Cor-rectional Training Commissions, isa self-employed law enforcementinstructor and consultant.

Dr. Pinizzotto, a retired FBI senior

scientist, is a clinical forensicpsychologist who privately consultsfor law enforcement and othercriminal justice agencies.

Mr. Davis, a retired police

lieutenant and FBI Academyinstructor, owns a privateconsulting company inVirginia.

Placing scarce resources upfront in training can producesafe, effective, and efficient of-

ficers, supervisors, and adminis-trators, which can lessen operat-ing costs in the long run. As anold advertisement for oil filterspointed out, You can pay menow, or you can pay me later,the idea being that sometimes asmall investment can result inlarge savings. The cost of an oilfilter is minor compared withthat of an engine. The sameholds true for law enforcement

training.

NECESSITY OFTRAINING

In many ways, these dif-ficult economic times shouldcause agencies to reevaluatetheir training needs, including

the topics covered, the meth-odology used, and the effec-tiveness achieved. With fewer

available resources, law en-forcement organizations need toensure that with their training,they are doing the right thingand doing it the right way.1What is the cost to a depart-ment for an illegal arrest, use ofexcessive force, or a wrongfuldeath? It seems reasonable toassume that if training couldprevent these events, it wouldbe done. Of course, even with

the right training, these still canoccur. Conversely, without suchtraining these incidents willtake place and probably morefrequently. Training is rarelyviewed from the perspective ofrisk management, yet a directrelationship exists.

HOUSE OF TRAINING

Thinking of police train-ing as a house can illustrate

how to divide the process intofour categories. While eachhas a different purpose, all ofthe training is interrelated andinterdependent, just as the foun-dation, walls, and roof supportand form a structure.

1) Entrance-level training(initial knowledge, skills,and attitudes for newofficers)

2) In-service training (main-tenance of skills taught inentrance level, along withknowledge about new laws,enforcement procedures,and safety practices)

3) Supervisor training (spe-cific information tailored


14/36


to overseeing rank-and-filemembers and to developinginstructional abilities)

4) Administrator training(influences direction andoperational effectivenessof the organization)

The authors offer these fourcategories of training only asa guide that can represent thetraining in any agency. Notmeant to be all inclusive, thesedo not encompass every pos-sible training need, but give an

overall view. When examiningtheir training needs, agenciesshould take the overall view be-cause training greatly influencesand shapes the interdependencyand interrelationships of theirofficers, units, and ranks andaffects every law enforcementfunction.

Entrance-Level Training

Viewing police training as

a house requires starting withsound raw materials: the re-cruits. The right training canshape the recruit into a poten-tially long-term effective andefficient employee. Entrance-level training does not end orfinish the training process but,rather, allows the recruit tooperate with minimum super-vision and to continue learn-ing through experiences and

in-service training. Selectingquality recruits is like choos-ing the best materials to buildthe foundation of a house. After

all, everything else sits on thefoundation. Without the properfoundation materials (the recruit

and the entrance-level training),the long-term product has noguarantee of success.

Maintenance Training

As with any house, policetraining must be maintained.This involves the in-service andspecialized continuum of train-ing that officers need. Select-ing appropriate candidates and

and specialized training, justlike the initial recruit selectionand training, as a long-term in-

vestment. Building a house wellwith a solid foundation creates apositive investment, but, with-out maintenance, unexpectedproblems will develop.

Supervisor Training

Even with the proper main-tenance, at some point, a housemay need remodeling. Thesame holds true in police train-ing. Oftentimes, agencies select

officers who excel at a particu-lar skill to become supervisorsand trainers, which does notalways work well. Those whomold and build the raw materi-als (the recruits) into effectiveand efficient officers and whotake seasoned professionalsand form them into supervisorsand managers need to receivespecific training following an

extensive selection process. Su-pervising and instructing othersrequire not only subject-matterexpertise but also the ability toaccurately convey knowledge toothers. Continued training forsupervisors and instructors mustinclude evaluating their trainingskills and how well they applythem.

Administrator Training

The final category, admin-istrator training, frequently isoverlooked. Agencies often as-sume that officers who worked

providing sound entrance-leveltraining began the process ofturning the raw materials (re-cruits) into the solid structure.When quality recruits receivethe correct entrance-level train-ing, they gain the knowledge,skills, and attitudes to becomeeffective and efficient officers

for a long time. However, if thetraining stops at that point, theirefficiency can decline. Agenciesshould view regular in-service

Law enforcementexecutives now mustreduce budgets thatin many cases, they

viewed as inadequateto begin with.


15/36

April 2011 / 13

the streets, arrested people, andbecame supervisors or train-ers have gained the necessary

experience. Arguments havebeen made in both directionson this topic, with both hav-ing valid points. One argumentis that all of the precedingtrainingas an officer, supervi-sor, or trainerhelped preparethe individual for the position.The counter argument holdsthat all of the previous train-ing was targeted toward thoseprevious assignments, whereas

administrative positions requireadditional skills. Supervisorssupervise people and managersmanage programs, but adminis-trators need all of these abilitiesplus leadership. Another validargument could be made thatadministrators are the most im-portant because they determinethe training content, budget,and direction of their agencies.Administrator training also canprove difficult to obtain becauseonly a few nationally recog-nized law enforcement train-ing academies, such as the FBINational Academy, offer suchcourses.

When comparing policetraining to a house, administra-tors represent the long-term in-vestment potential that all homeowners recognize as the bottom

line. Using the best materials,performing continual mainte-nance, and remodeling portionswhen needed culminate in a

structure that can last throughmany generationsso also canlaw enforcement agencies thatunderstand the importance ofwell-trained leaders who canmove their organizations for-ward through whatever chal-lenges they may face.

