fbi law enforcement bulletin - oct03leb

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

Features

Departments

13 Bulletin ReportsJuvenile JusticeWeapons

Strategies to AvoidInterview Contamination

By Vincent A. Sandoval

Canines andCommunity Policing

By Charlie Mesloh

Negotiation Position Papers By Vincent A. Dalfonzo

and Stephen J. Romano

1

October 2003Volume 72Number 10

Canine units can enhance lawenforcement efforts in all communities,even on college campuses.

Sometimes, investigators can impedeor negatively influence the interviewprocess and hinder their quest for thetruth.

14

19 Book ReviewDeadly Force

20 PerspectiveA Study in Survival

27Negotiation Position Papers (NPPs) canserve as important communication toolsduring hostage or barricade incidents.

United StatesDepartment of Justice

Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001

Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector

Contributors’ opinions and statementsshould not be considered an

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

The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodical is

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

EditorJohn E. Ott

Associate EditorsCynthia L. Lewis

David W. MacWhaBunny S. Morris

Art DirectorDenise Bennett Smith

Assistant Art DirectorStephanie L. Lowe

Staff AssistantLinda W. Szumilo

This publication is produced bymembers of the Law Enforcement

Communication Unit, Training Division.

Internet [email protected]

Cover Photo© Charlie Mesloh

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

209, Quantico, VA 22135.

October 2003 / 1

he unmarked sedan car-rying Detectives Barnesand Bailey screeches to a

Strategies to AvoidInterview ContaminationBy VINCENT A. SANDOVAL, M.A.

Tstop in front of a constructionsite, catching the workers in hardhats by surprise. The drone ofcity traffic, honking horns, and avibrating jack hammer perme-ates the background. Slammingtheir doors as they exit the sedan,the two detectives investigatingthe disappearance of DonnaHudson converge upon one of

the men, and, in a demandingvoice, Detective Barnes bellows,“Are you James Johnson?”Caught by surprise but not to beoutdone, Johnson inflates hischest and retorts in an equallygruff voice, “Who wants toknow?” Ignoring the other con-struction workers and the gather-ing crowd of curious onlookers,Detective Bailey crosses hisarms and spits, “We’re the po-lice. And, you were with Donna

Hudson last night, weren’t you?”Johnson begins to deny knowinganything about Hudson’s activi-ties the night before when heis interrupted abruptly by thescowling Detective Barnes whobarks, “If you don’t come clean,you’re going downtown withus. Now what’s it gonna be?”Johnson defiantly crosses hisarms, looks Detective Barnes inthe eye, and replies, “Well, Iguess we’re going downtown,

© Mark C. Ide

2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

aren’t we?” Within moments,the detectives usher Johnson intothe back seat of the unmarkedsedan, which rushes off leavingthe growing crowd of curious on-lookers perplexed at what theyhave just witnessed.

This scene plays out eachweek on television police dra-mas. Although effective at help-ing resolve major crimes in anhour or less, the interviewingstrategy modeled in these fic-tional portrayals rarely producesthe same results in the realworld. To the contrary, the tele-vision scenario serves to illus-trate how readily an interviewerinadvertently can contaminatethe fact-finding process, henceproducing less than the desiredresults.1

Contamination occurs wheninvestigators impede or nega-tively influence the interviewprocess, thereby causing thesubject2 to provide inaccurate

information. Contamination canhinder subjects from fully dis-closing what they know and, as aresult, handicap investigatorsin their search for the truth.The concept of contamination,however, is not unique to lawenforcement, but also touchesother arenas, such as the world ofprofessional psychotherapy andcounseling. In an effort to arriveat the truth regarding allega-tions of possible sexual abuse,one of the dangers therapists facewhen counseling alleged victimsinvolves distorting their memo-ries, thereby causing them torecount events that may not beaccurate.3 “Therapists can unin-tentionally plant suggestions thatlead to the creation of falsememories of abuse. Memoriescan be distorted, even created, bythe tone of voice, phrasing of aquestion, subtle nonverbal sig-nals, expressions of boredom,impatience.”4

An early study on inter-viewing found that the singlemost important determinant ofwhether a criminal case wouldbe resolved satisfactorily was theinformation gained from the in-terview of a witness, victim, orsuspect in a crime.5 Despite ad-vances in forensic science, expe-rienced interviewers recognizethat this principle still holdstrue.6 The objective of any inter-view should be to acquire accu-rate and complete informationwithout contaminating the inter-view process. Yet, any numberof factors can contaminate theinterview. For example, the en-vironment where the interview isconducted, to include the num-ber of interviewers, can influ-ence the subject adversely. In ad-dition, the interviewers’ ownnonverbal behaviors, includingthe way they address subjectsand how they deliver their ques-tions, can result in incomplete orinaccurate information. Also, re-search has suggested that anothersource of contamination duringan interview involves the spe-cific questions interviewers asksubjects.7 Despite the fact thatthe amount of information ob-tained during the interview oftenwill be in direct proportion tothe kinds and the quality ofquestions asked, in reality, manyinvestigators give little thoughtto the questions they ask atdifferent stages in the interview.However, by considering thefactors that can contribute to

“

”Special Agent Sandoval is an instructor in the LawEnforcement Communication Unit at the FBI Academy.

The objective ofany interview should

be to acquire accurateand complete

information withoutcontaminating theinterview process.

October 2003 / 3

contamination as they developtheir interviewing strategy, in-vestigators can minimize theseeffects and maximize the pros-pects of conducting a successfulinterview.

Depending on the subject ofthe interview and the circum-stances surrounding it, an inves-tigator’s strategy, on occasion,can become very involved. Onthe other hand, extensive inter-view preparation is a luxury thatbusy investigators rarely can af-ford. While the interviewingtechniques used by DetectivesBarnes and Bailey illustrate howreadily an interview can becomecontaminated, they also serve tointroduce an interviewing strat-egy focused on three criticaldimensions—the interview en-vironment, the interviewer’s be-havior, and the questions posedby the interviewer—that couldhave improved the detectives’chances of learning the truthabout the disappearance ofDonna Hudson.

FOCUS ON INTERVIEWENVIRONMENT

Interview Location

In the police televisiondrama cited in the openingscenario, a number of factorscontributed to a less-than-suc-cessful interview. The back-ground noises and curious on-lookers only served to detractfrom Detectives Barnes andBailey’s abilities to conduct the

interview and Johnson’s willing-ness to cooperate and providethem with information aboutthe disappearance of DonnaHudson. Interviewing a subjecton a noisy and busy city streetwith multiple onlookers isfraught with danger. An investi-gator must be wary of pre-maturely interpreting a subject’sbehavior as disinterested, un-willing to cooperate, or even de-ceptive when conducting the

Prior to arriving at the con-struction site in search of JamesJohnson, Detectives Barnes andBailey would have been betterserved by considering theimportance of the interview en-vironment. They would have en-hanced their prospects of enlist-ing Johnson’s cooperation intothe disappearance of DonnaHudson if they had chosen toconduct their interview some-where other than the construc-tion site. It could have takenplace at their department, atJohnson’s residence, or even at aneutral location. By recognizingthe danger inherent in askingJohnson any questions at hisplace of employment while sur-rounded by his peers and curiousonlookers, the detectives wouldhave avoided the risks of misin-terpreting Johnson’s responsesand behavior and prematurelyconcluding that he was hidinginformation about DonnaHudson—a crucial mistake diffi-cult to repair. In reality, Johnsonmay have reacted to nothingmore than their haughty ap-proach and to the fact that theyconfronted him in the presenceof his coworkers on a busy andnoisy city street.

Number of Interviewers

Popular television shows canlead the public to believe thatmultiple investigators normallyinterview a victim or even a sus-pect. Viewers often see two ormore investigators asking the

interview in an environment thatcontains distractions or contami-nants. For example, if a subjectbreaks eye contact after an inter-viewer asks a question, the inter-viewer may prematurely con-clude that the subject is beingdeceptive. Instead, the subjectmerely could be distracted bya passing vehicle or someonecasually walking by.8 Selectinga quiet place free of distractions9

and without any physical bar-riers between the interviewer andthe subject of the interview iscritical.10

”

Interviewing asubject on a noisy

and busy city streetwith multiple

onlookers is fraughtwith danger.

“


subject of a television police in-terview a barrage of questions.However, common sense and ex-perience have shown that peopletend to talk about what theyknow, including confessing theirdeepest secrets and crimes, whenin the company of one or, at themost, two investigators. The late,renowned polygraph examinerJohn Reid underscored this obvi-ous, yet often overlooked, prin-ciple. He recommended that onlyone investigator should bepresent in the room when con-ducting an interview and interro-gation of a suspect and also said,“The principle psychologicalfactor contributing to success...isprivacy.”11

As part of their interviewingstrategy, Detectives Barnes andBailey should have decided be-forehand the benefits of havingone, versus both, of them presentduring the interview of JamesJohnson. If they had chosen toconduct the interview as a team,then one of them should havetaken the initiative and becomethe “lead interviewer,” makingthe necessary introductions,building rapport, and askingJohnson the majority of the ques-tions. The second detective thencould have focused his attentionon taking thorough interviewnotes or on assessing Johnson’sverbal and nonverbal behavior.Experienced interviewers whowork in pairs often “work off ofeach other,” with one taking thelead in asking questions and the

other filling in any gaps in thegathering of information thatmay become apparent as the in-terview progresses. In addition,by ensuring that no physicalbarriers, such as a desk or evenan object as seemingly insignifi-cant as a drinking glass or anashtray, stood between them-selves and Johnson, Detectives

suspect the person of concealinginformation or having commit-ted a crime.13 However, investi-gators also should realize that thesubject of the interview is ob-serving them as well and thatthrough their own body lan-guage they can either encourageor discourage the subject fromproviding information. Peoplecommunicate volumes throughtheir own nonverbal behavior.14

Investigators should heed the ad-vice imbedded in the observationthat “...the interview is a processin which interviewee and inter-viewer exert mutual influence onthe results of the interview.”15

Body language supplementswhat a person says verbally withdozens of messages, such assmall gestures, eye movements,changes in posture, and facialexpressions.16 In the openingscenario, the detectives’ bodylanguage sent James Johnson avery clear message. By crossingtheir arms, staring, scowling,raising their eyebrows, and ahost of other nonverbal behav-iors, they placed Johnson on thedefensive and truncated the pros-pect of gaining his cooperation.