CONCLUSION

Training should be viewedas an investment law enforce-ment agencies make for thepresent and future. With fis-cal restrains, however, it oftenbecomes one of the first casu-alties. Because training formsthe center of law enforcementeffectiveness and efficiency,administrators have a fiduciaryresponsibility to examine theresources they use to ensure that

their citizens are getting theirmoneys worth. Questioningtheir training programs, content,and projected benefits can prove

a better course of action thanmerely halting training altogeth-er. After all, recruiting, hiring,and training officers who worka long and productive careerfrom recruitment to retirementrepresents a lofty goal that everychief and sheriff tries to attain.By doing so, these leaders cansafeguard their communities not

only for the short term but forfuture generations.

Endnotes1 The authors based this article on

their personal experiences in the law

enforcement profession and on three main

references: Peter Senge, The Fifth Disci-

pline: The Art and Practice of the Learning

Organization (New York, NY: Broadway

Business, 1994); Walter Dick and Lou

Carey, The Systematic Design of Instruc-

tion (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little

Brown Higher Education, 1990); and Robert

Gagne and Karen Medsker, The Conditions

of Learning: Training Applications (Fort

Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace and Company,

1996).

Mark C. Ide


16/36

Safeguard Spotlight

Most officers who investigate or assistin cases involving exposure to childexploitation materials (CEMs) wittingly or un-wittingly spend time and energy learning how tomaster the skill of compartmentalizationusingtheir personal psychological resources to separatethemselves from the toxicity of these graphicimages and videos. Compartmentalization helpsinvestigators operate within a space of wellnesswhere they can continue to work without havingthese materials bleed excessively into their rela-tionships, religious faith, and sense of safety inthe world. Their success in this endeavor provescrucial to preserving what they hold most dear.

Coping with Line-of-Duty Exposure toChild Pornography/Exploitation MaterialsBy Nicole Cruz, Ph.D.

Individuals commonly assume that compart-mentalization is a one-dimensional skill that ev-eryone does the same way. However, as a clinicalpsychologist who provides, through testing andinterviews, robust annual psychological assess-ments to a team of approximately 500 investiga-tors exposed to CEMs, I have witnessed individu-als compartmentalize in a variety of ways as amethod of coping. I see some of the brightest,most highly skilled professionals use creative,thoughtful ways to process their responses toCEMs so they can continue to work on thesecases. The end result may look the same for everyindividualthe person has found a way to copewith the unthinkable.

Many members of the team have grown ac-customed to people asking them, with a look ofdismay and, perhaps, disgust, How can you dothat job? They may not know that they areasking a thoughtful, intricate question: How

do people process and cope with the sight

of infants and children being exploited,tortured, degraded, and raped? Uponcloser inspection, I have found thatpeople use various coping styles that

access different personal strengthsso that they can survive the con-

tent of CEMs. Compartmen-talization skills may manifestthemselves as strong or

flexible mental abilities, aninnate ability to repress, orwillful or unconscious en-

gagement in behaviorsthat make investiga-tors shift gears.



17/36

April 2011 / 15

Many officers haphazardly stumble upon theirstrengthsthey have an uncanny ability to usetheir cognitive labeling skills to quickly catego-

rize images, thus distracting them from the per-sonal or emotional perspective. Others, throughpainful trial and error, finally discover their way;for example, they decompress from work stressduring their drive home and then spend time withtheir children to separate themselves from thejob. Some investigators bravely discover that theyshould not do this kind of work. Others, sadly, tryto cope in ways that they imagine one shouldperhaps, like their colleagues. In comparingthemselves with others, they muddy their ownprocess of discovering their coping style and cast

doubt on their abilities.Some of the most reassuring support that I

have provided to investigators has been in thevalidation of their coping strengths, as well astheir vulnerabilities, through the clinical interviewand psychological test findings. Investigatorsmust recognize their strengths and have insightinto their personal coping styles. It normalizes theprocess for them as they realize that they comprisepart of a larger community doing this type ofwork. This practice also may encourage officersto stop trying to emulate their colleagues copingstyles and discover their own, which always is themore resilient option.

Potential vulnerabilities correspond with ev-ery coping option. As a rule, it proves helpful toremember that any coping skill can be dysfunc-tional if it becomes excessive, rigid, or distortedwith use. For example, officers who, as a copingstyle, expertly label disturbing images may findthat they also numb their emotions when dealingwith family stressors. Thus, investigators mustdevelop one or more strong relationships (e.g., co-

workers, a spouse, family members) with peopleclose to them and willing to let the officers knowif they have changed in ways unhealthy for themor those around them.

While psychologically assessing officers ex-posed to CEMs, I have discovered eight commoncoping styles, along with accompanying vulner-

abilities. Investigators can identify their top threeand consider the potential vulnerabilities andways to counteract them.

1) Emergency Workers

Naturally compartmentalize well

Have had none or little obvious work/homespillover

Typically have had a history of workingwith critical incidents (e.g., have seen dis-membered bodies in the line of duty)

Use compartmentalization skills that feelfamiliar

Negatives

Unconscious crossover stress from work,noticed more by others (e.g., increasinggrumpiness)

Harder to treatindividuals do not want toadmit a weakness

May have more psychosomatic difficulties(e.g., I feel great, but I have high blood

pressure.) Numb themselves in situations outside of

work (e.g., Why is everyone around me soemotional?)

2) Athletes

Diffuse stress physically (e.g., exercise,yoga)

Engage the mind-body connection

Typically are disciplined (e.g., exercise 3 or

more times per week) Stay fitincrease overall sense of wellness

and competency


18/36


Negatives

Must rely on a rigid schedule and a highenergy level

Depend on an external coping skill and arevulnerable if unable to exercise and withoutanother coping style

3) Challenge Seekers

See difficulties as challenges

Have a resilient perspective

May try different coping styles to mastertasks and stress

Sharpen existing coping skills

Negatives

Sometimes apply undue pressure onthemselves

May let their guard down (become compla-cent) when they feel comfortable, giving theperception that they have reached masterylevel and, thus, needing to continuously usethis coping style

4) Team Players

Actively engage with coworkers (e.g., usedark humor)

Develop supportive relationships on andoff the job

Can vent, or express their feelings, well

Use healthy processing of emotions

Make excellent colleagues/teammates

Create a safe environment in which peoplecan process their responses to images

Negatives Although team players, have to work solo

May have a team comprised of distant rela-tionships or, perhaps, featuring personswho cause stress

5) Ritualists

Develop rituals (e.g., playing with kids,prayer) to diffuse stress or to help

compartmentalize Have developed a creative and hardy

approach to coping

Engage in therapeutic coping that could havehealing properties

May engage their existential/spiritualbeliefs

Make good use of timeless time consum-ing in the long run to develop a ritual

Negative

May need to complement rituals with othercoping methods

6) Professionals

Focused on the evidence, not the personalelement

Mentally diffuse/compartmentalize thecontent

Use what psychologists may label as acognitive strategyincreases coping

abilities

Negatives

May minimize the strength of the evidence

Could have difficulties processing the affec-tive component and its impact, or when theyneed a break (enough is enough)

7) Pragmatists

Were volunteered to do this dutywas notan option

May just be focusing on what is practicalto them

Want to work this duty partly becauseit works well with their schedule orcommute


19/36

Negatives

May not stop when they should

May minimize their personal difficulties

May not invest in support to the degree ofwhat they need

Most vulnerable to burnout (personally andsystemically)

So, if investigators handle cases that involveexposure to CEMs and someone asks them thequestion, How do you do that kind of a job? theycan have additional insight into the true response.In summary, they can say, I can do it because Ihave found a way to. The quiet, indestructibleinstinct to protect children can be one of the mostpowerful motivators.

Dr. Nicole Cruz of the FBIs Undercover Safeguard Unit(USU) prepared thisSafeguard Spotlight. USU providesguidance and support for personnel exposed to child por-nography and child exploitation materials. The unit can becontacted at 202-324-3000.

Appreciate the additional income or compen-satory time

See this job as means of career advancement

Negatives

Vulnerable to having significant negativeimpact (vicarious trauma) if they do this dutyagainst their wishes, particularly if they areexperiencing high, pervasive levels of distress

May indicate poor prioritizing if they chosethis for practical reasons, are being distressed,and they continue to work this duty

They or the system they work in may not fullyappreciate self-care as a necessity when their

work involves exposure to CEMs

8) Believers

Highly motivated with a sense of duty orcalling for their work

Rely on their instinct to protect children

Can persevere despite difficulties becauseof the meaningfulness of their work

Are hard workers

Have high levels of compassion

satisfactiona great buffer for this typeof work

Believe and know that their work has greatpurpose

How do you do that kind of a job?

I can do it because I have found a way to.

passion

ffer for this type

eir work has great

do that kind of a job?

ve found a way to.


20/36


Law enforcement agencies strive to enhancethe way they deliver police services. To

accomplish this, many departments wish to im-prove how they store and analyze the informationthey gather 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Often,technology best solves this problem, but limitedbudgets challenge police administrators to deter-mine the most cost-effective tools. At times, tightbudgets prevent departments from prioritizing newtechnology, but at the West Des Moines, Iowa,

Police Department (WDMPD), we found that thereturn on such investments extends far beyondsophisticated software; the collaboration and co-operation required to implement this technologymade us a more effective, proactive agency.1

A recent burglary investigation perfectly il-lustrates how developing our departments tech-nological capabilities drastically boosted oureffectiveness. When a burglar robbed a localretail store, our officers responded to the call andinvestigated the crime scene with a wide rangeof tools: they practiced tried-and-true interviewtechniques, examined the stores surveillance foot-age, and employed our latest technology, such asa computerized records management system and

a law enforcement data-sharing site. With thesetools, they gathered enough information for ourcrime analyst at the station to build a six-personphotographic lineup that included the suspectspicture. The analyst e-mailed this document to the

Harnessing Technology toTransform a Police DepartmentBy Cam Coppess

Police Practice


21/36

April 2011 / 19

officers mobile data computers in their patrol cars.When an officer showed the lineup to a witness, thewitness identified the suspect, and a judge issued

an arrest warrant, all within 4 hours.This successful case occurred recently, butwe started on this journey to capitalize on newtechnology to improve police services in 1999.With 65 sworn officers and 22 civilian employees,we comprise a relatively small operation. Despiteour limited staff and tight budget, we wished totransform how officers report information from thestreet into computerized systems, as well as howthey retrieve informationgathered by others. Also, weneeded to build relationships

with community partners toincrease awareness aboutour efforts and ask for theirsupport. Eleven years later,we have information sys-tems that identify crime andquality-of-life issues. Thisallows us to implement suc-cessful solutions and reducecrime.

This transformation re-quired far more than thepurchase of new software. Undoubtedly, our de-partment acquired more advanced technology, butthese tools would be worthless if we did not trainour employees properly, collaborate with other lawenforcement and government offices, and ask thecommunity for feedback and support.

TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS

Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) andRecord Management Systems (RMS)

At WDMPD, we began this process by upgrad-ing our computerized records systems. We pur-chased commercial off-the-shelf products, workedwith third-party vendors, and partnered withcounty government offices to create a system that

allows officers to submit information electroni-cally. As a result, we have a central records compo-nent that integrates with our dispatch system. Once

the information enters the computer-aided dispatch(CAD) and records management systems (RMS),we use it to identify patterns and implement initia-tives to address crime trends and quality-of-lifeissues in different locations.