Detectives Barnes andBailey could have gained thepsychological advantage by un-derstanding the role that theinterviewer’s nonverbal behav-ior plays in the interview andthen taking deliberate steps toensure that their body languageencouraged Johnson to talk.They could have employed such

Barnes and Baily then wouldhave been in a better position tonot only observe Johnson’s en-tire body but to maintain the psy-chological advantage by not al-lowing a barrier for him to“hide” behind.12

FOCUS ONINTERVIEWER’SBEHAVIOR

Nonverbal Behavior

Experienced investigatorsare acutely aware of the impor-tance of observing the nonverbalbehavior of the subject of the in-terview, especially when they

”

Experiencedinvestigators recognize

the strategicimportance of using

their voices togather information

and elicit confessions.

“

October 2003 / 5

appropriate nonverbal commu-nication as maintaining an openposture without crossing theirarms; being frontally aligned andfacing Johnson, as opposed tobeing canted away from him;leaning forward to show interestin what he said; and acknowl-edging what he said by main-taining consistent eye contact,physically nodding their headsto encourage him to con-tinue speaking, and, aboveall, not interrupting himwhen he spoke.17

Verbal Behavioror Paralanguage

Psychologists have longrecognized the importancethat the interviewer’s voiceplays in the interview.18 Aninterviewer’s voice can af-fect the outcome of the in-terview, especially during the in-formation-gathering stage. If theinvestigator speaks in a loudvoice or even stresses one wordover another, it will act like anyother source of distraction orcontamination and will deflectthe subject’s concentration.

Detectives Barnes andBailey immediately placedJames Johnson on the defen-sive with their abrasive, demand-ing, and demeaning style. Inves-tigators inadvertently can con-taminate an interview throughtheir paralanguage (i.e., the man-ner in which they say what theysay).19 Most interviewers readilyrecognize the importance of

the words that they use or thecontent of their speech. How-ever, interviewers also shouldpay careful attention to the man-ner in which they speak to sub-jects and the way that they posetheir questions.

Experienced investigatorsrecognize the strategic impor-tance of using their voices togather information and elicit

during the interview. The naturaltendency for someone who be-comes nervous is to speak fasterand louder. Similar to fledglingpublic speakers who consciouslyand deliberately try to slow downtheir rate of speech, interviewerscan transform the dynamic of theinterview by intentionally ma-nipulating their voices. “Someinvestigators may find it difficult

to master the art of speakingsoftly at first because theyare not used to playing theirprofessional roles as soft-spoken figures...but mini-mal practice combined withconcentration and self-monitoring should promotebetter interview habits.”21

The loud volume andabrasive tone of DetectivesBarnes and Bailey’s voicesdid nothing to create a

mood that encouraged Johnsonto cooperate. The detectivesfailed to consider that throughthe quality of their voices theyplaced Johnson on the defensiveand, thus, discouraged him fromproviding the information theysought. Research has shown thatthe pitch of a person’s voice con-stitutes the best vocal indicatorof emotion.22 Approximately 70percent of individuals studiedexperienced higher pitch in theirvoices when they became angryor afraid.23 Had DetectivesBarnes and Bailey monitored thepitch of their voices and spokenslowly, softly, and deliberately,they would have fostered an

confessions. In fact, a seasonedpolygraph examiner maintainsthat one of the most importantqualities that interviewers andinterrogators can possess is theirability to use their voices toproject sincerity to the subject.20

Drawing upon years of experi-ence in conducting interviewsand interrogations, this examinerhas concluded that to projectsincerity, investigators shouldconsciously and deliberatelyslow down their rate of speechand speak very softly. This abil-ity, while unnatural for many,is complicated by the factthat investigators themselvesmay become nervous or excited


environment that encouragedJohnson to cooperate and to talk.

During the information-gath-ering phase of the interview, in-vestigators should make everyeffort to deliver their questionswithout placing more vocalstress or emphasis on any oneword over any other, referred toas phrasing questions in a “lev-eler mode.”24 For example, in-stead of asking, “Did you rapethe girl?” or “Did you rape thegirl?” wherein an emphasis isplaced on the subject or on thecrime itself, the interviewermerely should ask, “Did you rapethe girl?” Although this may rep-resent a valid question designedto assess a suspect’s verbal andnonverbal behavior, interview-ers who place more vocal stresson one word as opposed toanother inadvertently can con-taminate the response, thereby

running the risk of misinterpret-ing the suspect’s behavior.

Detective Bailey immedi-ately contaminated Johnson’sresponse by asking, “You werewith Donna Hudson last night,weren’t you?” Johnson may nothave had anything to do withthe disappearance of DonnaHudson, but his reaction to De-tective Bailey’s question, deliv-ered in an accusatory manner,prompted the detectives to inter-pret it as evasive and deceptivebehavior. In reality, Johnsonmay have wanted merely to de-fend himself and felt the need toverbally retaliate to what he per-ceived as a threat to his mascu-linity or pride. This does not sug-gest that an investigator nevershould accuse or confront a sus-pect. Most investigators recog-nize when to appropriately tran-sition from an interview to

an interrogation and to markthis transition by convincinglyaccusing the suspect of involve-ment in or knowledge of acrime.25

FOCUS ONINTERVIEWER’SQUESTIONS

Most investigators define aninterview as a conversation witha purpose26 and recognize that alist of questions does not, in andof itself, constitute an inter-view.27 This does not suggest,however, that investigatorsshould not formulate relevantquestions to address specific top-ics to explore prior to conductingan interview. To the contrary,proper interview preparationmust include this aspect aswell.28

The skillful and adept han-dling of questions can encourage

The results of interview contamination can produce devastating consequences, such asthose that occurred in the case of a man falsely convicted of rape in the early 1980s. Inves-tigators conducted an interview of the rape victim, wherein they coached her into selectingthe man out of a photo array of individuals.45 It constituted a classic example of contami-nation as the investigators subtly manipulated the victim, leaving her no alternative but toselect the man, whose general physical description and vehicle matched those she previ-ously had provided. A series of investigative and prosecutorial errors followed, leading tothe man’s conviction for rape. For years, he fought to clear his name and have the convic-tion overturned. Subsequently, the conviction not only was overturned but a jury awardedhis estate a $2.8 million settlement.46 Unfortunately, he did not live to see his name cleared;he died a few months before the settlement at the age of 35. It was a tragedy ignited byinvestigators who contaminated an interview of a distraught victim and led her to believethat they had caught her attacker.

Tragic Consequences of Interview Contamination

October 2003 / 7

subjects to participate in theinterview process. On the otherhand, improper questioningtechniques can create barriers,stifle the flow of information,and, hence, contaminate effortsto arrive at the truth. Experiencehas shown, however, that evenwhen investigators have specificquestions in mind going into aninterview, they tend to posethose questions in a random andhaphazard manner, giving littlethought to the psychology be-hind eliciting the subject’s coop-eration. Although it appears de-ceptively easy, asking questionsin a cohesive manner designed toarrive at the truth is, in itself, acomplex skill. In reality, inter-viewers often ask subjects a bar-rage of questions with little or noforethought to a deliberate orderor purpose. As one investigatorhas said, “We often fly blind intoverbal combat.”29 Experiencedinvestigators can identify withthe observations that “...we asktoo many questions, often mean-ingless ones. We ask questionsthat confuse the interviewee,then we interrupt him. We askquestions the interviewee cannotpossibly answer. We even askquestions we don’t want answersto, and, consequently, we donot hear the answers whenforthcoming.”30

One approach proven effec-tive with many investigators in-volves thinking of the question-ing process as a funnel, similarto a funnel used to pour a liquid.

In its design, a funnel is broadnear the top and gradually nar-rows until it culminates in a verysmall opening at the bottom. Us-ing this analogy and employingthe categorization of questionsas either closed or open-ended,31

interviewers should begin the in-formation-gathering phase withbroad open-ended inquiries de-signed to obtain as much infor-mation as possible and culminatethe process with very direct andspecific closed questions.

“Tell me what happened?” en-courages the subject to provide abroad, amplified response. Otheropen-ended questions can beginwith phrases, such as “Tell meyour side of the story...,” “Ex-plain to me...,” “What happenedwhen...?” and “Describe theperson....”

Many recognize that open-ended questions constitute themost effective questions forgathering information.32 For ex-ample, crisis negotiators use thistechnique to help resolve volatileconfrontations successfully.33

Negotiators recognize that open-ended questions, by design, en-courage individuals to talk. Aslong as people keep talking,negotiators can gain insight intotheir concerns, desires, and mo-tives. Negotiators then can usethis insight to attempt to diffuse acrisis. By the same token, inves-tigators also can take advantageof the benefits inherent in open-ended questions by concentrat-ing on them at the beginning ofthe interview.

The Value ofClosed Questions

Closed questions, on theother hand, elicit more narrowlydefined responses from the sub-ject, such as a yes, no, or otherbrief answer. Examples of closedquestions include “Who waswith you?” “What time was it?”“Where did you go?” and “Whendid this happen?” Closed ques-tions, which are specific and

The Value ofOpen-Ended Questions

Open-ended questions mini-mize the risk of interviewers im-posing their views or opinions ofwhat happened on the subject.Beginning with open-endedquestions takes advantage of thepsychology of active listening asa skill that encourages the use ofbroad inquiries to gather as muchinformation as possible. Anopen-ended question, such as

”

Open-endedquestions minimize

the risk of interviewersimposing their viewsor opinions of what

happened onthe subject.

“


Tips for Avoiding Interview Contamination

Questions to Consider Strategies to Use

Where should the interview take place?

How should the room be configured?

Who should conduct the interview?

Focus on Interview Environment


Focus on Interviewer’s Behavior

How can interviewers encourage subjects totalk?

How can interviewers encourage subjects tolisten?


Focus on Interviewer’s Questions

What is a model for posing questions?

What are the benefits of open-endedquestions?

What are the benefits of closed questions?

How can interviewers ensure thoroughness?

What are other cautions during questioning?

Use an open and relaxed posture, facing thesubject; lean forward, make eye contact, nod,and occasionally say “uh huh” and “ok.”

Speak slowly, softly, and deliberately; avoidstressing or emphasizing one word over another.

A location free of distractions.

Without barriers (e.g., desk or plants) betweeninterviewer and subject.