Mobile Data Browser

Next, we improved how officers on patrol com-municate with the station by establishing a mobile

data connection between squadcars and dispatchers. Whendispatchers receive a call, they

immediately enter informationinto CAD and RMS simulta-neously. The dispatcher thenvoices the information overthe radio while the systemsends the information to themobile data computers in thepatrol vehicles. This two-wayconnection between the patrolcars and the dispatcher permitsofficers to receive or initiatecalls for service, as well as

report information back into CAD and RMS. Themobile data computers also provide patrolling of-ficers with access to the Iowa Online Warrants andArticle (IOWA) system and the National CrimeInformation Center (NCIC). This expedites com-munication between dispatchers and officers andallows us to track the response time and durationof each service call.

We connected the mobile data computers ineach patrol car to the citys computer networkthrough an evolution-data-optimized modem. To

assuage security concerns, we secured our devicesthrough a virtual private network. Through thisnetwork, we exchange a large amount of databetween the patrol car computers and the centralservers; this means that the officers on patrol can

the collaborationand cooperation

required to implementthis technology madeus a more effective,proactive agency.


22/36


access all of the same information systems avail-able at the police station. Also, as many of the toolsare Web based, we equipped the mobile computer

with Internet access so that officers can take fulladvantage of these systems from their patrol cars.

Report-Writing Software

Iowa state officials provided our departmentwith new report-writing software at no cost. Withthis software, immediately after a car accident,a device sends crash data directly to the IowaDepartment of Transportation and citation datadirectly to the clerk of court.

To expedite this processeven further, we commis-

sioned a third-party vendorto interface the report-writ-ing tool with RMS so that wecan electronically transmitdata from the cars into ourcentral records. The softwaregenerates a report that drawsfrom our criminal informa-tion reports, crash reports,electronic citations, and elec-tronic warnings. Then, su-pervisors accept or reject the

report through the electronicreview process before theinformation enters RMS. With these upgrades, thesystem makes information available to the wholeagency within 24 hours of the incident.

The report-writing software also generates afield interview report. Here, officers documentany suspicious information they discover duringan interview or any event they deem notable butthat does not fit into a specific category in otherpaperwork. Our personnel review this data daily

to examine if it correlates with any larger crimetrends.

Backup Database

In addition to the data in RMS, we store elec-tronic images of the reports in a second database.

This system mitigates the risk of losing our data ifone database collapses. It also allows personnel tosearch for information in new ways and even pro-

duces a hard copy report. This duplication reducesemployees fears of technology failure connectedwith transitioning to a paperless world.

Crime Analysis

After we implemented this new technology,we needed an employee who would manage andoperate these new tools full-time; therefore, wehired a crime analyst to mine the data to dis-

cover patterns and trends incriminal behavior. To makeour analyst as productive

as possible, we providedher with an even more so-phisticated version of ourtechnologyshe works withpowerful software that minesour data in greater detail.We also wanted the rest ofthe department to learn fromour analysts assessments, sowe worked with vendors toset up an automated processthat plots this crime data on

an electronic map. We thenpurchased a Web-based tool

that makes this crime map available to all users,whether in the station or a patrol car.

Once a month, we meet to review this crimedata and discuss ongoing trends. Officers must beprepared to speak about worrisome patterns andsteps they have taken to reverse the trends. Thismeeting serves as a great communication tool be-cause it allows all areas of the department to stayabreast of current challenges and offer solutions.

The crime analyst also helps keep these toolsrelevant to the daily tasks of officers. At the month-ly meeting, she presents a report that indicateswhen we received service calls, what departmentsthey pertained to, and what reports were authored;she even breaks down the calls by both time of


23/36

April 2011 / 21

day and police territory or geographic location.This keeps our officers informed and gets moreemployees to use the tools on their own. The crime

analysts presentation also reminds officers of thetools available to assist them with more efficientinformation gathering.

Geographic Information Systems

Our department and stakeholders respondedvery positively to our crime analyst and crime-mapping project, which led us to create anothernew job position: geographic information system(GIS) coordinator. Our new coordinator needed toobtain city- and county-wide geographic informa-tion to develop GIS tools and, thus, had to solicit

help from various govern-ment offices that we neverworked with previously.The success of these part-nerships led to many otherjoint projects.

The improved GIS toolsdisplayed immediate re-sults during a recent stringof burglaries. Our officersidentified a suspect and lo-cated the individuals motor

vehicle with a global posi-tioning system (GPS). Wethen created a map that il-lustrated the suspects routeon three specific nights.The map indicated that thevehicle traveled to the crime scenes on the samenights when the burglaries occurred. Next, we usedthe GIS data and GPS device to establish an elec-tronic boundary that alerted us when the vehicletraveled beyond a certain distance. Because the

device tracks vehicles in real time through a Website, it notified us immediately via text messagewhen the vehicle crossed the boundary. Our of-ficers intercepted the suspect as he exited a dancestudio that he had just burglarized. Eventually, thecounty convicted the suspect on felony burglary

charges. GIS tools helped us solve not only thiscase but numerous others.

STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS

Interagency Collaboration

For departments to successfully advance theirdata-gathering capabilities, they must collaboratewith other agencies and share information. Toboost the effectiveness of our new technology, wedeveloped new ways to share our data and receiveinformation from other departments. Therefore, wespearheaded an information-sharing project amongdifferent agencies in the county, including the PolkCounty Sheriffs Office and the Des Moines Police

Department.To collaborate with

other government officesand law enforcement agen-cies, we needed a systemto translate the myriadtypes of data used by eachoffice. We commissioneda vendor to build a datawarehouse that acceptsinformation from differentsystems around the law en-

forcement community. TheWeb-based database allowsusers to retrieve informa-tion gathered by numerouslaw enforcement agenciesin different locations. This

tool provides a more global view for officers onpatrol. If officers stop an individual on the street,right from their patrol car, they can obtain photo-graphs of subjects to identify them. Also, leverag-ing multiple data sources gives officers a wider

range of information about suspects during theirinvestigations.

Training

As we acquired these new tools, we recog-nized that they would add value to the department

To boost theeffectiveness of ournew technology, we

developed new ways toshare our data and

receive information from

other departments.


24/36


only if employees embraced them and used themproperly. Our department immediately intro-duces all new officers to the proactive policing

philosophy and tools during their initial 12-weekfield-training period. We instruct them on how toinput information into the reporting systems, aswell as how to access the information systems thatmight help them piece together the puzzles of theirinvestigations.

To train our employees more specifically foreach device, whenever we roll out a new tool orsoftware, we hold 1-daytraining sessions for alldepartment employees.To follow up, during

in-service training, wereinforce to officers howto access the informationthey gather during inves-tigations. We continuallyinstruct our employeeson how to analyze crimemaps, access the RMS,and reach out to the crimeanalyst for assistance.

The initial 1-day ses-sions provide the neces-sary foundation for thetechnological overhaul. But, to truly engrain thenew tools in the departments daily operations,we conduct the additional sessions and monthlycrime-analysis meetings to remind our employeesof the benefits of these tools. Sufficient trainingis crucial for the success of any technologicalchanges; without a strong commitment from ouremployees, these new tools would remain under-used, and the department never would transitionfrom a reactive department to a proactive one.

Community Feedback

Before we fully implemented these changes,we engaged the community to inform them of ourefforts and solicit their feedback. We first showed

the tools to our Police Chiefs Advisory Council,a group of community members who we consultabout new ideas, programs, and services. We

explained our proactive policing philosophy andhow our new tools contributed to this ideology,and the group supported our ideas. We also devel-oped a presentation with a slide show and a livedemonstration of the crime-mapping tool, and weshowcased it to any stakeholder group who wouldlisten. We also demonstrated the crime-mappingtool at area GIS conferences.

LESSONS LEARNED

WDMPD initiated thisjourney to improve police

services in 1999. As welook back to where westarted and where we arenow, we clearly learnedmany lessons to get to thispoint.

First, a successful or-ganization demands threecomponents: people,processes, and technol-ogy, and this means thatcommercial off-the-shelfproducts alone will not

progress an agency. Departmentwide improve-ments require not just advanced technologybut also support from employees and heavylogistical planning.

Second, no one can build a departments pro-cesses and systems better than its own personnel.Therefore, someone or several people in the de-partment must learn about the systems inside andout and put them into practical application. Beforea department purchases anything, personnel must

thoroughly research the vendor, and someonemust serve as the project manager to take owner-ship of the project and drive its success. Severalother employees need to become experts with thenew tools to teach others how to use them and to


25/36

Lieutenant Coppess of the West Des Moines, Iowa, Police

Department serves as the commander of the agencysCriminal Investigations Unit and its Police Records andTechnology Unit.

promote their value to other employees. Theseemployees and the project manager should act asthat projects biggest champions and hold some

accountability for its success.CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, progressive technology ampli-fies the efficiency of law enforcement agencies.However, we at the West Des Moines PoliceDepartment realized that technology upgradescultivate a dynamic, collaborative work envi-ronment that benefits a department in countlessways. When our department had to consult withoutside personnel for assistance with build-ing and rolling out new systems, this provided

unbeatable networking opportunities that paideven bigger dividends. Networking with otherorganizations, whether with government offices,private companies, or even the Iowa state schoolsystem, strengthens our presence across the stateand grants us access to higher quality sources ofinformation.

Last, when an agency openly communicateswith the public about its efforts, it illustratesto the community that the department is flex-ible to change and that it welcomes their input,which inspires better cooperation. This change

greatly contributes to an agencys ultimate goal:to reduce crime and enhance quality of life in thecommunity.

Endnotes1 In this article, the author provides his agencys experiences

as a general overview of police technology. No specific product

names could be mentioned because of Department of Justice

publishing guidelines.

April 2011 / 23

Wanted:Photographs

he Bulletin staff alwaysis looking for dynamic,T

law enforcement-related im-ages for possible publicationin the magazine. We are in-terested in those that visuallydepict the many aspects ofthe law enforcement profes-sion and illustrate the vari-ous tasks law enforcementpersonnel perform.

We can use digital pho-tographs or color prints. Itis our policy to credit pho-tographers when their workappears in the magazine.

Contributors sending printsshould send duplicate cop-ies, not originals, as we donot accept responsibility fordamaged or lost prints.Send materials to:

Art DirectorFBI Law EnforcementBulletin, FBI Academy,Mod A, Quantico, VA22135.

[email protected]


26/36


On April 21, 2009, theU.S. Supreme Courtdecided Arizona v.

Gant,1 in which the Court an-nounced new, narrow rules as towhen law enforcement officersproperly may search the pas-senger compartment of a motorvehicle incident to the arrest ofone of its occupants. For ap-proximately 28 years prior to

Gant, police relied upon theapparent holdings of other U.S.Supreme Court decisions,2 aswell as the holdings of otherstate and federal precedent, to

provide broad justification3 forsearches following the lawfularrest of any occupant, or recentoccupant, of a motor vehicle.

However, in Gant, theCourtlimited this Fourth Amendmentsearch authority to two circum-stances: police may searcha vehicle incident to a recentoccupants arrest only if the ar-restee is within reaching dis-

tance of the passenger compart-ment at the time of the searchor it is reasonable to believe thevehicle contains evidence ofthe offense of the arrest.4 This

article examines how lowercourts have interpreted the two-part holding ofGantand pro-vide law enforcement officersguidance in conducting futuresearches of motor vehiclesincident to arrest in a post-Gantworld.