One interviewer builds rapport and engenderstrust more easily. Two interviewers should useteam approach; one asks questions and the othertakes notes.

A funnel, with open-ended followed by closedquestions.

Gather complete information, minimize the riskof imposing views on subject, and help assesssubject’s normal behavior.

Elicit specific details, ensure accuracy, and helpdetect deviations/changes in subject.

Address the basics of who, what, when, where,how, and why.

Never ask questions that disclose investigativeinformation and lead the subject toward adesired response.

October 2003 / 9

direct, ensure that interviewerselicit details from the subject.Closed questions that prompt ayes or no response are referred toas bipolar questions inasmuch asthese represent the only two an-swers that the subject logicallycan provide.34 By design, closedquestions limit the subject’s re-sponse. As such, they generallyare not the most effective ques-tions for obtaining information.Closed questions, however, canhelp corroborate information andsecure specific details. Often, asinvestigators prepare to docu-ment their interviews by review-ing their notes, they find thatthey neglected to obtain detailedand specific information. To al-leviate this, they should bear inmind the importance of thor-oughness, which includes ob-taining answers to the basicclosed questions of who, what,when, where, why, and how. Bydoing so, they stand a betterchance of having acquired all ofthe details.

The Balanced Approachto Asking Questions

Over the last 70 years, nu-merous researchers have studiedthe benefits of open-ended,or narrative reporting, versusthe use of specific, more directquestions, or interrogatory re-porting.35 One conclusion fromthis research revealed that theuse of open-ended questionsgenerated more complete in-formation, but potentially less

accurate information, than theuse of more direct closed ques-tions. Being aware of this, inves-tigators should take advantage ofthe benefits inherent in each kindof question—open-ended ques-tions for obtaining completeinformation and more directclosed questions for ensuring theaccuracy of the information.

Using this strategy, Detec-tives Barnes and Bailey wouldhave had more success by begin-ning their interview of JamesJohnson with broad open-ended

ensure that they obtained all ofthe details concerning Johnson’srelationship with Hudson and thenight in question. Other ques-tions could have included “Whatwas Hudson wearing when youlast saw her?” “What was her‘state of mind’”? “What timewas it when you last saw her?”“Where were you when you lastsaw her?” “When did you lastsee her?” “Is there anyone whocan vouch for your activitieslast night?” “Where did thistake place?” and “How did thishappen?”

The Danger ofLeading Questions

Interviewers can influencethe subject by the words theychoose to use. The precise ques-tions asked during an interviewprove crucial because even slightchanges in the wording cancause the subject to provide adifferent answer. For example,researchers designed an experi-ment to see whether substitutingone word for another wouldaffect a subject’s recall ofan event.36 Forty-five subjectsviewed films of an automobileaccident. Then, they were inter-viewed, with each subject beingasked the same questions exceptfor one variation. Some subjectswere asked, “About how fastwere the cars going when they hiteach other?” Other subjects wereasked, “About how fast were thecars going when they smashedinto each other?” Additional

questions, such as “Tell meabout your relationship withDonna Hudson.” After establish-ing that Johnson, in fact, hadspent time with the victim theevening before, the detectivescould have continued with addi-tional open-ended questions,such as “Tell me everything youdid yesterday from the time youleft your job until you went tosleep.” As the interview pro-gressed, the detectives graduallycould have incorporated morespecific and direct questions to

”Interviewers can

influence thesubject by the

words theychoose to use.

“

words used to describe the sameaction of the two cars comingtogether included collided,bumped, and contacted. All ofthe subjects who were asked thequestion with the word smashedestimated the speed of the carshigher then those questionedwith the words collided,bumped, and hit, where the speedestimates were progressivelylower.37 The experiment illus-trated that the wording of a ques-tion can influence the answer.“This effect has been observedwhen a person is reporting hisown experiences, describingevents he has recently witnessed,or answering a general question,for example, How short was themovie?”38

During the information-gath-ering phase, interviewers shouldconsider carefully their choice ofwords, especially descriptive ad-jectives and action verbs. Inves-tigators should refrain from us-ing words that could lead aperson in a specific direction. Aleading question indicates to theinterviewee the response that theinterviewer wants.39 In the auto-mobile accident experiment, theinterviewers intentionally con-taminated the fact-finding pro-cess by using the more volatileword smashed as opposed to themore benign words collided,bumped, and hit. Throughthe use of emotionally ladenwords, investigators can con-taminate an interview by leading

or suggesting to the subject theanswer they want.

As an example, investigatorssearching for a robbery suspectwho repeatedly used a chrome-plated .357-magnum revolver in-terview a female victim who tellsthem, “He pointed a gun at me.”If the investigators respond,“Was it a chrome-plated .357-magnum revolver?” before shecan describe the weapon, thenthey have contaminated her re-sponse by leading her in a very

specific direction. The legal sys-tem has recognized the danger ofthe use of leading questions andeven has formulated rules indi-cating when they are permitted inthat context.40 Unfortunately, norules governing investigative in-terviews exist that prevent inves-tigators from leading the subjectin a specified direction. Theconsequences of such actionscan include inaccurate infor-mation, which can complicate an

investigation and even taint thesubject’s testimony.

The Importance ofAssessing Behavior

The objective at the outset ofthe suspect interview should beto fully identify the subject byusing innocuous questions to ob-tain information, such as theperson’s complete name, anyaliases, age, residential address,and other pertinent backgroundinformation. Throughout theinterview, the investigator isendeavoring to determine whatinvolvement, if any, this particu-lar suspect had in the commis-sion of the crime under investi-gation. The suspect interview,designed to ascertain if a personhas knowledge of or is involvedin the commission of a crime,often is referred to as the behav-ioral analysis interview41 or rel-evant issue questions inter-view.42 The use of open-endedquestions at the outset of the in-terview serves the primary pur-pose of gathering informationand, at the same time, a second-ary purpose, especially strategicwhen interviewing a subject whomay have reason to deceive ei-ther through concealment or byfabrication. Open-ended ques-tions help investigators deter-mine and assess subjects’baseline behaviors or “norms.”If subjects do not perceivea question as a threat, theygenerally respond in a manner


“Tell me what happened...”

Open-Ended Questions

WhoWhatWhy

WhenHow

ActiveListening

VerificationQuestions

ActiveListening

VerificationQuestions

Assessment Questions

October 2003 / 11

consistent with their normal wayof speaking and behaving. Expe-rienced interviewers pay closeattention to subjects’ verbal andnonverbal behaviors as they re-spond to a question and continueto assess subjects’ behavior,looking for any deviation fromtheir “norms” when they re-spond to more sensitive ques-tions later in the interview. Skill-ful questioning of suspectsincludes not only asking the rightquestions at the proper time butalso monitoring and assessingsuspects’ behavior during andfollowing their responses tothese questions.

Using this approach, Detec-tives Barnes and Bailey wouldhave proceeded much differentlyin their interview of JamesJohnson. After obtaining bio-graphical information, theywould have asked Johnson a se-ries of open-ended questions toobtain as much information aspossible about his relationshipwith and knowledge of the disap-pearance of Donna Hudson.Throughout the process, the de-tectives would have monitoredJohnson’s behavior closely ashe responded to these questionsto establish his behavioral“norms.” The detectives thenwould have asked Johnson moredirect questions designed to as-sess any changes in his behavior,such as “Did you have anythingto do with Donna Hudson’s dis-appearance?” “Why do you think

somebody would harm Donna?”“What do you think should hap-pen to the person who harmedDonna?” and “Would you bewilling to take a polygraph examin an effort to get this mattercleared up?”43 Any success thatDetectives Barnes and Baileywould have had in determining ifJohnson was responsible forDonna Hudson’s disappearance

leads to a breakdown in commu-nication, which greatly hindersthe search for truth. But, by ex-amining some basic interviewprinciples, investigators candevelop more in-depth strategiesto minimize the effects ofcontamination.

Although every interviewis unique, by focusing on threefundamental elements—the in-terview environment, the inter-viewer’s behavior, and the ques-tions posed by the interviewer—before the interview and byimplementing some time-provenguidelines, investigators psycho-logically will create an environ-ment that encourages the subjectto provide more complete andaccurate information. This, inturn, will lead to discovering thetruth, the investigator’s ultimategoal.

Endnotes1 The author is indebted to Mr.

Avinoam Sapir with the Laboratory forScientific Interrogation (SCAN) for coin-ing the phrase interview contamination inThe L.S.I. Course on SCAN Workbook.

2 In this article, the term subject refersto the person being interviewed or theinterviewee, whether the person is avictim, witness, or suspect.

3 Katherine Ketcham and ElizabethLoftus, The Myth of Repressed Memory:

False Memories and Allegations of Sexual

Abuse (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press,1994).

4 Ibid., 88.5 Ray Bull and Rebecca Milne,

Investigative Interviewing, Psychology

and Practice (West Sussex, UK: JohnWiley & Sons, LTD, 1999), 1.

would have been in direct rela-tion to the kinds of questionsthey asked, the timing of thosequestions, as well as their abilityto detect any deviations from his“norms,” both during and afterthey asked the question.44

CONCLUSION

Interview contamination canresult in devastating conse-quences not only for law en-forcement professionals but forthe public they must protect. Im-peding or negatively influencingthe interview process, whetherknowingly or unknowingly,

”

Investigatorsshould refrain

from using wordsthat could leada person in a

specific direction.

“

6 John E. Hess, Interview and Interro-

gation for Law Enforcement (Cincinnati,OH: Anderson Publishing Co., 1997), 3.

7 Elizabeth Loftus, Diane Altman, andRobert Geballe, “Effects of QuestioningUpon a Witness’ Later Recollections,”Journal of Police Science and Adminis-

tration 3 (1975): 162-165.8 D. Wicklander and D. Zulawski,

Practical Aspects of Interview and

Interrogation (New York, NY: CRC Press,1993), 59; and Joe Navarro, “A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception:An Alternative Paradigm for Interview-ing,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,June 2003, 19-24.

9 David Vessel, “Conducting Success-ful Interrogations,” FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, October 1998, 1-6.10 Joe Navarro and John R. Shafer,

“Detecting Deception,” FBI Law Enforce-

ment Bulletin, July 2001, 9-13.11 Fred F. Inbau, John E. Reid, and

Joseph P. Buckley, Criminal Interrogation

and Confessions, 3d ed. (Baltimore, MD:William & Wilkins, 1986).