Summary ofGant

In Gant, Tucson police

officers arrested Rodney Gantfor driving with a suspendedlicense. After he was hand-cuffed and locked in the backof a patrol car, officers searched

Searches of Motor VehiclesIncident to Arrest in aPost-Gant WorldBy KENNETH A. MYERS, J.D.

Legal DigestMark C. Ide


27/36

April 2011 / 25

his car and found cocaine in ajacket located on the backseat.Gant moved to suppress the co-

caine found on the grounds thatthe warrantless search of his carviolated the Fourth Amendment.The Arizona Supreme Courtheld that the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the FourthAmendments warrant require-ment did not justify the search inthis case.5

The U.S. Supreme Courtagreed. Under the facts of thecase, Gant was not within reach-

ing distance of the vehicle at thetime of the search (he was hand-cuffed and locked inside a policecar), and there was no reasonto believe the car containedevidence of the crime for whichhe was arrested (driving with asuspended license). Therefore,the search of his car violatedthe Fourth Amendment, and thecontraband discovered duringthe search was suppressed.6

Searches Incident to Arrest

According to the SupremeCourt, searches conductedwithout a warrant are presumedunreasonable.7 However, theCourt has recognized a fewspecifically established andwell-delineated exceptions8 tothe search warrant requirement,to include searches incident to

lawful arrest.9

This exception, asdefined by the Court in Chimelv. California,10 derives frominterests in officer safety andevidence preservation that are

typically implicated in arrestsituations11 and is limited to ar-eas within the arrestees imme-

diate control.12

In applying thisexception to the motor vehiclecontext, the Court in New Yorkv. Belton13 held that the area ofimmediate control is limited tothe passenger compartmentof a vehicle and any contain-ers therein as a contemporane-ous incident of an arrest of thevehicles recent occupant.14 InGant, the Supreme Court clari-fied that Belton tells us what

area of the motor vehicle maybe searched incident to arrest(scope),15 while the two-partrule announced in Gantestab-lishes when such area may besearched (prerequisite).16 TheGanttest is an either/or propo-sition, meaning that only oneprong of the test must be satis-fied to be in compliance withthe holding of the decision.17

Access to PassengerCompartment

The first prong of the hold-

ing in Gantdeals with accessand states that police maysearch a vehicle incident to arecent occupants arrest onlyif the arrestee is within reach-ing distance of the passengercompartment at the time ofthe search.18 This part of theGantholding is tethered to theCourts decision in Chimel v.California19 and is based on thesafety and evidentiary justifi-

cations ofChimels reaching-distance rule.20

To understand when anarrestee is outside of the reach-ing distance of the passengercompartment of a motor ve-hicle, it is best to start withthe facts ofGant. In Gant, thedefendant was arrested, hand-cuffed, and locked in the backof a police patrol car at the time

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

the Courtlimited this FourthAmendment search

authority to twocircumstances.


28/36


that his vehicle was searched.21Under these circumstances,the Court determined that the

defendant had no access to hisvehicle and that the search ofhis vehicle incident to his arrestwas unreasonable under the firstprong of the Ganttest.22 Clearly,if an individual has been ar-rested, placed in handcuffs, andsecured in a police vehicle, thefirst prong ofGantdoes notpermit law enforcement officersto conduct a search incident toarrest of the passenger compart-

ment of that individuals motorvehicle as the individual nolonger has access to the vehicle.Courts interpreting the SupremeCourts ruling agree that search-es incident to arrest under thesecircumstances would be unrea-sonable under the first prong ofGant.23 However, if there aremultiple occupants in a vehicleand one occupant is arrested,handcuffed, and secured in apolice vehicle, the search of thepassenger compartment of thevehicle nevertheless may bepermissible incident to arrest ifthe other occupants still haveaccess to the vehicle. For exam-ple, in United States v. Davis,24the Eighth Circuit Court ofAppeals upheld the search ofthe passenger compartment ofa vehicle incident to arrest of

the driver when the three re-maining, unsecured, and intoxi-cated occupants were standingaround a vehicle redolent ofrecently smoked marijuana.

According to the court, the factspresented in this case are text-book examples of [t]he safety

and evidentiary justificationsunderlying Chimels reachingdistance rule....).25

Outside of a Gant-like factpattern, where the arrestee ishandcuffed and placed in theback of a patrol car, the analysisunder this first prong ofGantbecomes more challenging.

effectuate an arrest so that areal possibility of access to thearrestees vehicle remains.28

However, when announcing theholding of the decision (andarticulating the new two-partrule), the Court dropped anyreference to the arrestee beingsecured or unsecured and sim-ply stated (under the first prongof the test) that police maysearch a vehicle incident to arecent occupants arrest onlyif the arrestee is within reach-ing distance of the passenger

compartment at the time of thesearch.29

In Boykins v. State,30 theCourt of Appeals of Georgiainterpreted this first prong ofthe Gantrule to mean that thepolice may conduct a search ofthe passenger compartment ofthe arrestees vehicle incidentto his lawful arrest in the rarecase in which the arrestee has areal possibility of access to hisvehicle.31 In analyzing Gant,the court emphasized that therequirement that the arresteebe unsecured was notice-ably absent from the SupremeCourts first prong of the rule.32

In Boykins, the defendanthad been arrested on an out-standing probation warrant,handcuffed, and stood outsideof his vehicle under the control

of a policeman when his vehiclewas searched by another of-ficer. The Court noted that thetrial court apparently inferredfrom the officers testimony that

The key tounderstanding thesecond prong of

theGant test is todefine reasonable

to believe.

Some of the difficulty derivesfrom the language used in themajoritys decision in Gant. Inseveral parts of the decision,the Court refers to whetherthe arrestee is secured26 orunsecured27 and within accessof the vehicle at the time of thesearch when analyzing the firstpart of the test. Moreover, ina footnote, the Court explains

that [b]ecause officers havemany means of ensuring thesafe arrest of vehicle occupants,it will be the rare case in whichan officer is unable to fully


29/36

April 2011 / 27

Boykins was within arms reachof the passenger compartment33at the time of the search. The

Court then distinguished Gant,reasoning that unlike the de-fendant in Gant, Boykins hadnot been placed in the back ofthe patrol car at the time of thesearch; he was standing outsideof his vehicle.34 Accordingly,in affirming Boykins convic-tion for possession of cocaine(which was found in the passen-ger compartment of his vehicleduring the search incident to

arrest), the Court held thatwhether he [Boykins] had anyreal possibility of access to thepassenger compartment of hisvehicle was a mixed question offact and law for the trial court todetermine. We will not second-guess the trial courts findingthat the search was justifiedunderGantand Chimelon thebasis of officer safety.35

Similarly, in applying thetwo-part Gantrule to a nonve-hicle situation, the Third CircuitCourt of Appeals in UnitedStates v. Shakir36 held that asearch is permissible incident toa suspects arrest when, underall the circumstances, thereremains a reasonable possibilitythat the arrestee could accessa weapon or destructible evi-dence in the container or area

to be searched. Although thisstandard requires somethingmore than a theoretical pos-sibility that a suspect mightaccess a weapon or evidence, it

remains a lenient standard.37In Shakir, the court affirmedthe conviction of an individual

for armed bank robbery andrefused to suppress evidencefound in a bag near his feetduring a search incident to hisarrest. The court reasoned that[a]lthough he was handcuffedand guarded by two policemen,Shakirs bag was literally at hisfeet, so it was accessible if hedropped to the floor. Although itwould have been more difficultfor Shakir to open the bag and

On the other hand, in Statev. Carter41the Court of Appealsof North Carolina ruled that

when the defendant had beenremoved from the vehicle,handcuffed, and directed tosit on a curb when the searchof the vehicle was conducted,there was no reason to believedefendant was within reachingdistance or otherwise able to ac-cess the passenger compartmentof the vehicle.42 Accordingly,the court could not justify thesearch incident to arrest under

the first prong ofGant.43Additionally, in United

States v. Chavez,44 the U.S.District Court for the EasternDistrict of California held thatwhen a defendant fled fromthe site of an attempted arrest,police were not justified tosearch his vehicle incident toarrest. The subject had eludedthe officers, jumped a fence,and was nowhere near the scenewhen the search of his vehiclewas conducted. Moreover, thepolice were standing by the carto ensure that if the defendantdid return, he would not haveaccess to the vehicle.45

From these decisions, itis clear that the first prong ofthe Ganttest involves case-by-case, fact specific decisionmaking46 by law enforcement

as there no longer is any bright-line rule. The first prong of thetest hinges on access and re-quires officers to articulatefacts demonstrating that there

retrieve the weapon while hand-cuffed, we do not regard thispossibility as remote enoughto render unconstitutional thesearch incident to arrest.38 Thecourt, citing the Fifth CircuitCourt of Appeals, explained that

handcuffs are not fail-safe39

and are a temporary restrain-ing device; they limit but do noteliminate a persons ability toperform various acts.40

Mark C. Ide


30/36


is a real or reasonable possibil-ity that the defendant can accessthe passenger compartment

to obtain a weapon or destroyevidence at the time of thesearch. When an arrestee hasbeen handcuffed and secured ina police vehicle, the justificationfor a subsequent search inci-dent to arrest of the passengercompartment of the arresteesvehicle no longer is presentunder the first prong of the test.However, when the arrestee hasbeen handcuffed but not yet se-

cured in a police vehicle, thereis case law in support of permit-ting the search of the passengercompartment of the arresteesvehicle incident to arrest forweapons and evidence as longas the arrestee still is withinreaching distance of the vehicle.This is not to recommend thatofficers keep recently arrestedsubjects near their vehicles sothat such searches may be justi-fied as officer safety remains ofparamount importance.

Reasonable ToBelieve Standard

The second prong of theGanttest permits the search ofthe passenger compartment of amotor vehicle following the ar-rest of a recent occupant of thatvehicle when it is reasonable

to believe the vehicle containsevidence of the arrest.47 Thisprong does not deal with ac-cess48 and is not tethered to theholding ofChimel.49 Instead,

this prong is consistent withthe holding in Thornton50 andis based on Justice Scalias con-

curring opinion in that case.51

Additionally, this second prongis unique to the automobilecontext.52

The key to understandingthe second prong of the Ganttest is to define reasonable tobelieve. In Gant, the policearrested the defendant for driv-ing with a suspended license.53The Court found the subsequentsearch incident to arrest of the

[b]ut in others, including Beltonand Thornton, the offense ofthe arrest will supply a basis for

searching the passenger com-partment of an arrestees vehicleand any containers therein.55 Ofnote, both Belton56 and Thor-ton57 involved arrests for drugoffenses.

The majority in Gantdidnot provide further explanationor guidance as to the secondprong of the test. As stated byJustice Alito in his dissentingopinion, this creates a host of

uncertainties.58 Not surprising-ly, lower courts have struggledwith the language of this part ofthe test and have come up withmyriad interpretations.

An analysis of these lowercourt opinions reveals somecommonalities. First, the courtsgenerally have not interpretedthe reasonable to believestandard as being synonymouswith probable cause. The vastmajority of courts interpretingGanthave concluded that thestandard is less than probablecause, reasoning that a probablecause standard merely wouldduplicate the level of proof re-quired under the motor vehicleexception.59 However, if thestandard is not probable cause,what is it? Courts interpretingthis part of the test are not in

agreement.60

There has beena wide range of explanationsof the test,61 but most courtsconclude that reasonable tobelieve is determined in one

To understandwhen an arresteeis outside of the

reaching distance ofthe passenger

compartment of amotor vehicle, it is best

to start with thefacts ofGant.

defendants vehicle to be un-reasonable as it was not likelythat the police would discoveroffense-related evidence dur-ing the search.54 The Court ex-plained that [i]n many cases,

as when a recent occupant isarrested for a traffic violation,there will be no reasonablebasis to believe the vehiclecontains relevant evidence...