12 David J. Lieberman, Never Be Lied

To Again (New York, NY: St. Martin’sPress, 1998).

13 Supra note 10.14 Mark L. Knapp and Judith A. Hall,

Nonverbal Communication in Human

Interaction, 3d ed. (Orlando, FL: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich College Publishers,1992), 4.

15 Dale G. Leathers, Successful Non-

verbal Communication (Needham Heights,MA: Allen and Bacon, 1997), 302.

16 Gordon R. Wainwright, Body

Language (Lincolnwood, IL: NTCContemporary Publishing, 1999).

17 Supra note 15, 299.18 Ronald P. Fisher and R. Edward

Geiselman, Memory-Enhancing Tech-

niques for Investigative Interviewing

(Springfield, IL: Charles C. ThomasPublisher, 1992).

19 Susan H. Adams and Vincent A.Sandoval, “Subtle Skills for BuildingRapport: Using Neuro-Linguistic

Programming in the Interview Room,” FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 2001,1-5.

20 Paul H. Cully, U.S. Department ofJustice, Federal Bureau of Investigation,Polygraph Unit, Guidelines for Interviews

and Interrogations (Washington, DC).21 Supra note 18, 80.22 Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to

Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and

Marriage (New York, NY: W.W. Norton& Co., 1985).

23 Ibid.24 Wendell C. Rudacille, Identifying

Lies in Disguise (Dubuque, IA: KendallHunt Publishing Company, 1994).

25 Supra note 11, 85.26 Supra note 6, 4.27 John E. Hess, “The Myths of Inter-

viewing,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,July 1989, 14-16.

28 Supra note 24, 221.29 Supra note 12, 4.30 Supra note 5, 21.31 Supra note 18, 73.32 Supra note 5.33 Gary W. Noesner and Mike Webster,

“Crisis Intervention: Using ActiveListening Skills in Negotiations,” FBI

Law Enforcement Bulletin, August 1997,13-19.

34 Supra note 24, 33.35 Supra note 7.36 Elizabeth Loftus, Eyewitness

Testimony (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1979).

37 Ibid., 96.38 Ibid., 97.39 Supra note 5.40 Supra note 5, 97.41 Supra note 11, 63.42 Supra note 24, 221.43 Supra note 11 for additional

behavioral assessment questions.44 Supra note 10 for additional informa-

tion on assessing behavior in the interview.45 Katherine Ketcham and Elizabeth

Loftus, Witness for the Defense (NewYork, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 38.

46 Ibid., 60.


Wanted:Notable Speeches

he FBI Law EnforcementBulletin seeks transcriptsT

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

As with article submis-sions, the Bulletin staff willedit the speech for length andclarity, but, realizing that theinformation was presentedorally, maintain as much ofthe original flavor as possible.Presenters should submit theirtranscripts typed and double-spaced on 81/2 - by 11-inchwhite paper with all pagesnumbered. When possible, anelectronic version of the tran-script saved on computer diskshould accompany the docu-ment. Send the material to:

Editor, FBI LawEnforcement BulletinFBI AcademyMadison Building,Room 209Quantico, VA 22135telephone: 703-632-1952,e-mail: [email protected]

October 2003 / 13

The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention (OJJDP) presents Trends in Juvenile ViolentOffending: An Analysis of Victim Survey Data, whichoffers information on trends in juvenile violent offend-ing from the past two decades, based on data collectedfrom victims of serious, violent offenses (e.g., aggra-vated assault, robbery, and forcible rape) by the NationalCrime Victimization Survey (NCVS). This bulletinobserves that examining information from a variety of

sources related to juvenile offendingwill assist efforts to prevent andintervene in such delinquency. Thisreport is available electronicallyat http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/violvict.html#191052 or by contactingthe National Criminal Justice Refer-ence Service at 800-851-3420.

Juvenile Justice

Bulletin Reports is an edited collection of criminal justice studies, reports, and project findings. Send yourmaterial for consideration to: FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Room 209, Madison Building, FBI Academy,Quantico, VA 22135. (NOTE: The material in this section is intended to be strictly an information source andshould not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any product or service.)

Bulletin Reports

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) presentsThe Effectiveness and Safety of Pepper Spray, April2003, which examines two unpublished NIJ-fundedstudies on the use of pepper spray in real-lifearrests and compares them with previous studies.While the research cannot prove that pepper spraywill never be a contributing factor in the death ofa subject resisting arrest, it seems to confirm thatpepper spray is a reasonably safe and effective toolfor law enforcement officers to use when confront-ing uncooperative or combative subjects. Thispublication is available electronically at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/195739.htm or bycontacting the National Criminal Justice ReferenceService at 800-851-3420.

Weapons

Canines andCommunity PolicingAn Introduction to K-9 LiteBy CHARLIE MESLOH, Ph.D.


umerous municipal,county, state, and fed-eral law enforcementN

agencies in the United Statessuccessfully employ canineunits as an additional, as well ascost-effective, measure in theircrime control strategy.1 How-ever, this option appearsunderused in the college anduniversity setting. As shown incrime and drug literature, cam-puses often suffer the same illsas many communities. Addi-tionally, the threat of terrorist

October 2003 / 15

attacks spawned by the activitiesof September 11, 2001, have cre-ated a sense of uneasiness in anenvironment previously free ofsuch tension. These two factorsoffer compelling reasons forstarting campus canine programsto supplement the traditionalcampus police model for the pur-pose of explosives or narcoticsdetection.2

Campus law enforcementagencies can establish such pro-grams with a minimum of start-up expenses through creativenetworking and planning. TheUniversity of Central Florida Po-lice Department (UCFPD) basedits canine unit upon this premiseand offers its own experiences asan example of the potential forthis type of operation.3 This par-adigm links trained dogs to on-going community policing ef-forts by generating high levelsof community support throughplanned media coverage and pro-vides creative funding strategiesthat can significantly enhancethe probability of success in suchendeavors.

MEDIA COVERAGE

Prior to the arrival ofUCFPD’s first dog, the depart-ment’s public information of-ficer developed the proper socialconstruction of the program.This construct described the ca-nine program as a new form ofcommunity-police partnershipand the dog as the four-footedcommunity police officer of the

21st century.4 Because percep-tion often becomes reality, thedepartment worried that its ef-forts would be wasted if thepublic’s opinion of the programwas anything but positive.Consequently, when a windowof opportunity presented itselffor a press conference, the de-partment decided to move for-ward, even though its police doghad not yet arrived. The depart-ment used a stand-in dog, K-9Rommel, to provide the mediawith the necessary photo oppor-tunity. K-9 Rommel was fullytrained and able to perform anumber of search-related tasksthat captured the interest of anumber of television and news-paper reporters who found thestory newsworthy.

UCFPD sent press releasesto all forms of media (radio,television, and newspaper) and

offered the opportunity to meetits dog. All of those who at-tended the press conference re-ceived a comprehensive factsheet that contained a cost analy-sis. By providing the informationnecessary to construct a news-worthy story, the departmentplayed a major role in the direc-tion that the coverage took. Con-sequently, the initialization ofthe program met with no criti-cism, and a strong relationshipformed between the departmentand specific contacts in themedia.

PROGRAM FUNDING

Campus law enforcementagencies can procure a numberof items at little or no cost thatmay greatly enhance their canineprograms. The only limit to theamount of items is an agency’screativity. UCFPD actively

“

”

Campus lawenforcement agencies

can establish suchprograms with a

minimum of start-upexpenses through

creative networkingand planning.

Dr. Mesloh, a former law enforcement officer and caninehandler and trainer, currently is an assistant professor

at Florida Gulf Coast University in Fort Myers.


sought donations from otheragencies, the military, and citi-zens in the community, as well aswithin its own university envi-ronment. Much of the depart-ment’s success hinged on theavailability of surplus resourcesfrom the federal government.5

Although the donation ofequipment and supplies is a cor-nerstone of K-9 Lite, cash fund-ing offers the flexibility to pur-chase specific items difficult tolocate through a direct donation.UCFPD sent e-mails to variouscorporations seeking sponsor-ship, and one pet store chainresponded. This organizationscheduled a series of dog washesat a number of its stores in theregion. The business donated theproceeds of these events, plusa cash match from each store,to the program. In addition tothe obvious funding benefits,such events offer high visibilityinteraction with the public,

further strengthening commu-nity support.

Identifying Trainersand Handlers

Probably, the most importantcomponent of this equation restswith identifying a trainer and ahandler for the dogs.6 In manycases, small agencies can “pig-gyback” off larger agencies.These larger agencies usuallyhave many more resourcesto draw upon and may allowcampus canine handlers to attendthe training that they conductwith their own personnel. Inaddition, training aids for bothexplosives and narcotics detec-tion can be costly and difficult toobtain, as well as possibly createstorage hazards. Most largeragencies have identified anddealt with these issues. In the pi-lot stage of a campus police ca-nine program, it may proveeasier to steer clear of these

problems by using the trainingaids of other agencies. For ex-ample, UCFPD had a strong,positive relationship with manyneighboring departments that of-fered to train its dogs at no cost.Moreover, by partnering withother agencies, handlers are ex-posed to varied methodologiesof training, while the relation-ship between agencies isstrengthened by the interactionbetween their personnel.

Acquiring Dogs

Within the K-9 Lite model,UCFPD attempted to identifydonation dogs that possessed thenecessary drives to accomplishthe tasks at hand. To this end, thedepartment searched newspaperads and the Internet and con-tacted animal controls and hu-mane societies within the region.It tested a number of dogs beforeobtaining one from a rescue shel-ter, which had learned of thedepartment’s search for a drugdog. Screened for ability andtemperament by this organiza-tion, the dog has completedtracking training and has beguntraining in narcotics detection.Interestingly, one of the univer-sity’s fraternities ultimately paidfor the dog. Although the cost ofthe animal was minimal ($175),the payment symbolized an im-proved relationship betweencampus police officers and thestudent body.

As a cautionary note, agen-cies must realize that the task of

© Charlie Mesloh

October 2003 / 17

testing and selecting a dogshould fall upon the trainerthat eventually will be asked totrain the animal. Then, adminis-trators should make the final de-cision based upon the expertopinion of the trainer and theneeds of their particular univer-sity environment.

Allocating Vehicles

One of the costliest invest-ments can be the dedication of avehicle to the program. ForUCFPD, however, a solutionpresented itself (quite by acci-dent) that overcame this issue.The department decided to adopta 12-hour shift plan after re-search showed that personnelstrongly favored such a change.Upon initiating this shift alter-ation, the department found thatit no longer needed several patrolvehicles to maintain the samelevel of coverage. In fact, thedepartment was able to removetwo vehicles from the fleet andstill have surplus pool cars. Thedepartment assigned both ve-hicles to the canine unit, therebyproviding take-home cars for thedog handlers.

Obtaining Kennels

One expense not always ap-parent in the beginning is thekennel that accommodates thedog within the patrol vehicle.These kennels protect the dogfrom injury and, thus, are a nec-essary item. However, pricesrange from $1,200 to $3,800,

depending upon the quality andmaterials used in constructingthe kennel. UCFPD contacted alllaw enforcement agencies in thestate of Florida requesting thedonation of surplus kennels andreceived two responses. The de-partment accepted both kennelsand installed them in the twodedicated canine patrol vehicles.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Recently, in holding with thephilosophy of community polic-ing, the UCFPD engaged in a re-search project to evaluate andbetter understand the various as-pects of student experiences atthe university.7 As part of thisproject, the department surveyedapproximately 600 students todevelop a benchmark measure ofK-9 Lite. In this system, caninesrepresent an integral part of thepublic relations aspect of the

department. Likewise, UCF stu-dents make up the community asthey receive the majority of po-lice services at the university.Consequently, the cumulativeperceptions of the students serveas an evaluation and the ultimatemeasure of success or failure ofK-9 Lite. The evaluation eventu-ally will become a steeringmechanism for the program,with yearly surveys comparedagainst it to measure levels ofstudent approval.

Preliminary findings indi-cated that the students, as a com-munity, have responded posi-tively to the canine program as aform of community policing.Seventy percent of the studentssurveyed believed that the pres-ence of the K-9 unit could deterdrug use on campus, while lessthan 12 percent felt that policedogs were a waste of resources.

© Charlie Mesloh

Sixty percent of the studentsreported that having a bomb dogmade them feel more secure oncampus, and 67 percent agreedthat canines reduced crime oncampus. In an examination ofcontingent valuation, studentsresponded to hypothetical sce-narios about out-of-pocket fund-ing for certain canine services.Seventy-eight percent of the stu-dents stated that they would pay$1 or more per month to fund abomb dog on campus, and 73percent indicated that they wouldpay $1 or more per month to funda drug dog on campus. Althoughanalysis of the data will con-tinue, initial examination indi-cated that the K-9 Lite systemhas met with approval.

CONCLUSION

Canine units can enhancelaw enforcement’s crime controlstrategies, especially in the areasof narcotics and explosives

detection. Because many campuspolice departments face the samechallenges as municipal law en-forcement agencies, they toomay benefit from employing de-tection dogs in their crime con-trol efforts.

The K-9 Lite model imple-mented successfully at the Uni-versity of Central Florida repre-sents one method of establishinga canine program. Obviously,not the final word in the creationof a campus canine program,it nonetheless offers one wayto begin using trained dogswithin a university environment.Additionally, it demonstratesthat the minimal costs to fund acanine program provide an op-portunity for even the smallestcollege to establish and main-tain a detector dog program,which, in these uncertain times,may prove extremely valuableto the safety of the students andfaculty.

Endnotes1 One example of K-9 unit cost

effectiveness, examined by the author andDr. Ross Wolf of the University of CentralFlorida Department of Criminal Justiceand Legal Studies in 2002, found thattrained search dogs were 33 percent moreeffective than officers without narcotics-trained dogs when calculating the numberof possible arrests.

2 The author cautions readers that dogsshould not be trained to search for bothexplosives and narcotics, as the potentialfor a dog to misunderstand creates anunacceptable level of risk to both personsand property.

3 The author and Dr. Ross Wolf firstpresented the concept of K-9 Lite at the44th annual International Association ofCampus Law Enforcement Administratorsconference in Cleveland, Ohio, in July2002. They based their concept on themodel Government Lite first proposed byMarsha Segal-George in Public Manage-

ment 79, no. 7 (1997).4 Based on research the author and Ray

Surrete conducted on police dogs in themedia, wherein they examined 2,022newspaper stories around the country overa 7-year period to determine trends andpublic perception. See “From Killers toCuddlers: News Media Coverage of LawEnforcement Canines,” Police Forum 12,no. 4 (2002).

5 The Defense Reutilization andMarketing Service, http://

www.drms.dla.mil/.6 For additional information, see the

International Association of Chiefs ofPolice, “Law Enforcement Canines,” IACP

National Law Enforcement: A Compila-

tion of Model Polices, Volume II, Section34.

7 The project collected data from self-reported survey instruments. Surveys wereconfidential and voluntary and studentswere given informed consent prior toreceiving the survey. The project adheredto all university requirements regardinghuman subject participation and obtainedInstitutional Review Board approval.


© Charlie Mesloh

Deadly Force, Constitutional Stan-dards, Federal Policy Guidelines, andOfficer Survival by John Michael Callahan,Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc., Flushing,New York, 2001.

It is axiomatic that the use of force is aninherent part of law enforcement. It remainsequally self-evident, in a free society, thatwhenever a law enforcement officer makesa decision to use deadly force, others willscrutinize that decision severely. To maintainthe appropriate balance between the rightsof the individual and the interests of societyin effective enforcement of its laws and theprotection of its officers, it is essential thatsuch scrutiny be fair. That fairness can beachieved only through the application offactually supported, objective criteria. Whenthe criteria are neither factual nor objective,the result never can be fair. In such instances,the ill-informed—not to mention the ill-intentioned—have a disproportionate impacton the process. While little can be done toalter the views of the latter, it must be hopedthat good information can educate the former.

With this problem in view, a recentlypublished volume may assist law enforcement

officers, as well as attorneys, members of themedia, and the general public. Titled DeadlyForce, Constitutional Standards, FederalPolicy Guidelines, and Officer Survival, thissmall book (only 46 total pages) addresses awide range of topics critical to an understand-ing of the legal and practical issues relatingto the propriety of a law enforcementofficer’s decision to use deadly force.

The book provides an excellent surveyof the federal constitutional rules that governthe use of deadly force by the law enforce-ment community. Equally important, itrepresents an excellent primer on such issuesas wound ballistics, the concept of “actionversus reaction,” and physiological responsesto stress. In other words, it covers the kindsof practical matters that influence an officer’sability to perceive the existence of a threatand to implement an appropriate and timelyresponse. It is not an exaggeration to say thatan understanding of these practical matters isessential to a proper application of both lawand policy.

The author, a retired FBI special agent,served in the Legal Instruction Unit at theFBI Academy before becoming the chiefdivision counsel in the Boston, Massachu-setts, FBI office. He has dealt with deadlyforce issues not only as an instructor but alsoas a law enforcement officer in the field. Asa consequence of that academic and practicalexperience, he is singularly qualified to bringtogether both the legal and the practicalelements relating to this subject. His “big”little book is well worth reading.

Reviewed byJohn C. Hall, retired

Legal Instruction UnitFBI Academy

October 2003 / 19

Book Review


he true measure of a person’s charactercomes through adversity and how that

Agent Norcross serves inthe Intelligence Services

Unit of the Office of theProsecutor, CamdenCounty, New Jersey.

T

The “Modern Warrior”A Study in SurvivalBy Richard H. Norcross

individual survives the ensuing challenges. Thesetests can manifest themselves in everyday life, orthey can come in one horrific incident. But, theway that people react, face the threat, and over-come it stands as a testament to who they are andwhat they are made of. This proves especiallyimportant for those charged with enforcingsociety’s laws. Being a law enforcement officercarries an awesome responsibility, and only thosewith the strongest character will succeed. In thelaw enforcement profession, there is no otheroption but success. The strength of characterneeded lies within everyone; learning to harnessit is the key to developing the law enforcementofficer’s “warrior” mentality.

Having the “warrior” mentality does not meanthat officers are prepared to “kill” their enemynor does it mean that they are prepared to“die” for their cause. Instead, for them, thewords warrior and survivor are interchange-able. Because of this, these officers areprepared to accomplish their mission—toprotect the public from the menace of thosewho violate the law—with honor and to thebest of their abilities while overcoming anyobstacle by any means. They can apply thismind-set to an armed encounter, to a hand-to-hand altercation, or even to a search fora suspect who stole a small child’s bicycle.Warriors/survivors are determined to succeedand will not be distracted from accomplishingthe task at hand. In essence, they enter everysituation mentally prepared to do what it takesto win.

This determination to win surfaced in re-search conducted on law enforcement officerswho survived serious, life-threatening assaults.1

Although the study could not provide a definitiveanswer as to why some officers lived and othersdid not, it did find that an uncommon “will tosurvive” existed in many of the surviving offic-ers. These officers related that they attributedtheir survival to their determination to “win,”which they believed was ingrained in themthrough concentrated training.

However, for warriors/survivors, it is notenough to just live with the knowledge that they“made it,” that they stared death and fear in theeye, and that they walked away the victor. Rather,they must relate what they have learned, bothgood and bad, and the characteristics of sur-vival—that warrior/survivor mentality thatenabled them to persevere—to other officerswho, in turn, can use this hard-won knowledge toovercome the challenges that they will encounter.In short, warriors/survivors must learn from their

Perspective

October 2003 / 21

tragedies because not doing so is the greatesttragedy of all.

Confronting Adversity

My worst nightmare occurred on April 20,1995, when I was a detective with the HaddonHeights, New Jersey, Police Department. I, alongwith five other officers, planned to execute asearch warrant for a weapons violation upon asuspected child molester. Our tactic in the execu-tion of the warrant was a ruse. The lead officer,Investigator Jack McLaughlin, was to engage thesuspect in a conversation. Ivolunteered as his backup. Fourother officers from my depart-ment accompanied us.

The suspect’s mother admit-ted us into the residence, andJack began speaking with thesuspect—who was at the top ofan enclosed stairway on thesecond floor. During the conver-sation, the suspect attempted toflee. Jack pursued him up thestairs, and, as the backup of-ficer, I drew my weapon and followed. Jack gotto the top and turned at a half wall that ran downthe hallway. He was met immediately with a hailof gunfire. The suspect, armed with an AK-47assault rifle in one hand and a 9-mm pistol inthe other, mortally wounded Jack.