31/36

April 2011 / 29

of two ways: 1) by a reasonablesuspicion standard or 2) by thenature of the offense. It should

be noted that Justice Alito, whodissented in Gant, has describedthis test as a reasonable suspi-cion requirement.62

In United States v. Vinton,63the D.C. Court of Appealspresumed that the reason-able to believe standard prob-ably is akin to the reasonablesuspicion standard required tojustify a Terry64 search.65 In ap-plying the standard to the facts

of the case, the court justifiedthe search of a locked briefcasefound in the passenger compart-ment of a defendants vehicleafter he was arrested for the un-lawful possession of a weaponand the officer had discoveredother weapons in the vehicleduring a protective search of thepassenger compartment.

In People v. Chamberlain,66the Supreme Court of Colorado,en banc, concluded that thereasonable to believe standardofGantrequires some degreeof articulable suspicion, simi-lar to the lesser degree of sus-picion commensurate with thatsufficient for limited intrusions,like investigatory stops.67 Thecourt reasoned that the nature-of-the-offense exception, inwhich a reasonable belief is

held to exist whenever thecrime of arrest is one for whichevidence is possible and mightconceivably be found in thearrestees vehicle...would suffer

from objections similar to thosethat Gantcondemned in thebroad reading ofBelton.68 In

Chamberlain, thecourt upheldthe suppression of evidencefound in the defendants vehicleafter she had been arrested forfalse reporting; when the officeralready possessed her driverslicense, registration, and proofof insurance; and it was not rea-sonable that her vehicle wouldcontain any additional evidenceof the offense of the arrest.69

for driving without [a] seat-belt fastened, failing to secure[passenger] children in seat-

belts, driving without a license,and failing to provide proof ofinsurance)72 and Knowles v.Iowa73 (involving an arrest forspeeding). The Court stated thatin other cases, like Belton74 andThornton75(both involving drugarrests), the offense of arrestwill supply a basis for search-ing the passenger compartmentof an arrestees vehicle andany containers therein.76 The

Court then concluded that sinceGant was arrested for drivingwith a suspended license, thepolice could not expect to findevidence of this crime in thepassenger compartment of hisvehicle.77

A significant number oflower courts have used theabove language to concludethat the second prong ofGanthinges on the nature of theoffense involved in the arrestand not some independentevidence that gives rise to abelief that the particular vehiclecontains evidence.78 With thistest in mind, it is important toexamine what types of offensescourts have determined wouldfall within the parameters of thetest. Clearly, most routine trafficoffenses fall outside this sec-

ond prong ofGant.79

However,courts have justified searchesincident to arrest under the na-ture of the offense test for thefollowing offenses: theft,80 drug

A second line of cases inter-prets reasonable to believe asa nature-of-the-offense test.This test originates from theCourts language in Gant, wherethe Court explained that thereare some offenses, like trafficviolations, where there will be

no reasonable basis to believethe vehicle contains relevantevidence.70 The Court thencited as examples Atwater v.Lago Visa71 (involving an arrest

Mark C. Ide


32/36


offenses,81 illegal firearms,82driving under the influence,83and fraud and abuse.84 It must

be remembered that this searchauthority is limited to evidenceof the crime for which the arrestwas made or of another crimethat the officer has probablecause to believe occurred.85

Conclusion

While the U.S. SupremeCourt has limited the abilityof law enforcement to searchthe passenger compartment of

a motor vehicle incident to thearrest of a recent occupant ofthat vehicle, it certainly has noteliminated this viable searchwarrant exception. However,officers applying this exceptionmust be familiar with the word-ing and meaning of the Courtstwo-part test articulated in Gant.It also must be remembered thatfacts satisfying either prong ofthe test will result in a reason-

able search incident to arrest.Under the first prong, the

defendant still must have areal possibility of access to thevehicle at the time of the searchfor this part of the test to be sat-isfied. This has become a fact-specific, case-by-case determi-nation for the officer to make atthe scene of the arrest. Factorsin this analysis include whether

or not the subject is handcuffed,or secured in a police vehicle,the proximity of the subject tothe vehicle to be searched, andsubject-to-officer ratio.

If the arrestee no longerhas access to the passengercompartment of the vehicle,

the officer must determine ifit is reasonable to believe thatevidence of the offense of thearrest is located in the passengercompartment of the vehicle tobe searched. Courts have dif-fered in their interpretation ofthis second prong of the test,and, until the Supreme Courtspecifically addresses this issue,

or follows the prerequisite andscope of another recognizedsearch warrant exception.86

While the holding ofGantrestricted searches incidentto arrest, it had no impact onthe other exceptions, suchas consent,87 the emergencyexception,88 the motor vehicleexception,89 and the inventoryexception.90

Endnotes

1 556 U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009).2 In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454,

460, 101 S. Ct. 2860, 2864 (1981), the

U.S. Supreme Court held that when a

policeman has made a lawful custodial

arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he

may, as a contemporaneous incident of that

arrest, search the passenger compartment

of that automobile. In Thornton v. United

States, 541 U.S. 615, 124 S. Ct. 2127

(2004), the Court extended the holding of

Belton to allow for the lawful search of the

passenger compartment of a motor vehicle

following the arrest of a recent occupant of

that vehicle.3Gantat 1718-1719.4Id. at 1723.5Id. at 1714-1716.6Id. at 1719. A detailed account of the

facts ofGantand an in-depth review of the

legal precedent leading up to thedecision

have been t

fbi law enforcement bulletin - april 2011

Documents