As I was running up the enclosed steps, Icould see Jack being shot in front of me and muz-zle flashes above and behind me. The half wallangled around behind the steps so that the assail-ant was standing almost directly behind me onthe second story. I instinctively turned and beganfiring at the suspect as he began firing at me. Ifired three shots before I was struck in my shoot-ing hand by a round that went through my handand into my pistol, thereby disabling my weapon.Then, the suspect shot me twice in the chest, withone round penetrating my bullet-resistant vest,

and once in the upper right arm. The force of theimpacts knocked me onto my back, and I waslying upside down looking up at my attacker. Hethen took another shot at me with the AK-47 as Ilay on the stairs defenseless. This shot struck mein the thigh. His weapon then ran out of ammuni-tion, thus distracting him momentarily.

As I was collapsing after being shot, I remem-ber thinking, “This isn’t it. This isn’t the way mylife is going to end, not here, not on these steps.”I was shot in the chest, collapsing my right lungand piercing my diaphragm. An intense, mind-

numbing fatigue set in immedi-ately. I desperately wanted tosleep. Just to close my eyes fora moment was the intrusivethought that kept coming. But,I was determined not to go tosleep. Sleep meant certaindeath, and I was not going todie. Then, suddenly, I could notbreathe. I felt like I had beenthrown into a pool to learn toswim for the first time. I toldmyself to calm down, to try and

breathe. Miraculously, I could inhale a little, justenough to keep going.

Once I calmed myself enough to breathe,several other noteworthy things happened. Ini-tially, I had developed tunnel vision, putting meat a defensive disadvantage. When I calmedmyself, my vision cleared. I was able to see myopponent. But, more important, by concentratingon survival, I could exercise my thought processso that I could make life-saving decisions. I knewthat I had to get off the stairs, so I used myelbows to drag myself down to the first floor.

As I stood up, the officer who initially hadbeen behind me approached the open doorway.He did not see the assailant charging down thesteps nor that he was about to step into the lineof fire. I shoved him back to safety and stumbledinto the kitchen area where I realized that I was

“

”

In developing thewarrior/survivormentality, facing

fears is the hardestobstacle.


too badly wounded to continue and made myescape through a side door. Once outside, Iclearly remember thinking, “Going out back isprobably safer, but the cavalry will be coming tothe front. Go to the front so you won’t bleed out.”I limped toward the front of the house, collapsedat one point, again dragged myself up, and took aposition of cover behind a tree and a telephonepole that had twisted together. I then yelled downto one of my backup officers that I was hit, that Ihad lost my weapon, and that Jack was down onthe second story. Within moments, a patrol carpulled up and whisked me to the hospital.

During the drive to the hospital, I kept sayingover and over that I was not going to die. I toldthe officer who drove me, theparamedics who met us enroute, and anyone else whowould listen that I was not goingto die. I never lost conscious-ness during the entire ordealuntil I was put to sleep in theoperating room. I refused togive in to that desire to sleep.

As bad as my situation was,it became even worse. Myyounger brother, John, washome getting ready to come infor the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift.His partner heard the “shotsfired, officers down” call on the radio and calledJohn at home. They joined up and responded tothe scene. By that time, approximately 10 min-utes after the initial shots, the assailant hadassumed an offensive position in several secondstory windows of the residence and was firing atall of the responding officers. He exchangedhundreds of rounds with officers in this extremelyintense gun battle that lasted approximately 20minutes.

My brother and his partner heroically moveda trapped family from inside a neighboring homeand took them to safety. As they returned to

positions of cover to reenter the fray, my brotherreceived a single, fatal gunshot wound to the eyefrom a distance of approximately 70 yards. Myclosest family member and dearest friend wasgone in an instant.

Still, the gun battle raged on. In the end, a14-hour standoff ensued, but, fortunately, withno further loss of life. The defendant surrenderedand was taken into custody.

Facing Fears

If the only casualty had been me, this incidentwould have been difficult enough, but I wouldhave gotten through it. However, what happenedto me was worse than anything I ever could have

imagined. I saw Jack, a hus-band and father of two, die justfeet in front of me. My youngerbrother died coming to back usup. I was critically woundedand, in essence, a lone survivor.

To make matters worse, dueto the severity of my injuries, Iwas on life support for 4 daysand could not attend thosebrave men’s funerals. Thus, Inever really got a chance to saymy good-byes, and I had atremendous case of “survivor’sguilt,” a condition where people

play over and over in their minds, “Why them,not me?” I quickly realized that the emotional tollof this event was going to vastly outpace thephysical effects.

As soon as I was off life support, I requesteda counselor. I began dealing with what hadhappened. I faced the challenge head on, and Iwas determined not to die mentally, despite thecircumstances. Not only was I going to survive,I was going to live.

For a moment, we need to imagine the humanmind as a series of rooms. When a critical inci-dent occurs, no matter how large or small, a fire

“

”

The preparation forsurvival can take on

many forms, andofficers should lookon it as deposits for

their future.

October 2003 / 23

erupts in one of the rooms. We now have achoice to make: expose ourselves to additionalpain and go in and put the fire out or close thedoor and hope that the fire smothers itself. We allknow that the easy answer is to close the doorand maybe try to smother the flames with a beeror two. Warriors/survivors, however, do notchoose the easy answer. Instead, they take thepath that will result in the accomplishment oftheir goals no matter how difficult the course. Mygoal was to deal with the fire and extinguish it.

In developing the warrior/survivor mentality,facing fears is the hardest obstacle. We mustadmit the possibility of defeatand further pain while coura-geously moving forward. Thetime will come when we mustconfront the unthinkable, butthe true warrior/survivor willprepare ahead of time. Forexample, the time to ask, “Can Ifight and arrest this person?” isnot while squaring off against atall and muscular 19-year-oldgang member who does notwant to be arrested. The time toprepare for that is prior to facingsuch a situation by taking a defensive tactics classor practicing with impact weapons. Survivorsprepare both mentally and physically to meetthe challenges placed before them.

While in the hospital, one of my doctors saidthat I should thank whoever picked me up andcarried me to safety because that person undoubt-edly saved my life. I explained to the doctor thatno one carried me. I told him what happened andhow I had gotten myself to safety. The doctorcredited my sound physical condition fromweightlifting as the reason why I was able to helpmyself despite grievous wounds. Prior to myincident, I did not lift weights because I thoughtthat they would save me the way they did. I liftedso that I could better perform my duties as a

police officer. And, thus, it represents one of theways that I prepared myself to survive.

Preparing to Survive

Since September 11, 2001, the role of lawenforcement has changed drastically. In essence,every man and woman in the law enforcementprofession has become a soldier on the front linesresponsible for responding to the new threats toAmerican society. Due to these changes, nowmore than ever, officers need to be prepared tomeet the challenge and survive to fight anotherday. While everyone hopes that no other night-

mare like the 11th occurs again,we must be prepared in case itdoes. In this manner, I amspeaking of individual prepara-tion, getting oneself ready forthe ultimate challenge.

The preparation for survivalcan take on many forms, andofficers should look on it asdeposits for their future. Manytimes, my superiors told me thatif I needed a particular piece ofequipment or to attend a school,they would get it for me or send

me. The bottom line, however, was that it was mylife, not my sergeant’s life or my captain’s life. Iwas going to be the person who prepared me forthe worst because, rest assured, it was me whowas going to deal with the aftermath. With thisin mind, I offer officers seven basic steps tosurvival preparation that I have learned frommy tragedy.

1) Mind-set: This is the warrior/survivormentality that says that officers are goingto do whatever it takes to accomplish theirmission, with the primary mission being theirultimate survival. Their mental preparation isthe key to their success. Officers must entereach encounter with the attitude that they aregoing to be successful. They never should go

© Digital Stock


in with a defeatist attitude. If they think theyare going to lose, then they are well on theirway to doing just that. In my incident, one ofthe most amazing facts was how fast it hap-pened. The third officer on our team hadgotten from the front door of the house to thedoorway to the second story—a span of about11 feet—in the time that the suspect killedJack and shot me multiple times. In mereseconds, my life changed forever. It is vitallyimportant to realize that these types of eventsoccur in the blink of an eye and that officers’survival instincts must be second nature.Officers cannot think about their actions;they have to happen naturally.

2) Equipment: The day of my incident, I hadchanged from an undercover holster to atactical duty rig. I had myspare magazines and hand-cuffs within easy reach. Ihad donned my bullet-resistant vest and put a newbattery in my radio. I tookcare to have all of myneeded equipment readyand available. Even thoughmy vest did not stop all ofthe bullets, it did slow themand minimized the trauma.Officers always shouldmake sure that their gear isin top condition. If it is worn, they shouldreplace it or, where practical, upgrade it to thebest available. I did not have a backupweapon the day of my incident. In retrospect,I probably would not have been able to use it,but I would have liked to have had it had Ibecome trapped. If departments permit it, Irecommend carrying a secondary firearm.

3) Training: Officers should get as muchtraining as possible—they should not let thelast law enforcement training they had bebasic academy training. If an agency cannot

send its officers to school, they should attendon their own. Officers also should not limitthemselves to “cop” schools, but take amartial arts class or learn a foreign languageapplicable to their policing region. Trainingalso includes firearms proficiency. My assail-ant practiced at a range on an average of onceevery 11 days. How many officers take theirtraining that seriously? Moreover, officersshould remember to practice weak-handshooting. I was shot in my shooting hand,and I personally know of three other officersalso shot in their shooting hands duringengagements.

4) Physical fitness: The only way to find outhow a person’s body will react in an intensesituation is to stress it in some type of con-

trolled physical exertion, inother words, exercise. This isnothing new. To ensure theirsurvival, officers must havetheir main piece of equipment,their bodies, in top shape. Theyshould do whatever they like—lift weights, run, or ride abike—just do something toraise their heart rates andstrengthen their bodies. Offic-ers will adapt, both physicallyand mentally, to situationsquicker if they have trained for

them. As their heart rates and breathingincrease, their mental capacities diminishunless they train their bodies to effectivelyoperate under stressful conditions. In thewords of General George Patton, “A pint ofsweat today will save a gallon of bloodtomorrow.”

5) Professionalism: Officers must be profes-sional and do what they were trained to do.No matter what happens, no one can takeaway an officer’s professional spirit. It is myopinion that professionalism walks hand in

“

”

I told the officer whodrove me, the

paramedics who metus en route, and

anyone else who wouldlisten that I was not

going to die.

October 2003 / 25

hand with the warrior/survivor mentality andthat one cannot exist without the other. In theincident that took my brother’s life, theofficers around him emerged from cover anddragged him to safety. These same officersthen returned to the firing line and continuedto engage the suspect in gunfire. When theshooting stopped and the laws of our societydictated negotiation as the course of action,they did that. They behaved as professionalpolice officers and did their jobs. The profes-sionalism displayed by those heroic officersserves as a standard to emulate for everyonewho wears a badge.

6) Aftermath problems: When a criticalincident occurs, officers must not shut thedoor and allow the fire to spread, but go inand deal with the problem.Like any wound, if it isallowed to fester, it willhamper their recovery and,ultimately, the quality of thelife they are trying to save.Some problems they canhandle and others theycannot. Officers must havethe wisdom to know thedifference; to know when itis time to ask for help from aspouse, a friend, or a profes-sional; and to know thatthere is no shame in askingfor that help. Facing fears is the warrior/survivor’s hardest obstacle, and there is noshame in facing these fears. If I had not hadthe courage to ask for help from a profes-sional early into my recovery, I would notbe where I am today. Many agencies havepolicies mandating that their officers see aspecialist after a critical incident. While theycan make their officers go to the meeting,only the officers can make themselves partic-ipate in any recovery offered. Officers must

never allow foolish pride or ignorance tostand in the way of their well-being.

7) Worst-case scenario: One of the first thingsthat recruits do when they join the U.S.military is fill out their will and assign theirinsurance benefits. The main reason for this isnot in case they die, but, instead, it is so theyare not worrying about their family membersand their future when they should be concen-trating on fighting. The same thing appliesto the law enforcement profession. Officersshould talk with their spouse about worse-case scenarios and discuss insurance benefits,funeral arrangements, and other issues sur-rounding their untimely demise. I know this isunpleasant, but it is a burden that officers willnot carry to work if they already have dealt

with it. They then can concen-trate on surviving and not whatwill happen if they do not.

By incorporating thesesimple principles into theireveryday lives, officers willhave a box full of survival tools.When a crisis hits, such as thedeath of a child, they can reachinto their handy toolbox andgrab the implement needed tomake the repairs. Some officersprobably can think of otherthings that I may have omitted.That is excellent because my

goal is to get them to think of their own survivaland what they can do to make their chances evenbetter. We are all individuals, and different thingswork for different people. Many officers will usethe new tools in their toolbox for preventativemaintenance and that also is a goal of mine.

Conclusion

Am I “Superman”? I think not. Many peoplehave told me that they could not have enduredwhat I have and do what I do. I always tell them

© Peter Hendrie, Tribute


that I am nobody special. I have learned that thereis no “Superman” and that we all are human. Ihave faced my own mortality and realized thatlife is truly a precious gift. Living is what I do inthe present because I cannot change the past norguarantee the future. Surviving is not existing; itis living life to the fullest.

The person I am is the person I am. Prior toApril 20, 1995, I did not look at myself as havinga warrior/survivor mentality. My self-descriptionwas that I was a determinedindividual who did not like tolose. One of my friends pointedout that I was a warrior/survi-vor because of my determina-tion to overcome the adversitythat I had been dealt. But, I feltthat I had that desire because Ihad a wife and three children tothink about. I had to survivenot only for me but also forthem. Without them and theirlove, I certainly would not havegotten as well as I have.

I also pushed myself out ofanger. Anger can become just as good a motiva-tion for survival as love. Some people maydisagree with me, I am sure. But, I was not goingto let the person who did this to me think that hehad killed me without killing me. When it cametime for the trial, I was going to be there, headheld high, to testify against him. I wanted himto see that he had not destroyed me. I wantedhim to see that he had failed.

Due to that characterization as a warrior/survivor by my friend, I have examined mypersonality and those of others with similar traits.We all exhibited that same mentality, eventhough none of us ever really considered it to besuch. We were all professionals who took ourjobs seriously and did whatever was required toget that job done each day of our lives. It was nota onetime occurrence; it was how we always car-ried ourselves. The mind-set is not a thought or

an attitude. It is a way of life. It is not somethingthat goes away at the end of our shift. It is ourbeing. It is who we are.

I was determined to make my life right andmove forward. I went to physical therapy andcounseling. I endured hour upon hour of excruci-ating pain at the hands of my physical therapists.I underwent session after session of psychologicalpain while working with my psychologist. In theend, I have become a much better person with a

much deeper appreciation oflife. I also have a mission totake what I have experiencedand teach other officers somebasic, instinctive survivalskills. I teach them to fight andnever give up. I show themthat I am no one special, and,by that, I mean that everythingI did, have done, and will doagain lies within each one ofus. All that we need is theawareness that these toolsexist inside us and the desireto implement them. If only one

officer applies these lessons learned and is able tosurvive, then I know that what I have endured andcontinue to share with others is worthwhile. Myquestions are simple: Are you that officer? Willyou be the one to survive? Only you know forsure.

Endnotes1 Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Edward F. Davis, and Charles E.

Miller III, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, National Institute of Justice, In the Line of Fire

(Washington, DC, 1997), 4.

“

”

It is my opinion thatprofessionalism walkshand in hand with the

warrior/survivormentality and thatone cannot existwithout the other.

The author presents this article as a tribute to OfficerJohn Norcross of the Haddon Heights, New Jersey, PoliceDepartment and Investigator Jack McLaughlin of theCamden County, New Jersey, Prosecutor’s Office, twovaliant and compassionate men who made the supremesacrifice in fulfilling their sworn duty of safeguarding thepublic.

October 2003 / 27

risis negotiators takegreat pride in their com-munication skills. TheirC

specialty is to influence and per-suade, primarily through the useof active listening skills1 andother communication techniquesand strategies. Ironically, how-ever, it is not unusual for eventhe most well-trained crisis ne-gotiators to have difficulty effec-tively communicating the ratio-nale for their assessments andstrategy recommendations to theon-scene commander. To thisend, negotiation position papers

(NPPs) help negotiators expresstheir positions clearly and con-cisely during an incident.

The FBI’s Crisis NegotiationUnit routinely uses NPPs andvalues them as important tools,especially during hostage or bar-ricade incidents. Similarly, theuse of well-formatted NPPs canprove very beneficial to otherlaw enforcement agencies whenhandling these incidents.

Why Use NPPs?

The crisis negotiation coor-dinator, or team leader, is one of

the on-scene commander’s keyadvisors during hostage or barri-cade incidents. Specifically,throughout the course of theseincidents, the on-scene com-mander relies on the crisis nego-tiation coordinator to provideperiodic briefings that give thestatus (an overall description ofthe incident), an assessment (ananalysis of the incident), andrecommendations (guidance andstrategy).

Overall communication canbe difficult during a crisis sit-uation. The stress levels of all

Negotiation Position PapersA Tool for Crisis NegotiatorsBy VINCENT A. DALFONZO and STEPHEN J. ROMANO, M.A.


Special Agent Dalfonzo is a programmanager in the Crisis NegotiationUnit of the Critical Incident ResponseGroup at the FBI Academy.

Special Agent Romano is chiefof the Crisis Negotiation Unit ofthe Critical Incident ResponseGroup at the FBI Academy.

major crisis management partici-pants are high; the on-scenecommander, who is under anenormous amount of pressure, infact, also may be in crisis. As aresult, the crisis negotiation co-ordinator may find briefing theon-scene commander an arduoustask. NPPs serve as visual aids tocomplement these briefings;however, crisis negotiatorsshould not use them as substi-tutes for briefings.

Also, negotiation teams ide-ally share NPPs with the com-mand and tactical components.In this regard, NPPs help ensurethat all three components of thecrisis management triad (com-mand, negotiation, and tactical)become equally well informedduring a crisis situation.

Of course, NPPs are not usedto communicate time-sensitive

or life-threatening informationobtained by the crisis negotiationteam. Such information is re-layed immediately to the com-mand and tactical components.

What Are The Benefits?

NPPs offer many benefits.Specifically, the crisis negotia-tion team will find that they en-hance teamwork, communica-tion, and documentation.

First, preparing NPPs canhelp the various members of thecrisis negotiation team worktogether effectively. AlthoughNPP writing may involve onlyone member, all team memberscontribute ideas. As a result, theentire team focuses on thenegotiation effort. To this end,NPP preparation helps ensurethat team members becomeequally aware of all of the latest

developments and also keepsthem thinking proactively.

NPPs also can serve as brief-ing documents for those negotia-tors who may relieve, or comple-ment, other negotiators during anincident. Responding negotia-tors then not only will have situa-tion boards, logs, and audio tapesbut also NPPs to review to helpthem become fully informedmore quickly, thus helping themhave an immediate impact dur-ing an incident.

In addition to being a writtenreinforcement of the crisis nego-tiation coordinator’s oral brief-ing to the on-scene commander,NPPs also can enable the on-scene commander to brief thosehigher in the chain of command.Not only is this an additionalburden removed from the on-scene commander but it also be-comes more likely that an accu-rate account of the negotiationposture is conveyed to higherauthorities.

Last, NPPs clearly documentthe crisis negotiation team’sassessments and strategy rec-ommendations throughout entireincidents. This can prove inval-uable in cases where there isa difference of opinion duringthe conduct of a postincident cri-tique or in the event of subse-quent litigation proceedings.

What Is The Format?

This recommended formatcan serve as a guideline for

October 2003 / 29

Assessment

1. This is a hostage situation.

2. The subject is a career criminal with a violent past, but is not prepared, through either planning or experience,for this situation.

3. The subject appears confused, scared, and concerned for his own safety, despite stating that he is in control ofthe situation and “has a plan.”

4. The subject is using the children as protection from the police, not for bargaining.

5. The subject has not pressed for transportation or threatened his hostages; these both are positive signs.

6. Despite the presence of positive signs, the subject’s reference to “his plan,” without any reference to his future,seems to indicate the potential for suicide.

7. The crisis negotiation team assesses the threat level to the hostages as low. The team considers the subject amoderate suicide risk.

1. The subject remains in a private residence he entered 12 hours ago while fleeing from police. He possessesa 9-mm semiautomatic pistol.

2. The subject is keeping police at bay by holding two small children (ages 2 and 5), unrelated to him, as hostages.He has not threatened or harmed the children.

3. The subject demanded transportation only once, at the beginning of the siege, without setting any deadlines.

4. The subject’s telephone line was captured.

5. The subject refuses to exit the crisis site or to surrender.

Status

Recommendations

1. The crisis negotiation team should use active listening skills to build rapport and to explore the subject’s concernsand motivations.

2. While communicating with the subject, to encourage him to surrender, the team should attempt to downplay hiscrimes and to offer a scenario that would minimize his embarrassment.

3. The team should consider using an appropriate family member as a third-party intermediary, especially if thesubject’s suicide potential increases.

4. The team should coordinate a food delivery to the subject to build trust and rapport and to allow the tactical teamto gain a closer look at the crisis site.

5. Because the subject continues monitoring the news on television, incident command should send positivestatements through the media regarding law enforcement’s commitment to reach a peaceful resolution.

6. A low SWAT team profile should be used at this time. The subject currently enjoys a significant amount ofcontrol and leverage based upon his use of the children as hostages.

This sample NPP, both easy to prepare and understand, demonstrates how crisis negotiation teams can formatand use it in crisis situations.

Sample NPP

NPP - 2DateTime

In this fictional hostage/barricade situation, several telephone contacts occurred between the crisis negotiationteam and a male subject. These contacts occurred between 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m.


preparing NPPs. It is easy both toprepare and understand. First,the upper right-hand corner ofthe paper should denote the num-ber of the NPP (e.g., NPP-1,NPP-2), along with the date andtime the paper was prepared.This makes filing, retrieving,and reviewing the documenteasier. Second, the preamble tothe body of the NPP should iden-tify the number of contacts, andthe times of those contacts, thatthe position paper is based upon(e.g., The following status, as-sessment, and recommendationsare based upon two telephonecontacts (6 a.m. and 8 a.m.) withthe subject).

Next, the body of the NPP isdivided into three sections; thisis where the status, assessment,and recommendations are out-lined. Concise, numbered bulletsunder each part are suggested,rather than a paragraph format.

Experience has shown that, dur-ing crisis situations, on-scenecommanders are more apt toread, comprehend, and retaindata in this simplified, user-friendly format.

The status section shouldprovide a summary of the currentsituation, based upon the mostrecent intelligence, along withthe latest contacts with the sub-ject. The subject’s identity,weaponry, demands, and dead-lines, as well as the identityand welfare of the hostage orvictim, are areas of interest.Brevity and accuracy are im-portant; too much data may becounterproductive.

In the assessment section, thecrisis negotiation team shouldexplain whether they are dealingwith a hostage, nonhostage (bar-ricade with victims), lone barri-cade, or suicide situation. Theteam also should explain if the

subject seems capable of violentbehavior (verbalized or not), ap-parent motivations, the per-ceived threat level (low, moder-ate, or high), demands, andsubject-negotiator rapport.

Finally, in the recommenda-tions section, the crisis negotia-tion team should outline its ne-gotiation strategy recommenda-tions, emphasizing what it hopesto accomplish during its nextcontact. This section also is usedin advising the on-scene com-mander that a command decisionmay be required before pursuinga specific strategy. The on-scenecommander must give clearnegotiation guidelines that thecrisis negotiation team mustfollow.

Conclusion

Using negotiation positionpapers represents an excellentmethod for communicating thecrisis negotiation team’s posi-tion during a hostage or barri-cade incident. NPPs complementverbal briefings provided to thecommand staff; they can provideinvaluable assistance to the crisisnegotiation team in effectivelystating and defending its assess-ments and strategy recommen-dations to the on-scene com-mander. Further, NPPs can helpthe command, negotiation, andtactical components becomeequally well-informed duringcrisis situations.

Such critical incidents canprove highly stressful and

Subscribe Now

confusing; communication canbecome extremely difficult.NPPs can help bring structureand clarity to these situations.They serve the important pur-pose of making communicationeasier, even in some of the mostdifficult circumstances.

Endnotes1 Active listening skills (ALS) are

effective in defusing strong emotions andrestoring speakers’ emotional equilibrium.When listened to, speakers tend to listen tothemselves more carefully and to evaluateand clarify their own thoughts andfeelings. Listeners who use ALS demon-strate empathy, which enhances rapportwith speakers and thus increases their

potential to influence speakers’ behavior.For additional information, see Stephen J.Romano, “Communication Survival SkillsFor Managers,” FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, September 2002, 14-16; and GaryW. Noesner and Mike Webster, “CrisisIntervention: Using Active Listening Skillsin Negotiations,” FBI Law Enforcement

Bulletin, August 1997, 13-19.

October 2003 / 31


FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

Author Guidelines

GENERAL INFORMATION

The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is anofficial publication of the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Frequency of Publication: Monthly.Purpose: To provide a forum for the ex-

change of information on law enforcement-relatedtopics.

Audience: Criminal justice professionals,primarily law enforcement managers.

MANUSCRIPT SPECIFICATIONS

Length: Feature articles should contain 2,000to 3,500 words (8 to 14 pages, double-spaced).Submissions for specialized departments, such asPolice Practice and Case Study, should contain1,200 to 2,000 words (5 to 8 pages, double-spaced).

Format: Authors should submit three copiesof their articles typed and double-spaced on 81/2 -by 11-inch white paper with all pages numbered.When possible, an electronic version of the articlesaved on computer disk should accompany thetyped manuscript.

Authors should supply references whenquoting a source exactly, citing or paraphrasinganother person’s work or ideas, or referring toinformation that generally is not well known. Forproper footnote format, authors should refer to AManual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, andDissertations, 6th ed., by Kate L. Turabian.

Writing Style and Grammar: The Bulletinprefers to publish articles in the third person(Point of View and Perspective submissionsare exceptions) using active voice. Authorsshould follow The New York Public LibraryWriter’s Guide to Style and Usage and shouldstudy several issues of the magazine to ensurethat their writing style meets the Bulletin’srequirements.

Authors also should contact the Bulletin stafffor the expanded author guidelines, which contain

additional specifications, detailed examples, andeffective writing techniques.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHICS

A photograph of the author(s) shouldaccompany the manuscript. Authors can submitphotos and illustrations that visually enhanceand support the text. Black-and-white glossyprints (3- by 5-inch to 5- by 7-inch) reproducebest. The Bulletin does not accept responsibilityfor lost or damaged photos or illustrations.

PUBLICATION

Judging Manuscripts: The Bulletin judgesarticles on relevance to the audience, factualaccuracy, analysis of the information, structureand logical flow, style and ease of reading, andlength. The Bulletin generally does not publisharticles on similar topics within a 12-monthperiod or accept articles previously published orcurrently under consideration by other maga-zines. Because it is a government publication,the Bulletin cannot accept articles that advertisea product or service.

Query Letters: Authors may submit aquery letter along with a 1- to 2-page outlinebefore writing an article. Although designed tohelp authors, this process does not guaranteeacceptance of any article.

Author Notification: The Bulletin staffwill review queries and articles and advise theauthors of acceptance or rejection. The maga-zine cannot guarantee a publication date foraccepted articles.

Editing: The Bulletin staff edits all manu-scripts for length, clarity, format, and style.

SUBMISSION

Authors should mail their submissions to:Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBIAcademy, Madison Bldg., Room 209, Quantico,VA 22135; telephone: 703-632-1952; fax:703-632-1968; e-mail: [email protected].

The Bulletin Notes

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

Officer Raterman

Early one morning, Officer Max Raterman of the Owego, New York,Police Department was dispatched to a structure fire. Upon arrival, Of-ficer Raterman observed smoke and flames surging from a three-storybuilding that housed 12 apartments on the second and third floors. Overthe next few minutes, Officer Raterman made several trips into the build-ing trying to wake occupants and assist them to safety. Shortly after firedepartment personnel arrived, Officer Raterman exited the building andmaintained crowd control until other officers arrived. Once the fire wassuppressed many hours later, Officer Raterman entered the building witha fire investigation team to try to determine the origin of the fire. OfficerRaterman’s diligence and courage saved many lives and made dealing

with this tragedy more manageable for the victims.

Officer Wannow

Officer Steven Wannow of the Hartford, Wisconsin, Police Departmentresponded to a call of a missing 16-year-old male. The missing individual,possibly considered endangered due to his diabetic condition, was missingfrom his place of employment after leaving work on foot. After taking theinitial call, Officer Wannow began to search the immediate and adjacentareas on foot. Officer Wannow also alerted the local hospital of the situa-tion. After searching for nearly one and one-half hours, and with darknessapproaching, Officer Wannow found the subject lying on his back andunresponsive. OfficerWannow called forrescue personnel and

administered first aid that revived the victimto a level of consciousness. The subject wastreated at a local hospital where personnelcredited Officer Wannow’s quick responseand ability to recognize serious life-threaten-ing symptoms with potentially saving thevictim’s life.

Nominations for the Bulletin Notes should be basedon either the rescue of one or more citizens or arrest(s)made at unusual risk to an officer’s safety. Submissionsshould include a short write-up (maximum of 250words), a separate photograph of each nominee, and aletter from the department’s ranking officer endorsingthe nomination. Submissions should be sent to theEditor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, FBI Academy,Madison Building, Room 209, Quantico, VA 22135.

PeriodicalsPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PeriodicalsPostage and Fees PaidFederal Bureau of InvestigationISSN 0014-5688

U.S. Department of JusticeFederal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin

935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20535-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

At the center of the patch of the WinslowTownship, New Jersey, Police Department is acircle, bisected by the Egg Harbor River. Sur-rounding the river is a cattail, symbolizing thewetlands habitat that prevails in and around theriver basin, and an orchard, representing thearea’s strong agricultural tradition. The bottomof the circle features the year Winslow Townshipwas incorporated, 1845.

The patch of the St. Helena, California, PoliceDepartment depicts alternating rows of greenvineyards and golden wild mustard, with a clusterof dark wine grapes and green leaves on the leftside of the patch. The background features themountains that rise on each side of the NapaValley. This patch honors St. Helena’s role asthe center of this premium wine-growing region.

Patch Call

fbi law enforcement bulletin - oct03leb

Documents