8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
1/35
United StatesDepartment of Justice
Federal Bureau of InvestigationWashington, DC 20535-0001
Robert S. Mueller IIIDirector
Contributors opinions and statementsshould not be considered an
endorsement by the FBI for any policy,program, or service.
The attorney general has determinedthat the publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of thepublic business required by law. Use
of funds for printing this periodical hasbeen approved by the director of theOffice of Management and Budget.
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin (ISSN-0014-5688) is published
monthly by the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, 935 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.20535-0001. Periodicals postage paid
at Washington, D.C., and additionalmailing offices. Postmaster: Sendaddress changes to Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , FBI Academy,
Madison Building, Room 201,Quantico, VA 22135.
Editor
John E. OttAssociate Editors
Cynthia L. LewisDavid W. MacWha
Bunny S. MorrisArt Director
Denise Bennett SmithAssistant Art Director
Stephanie L. LoweStaff Assistant
Cynthia H. McWhirt
This publication is produced bymembers of the Law EnforcementCommunication Unit, Training and
Development Division.
Internet [email protected]
Cover Photo
Mark C. Ide
Send article submissions to Editor,FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ,
FBI Academy, Madison Building,Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.
December 2005Volume 74Number 12
Features
Agencies have many considerations in ensuring the admissibility of digital
The Admissibility of DigitalPhotographs in Criminal Cases
photographs in criminal cases.By David P. Nagosky
Six Supreme Court decisions of
particular importance to law Supreme Court Cases
2004-2005 Term enforcement are summarized.By the FBI Academy
Legal Instruction Unit
Departments
8 Unusual Weapon 24 Bulletin ReportsPepper Spray Pen Public Relations
Corrections9 Perspective
Systemic Learning 25 2005 Subject IndexManagement
28 2005 Author Index12 Book Review
Police Response to Personsin Mental Health Crisis
ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
2/35
The Admissibility of Digital Photographs
in Criminal Cases By DAVID P. NAGOSKY
Mark C. Ide
Representing todays
trend in photography,digital cameras con-tinue to rapidly replace tradi-tional film based models. Asprices keep dropping, consumerownership will become evenmore prevalent. Similarly, lawenforcement agencies have be-gun to favor digital cameras
just the latest in a long line of technological innovations usedby departments to collect anddocument evidence. Digitalphotography offers law enforce-ment numerous benefits, includ-ing instant access to images,rapid transportability of pictures
within a department or to out-
side agencies, and decreasedcost and time as these camerasrequire no film development.
Of course, photographswhich generally hold substantialweightserve as one of themost effective forms of evi-dence in court. However, manyindividuals in the legal commu-nity fear the potential abuse andmanipulation of digital images.Therefore, they consider thesepictures inadmissible undercurrent evidentiary rules.
To this end, an examinationof the admissibility of filmbased photographs and an
analysis of cases, legislation,
and legal commentary per-taining to digital pictures canprovide valuable insight. Fur-ther, agencies can follow rec-ommendations as to how theycan help ensure the admissibil-ity of their digital photographsunder the law as it develops inthe United States.
FILM-BASEDPHOTOGRAPHS
People can manipulate filmbased pictures. Throughout thephotographic process, an indi-vidual skilled in photographycan alter the image. 1 For
December 2005 / 1
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
3/35
...many individuals in the legal
community fear the potential abuse and manipulation of digital images.
2 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
4/35
Mark C. Ide
December 2005 / 3
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
5/35
Modifications of film-based
photographs have presented problems
for years.
4 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
6/35
Mark C. Ide
December 2005 / 5
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
7/35
...an examination of the admissibility
of film-based
photographs and an analysis of cases,
legislation, and legal commentary...can provide valuable
insight.
6 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
8/35
CONCLUSION
Digital photographs serve aspowerful, efficient tools for lawenforcement. The ability to takea picture and instantly view anddistribute it helps officials intheir efforts to serve and protecttheir communities. Agenciesshould not become hindered bythose in the legal system reluc-tant to stay in step with ad-vances in technology. As onecommentator stated, Fearabout manipulation of digitalimages is exaggerated, perhapsbecause of the perceived nov-elty of the technology. We oftenfear what is or seems new.Certainly, this fear has mademany forget a secret of ana-logue photography [traditionalfilm based photographs],namely that conventionalphotographs may be manipu-lated to alter reality and at worstto fabricate false evidence. 43
The trend in case law pointsto the admissibility of digitalphotographs as evidence,although many in the legalcommunity rightfully suggestthat digital photographs aresubject to abuses. To alleviatethose fears, law enforcementagencies should attempt toestablish standard operatingprocedures that, at least, includethe preservation of and account-ability for the original imagefrom creation to admission intoevidence. Like so much in lawenforcement, the admissibilityof digital photographs will
depend on the veracity andintegrity of the authenticatingofficial.
Ultimately, to help preventthe abuse of digital photo-graphs, judges and attorneyson both sides of the courtroommust become aware of thepotential abuses and familiarwith the associated technology.As a result, the underlying fearswill dissipate, and, in those rarecases where a dishonest personmay falsely alter an image, the
judicial system will recognizeand effectively address theproblem.
Endnotes
1 Judge Victor E. Bianchini and HarveyBass, Perspective, A Paradigm for the
Authentication of Photographic Evidencein the Digital Age , 20 T. Jefferson L. Rev.303, 306 (1998).
2 Id. at 303, 308.3 Id .4 Suggested Procedures for Preserva-
tion of Digital Crime Scene Photographs;retrieved from http://www.policecentral .com/wp crimescene.htm .
5 Supra note 1 at 303, 309.6 See, e.g ., Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 401, Rule 402, and Rule 901; seealso M. L. Cross, Annotation, Authentica-tion or Verification of Photograph as
Basis for Introduction in Evidence , 9A.L.R. 2d 899.
7 See, e.g ., Federal Rules of EvidenceRule 1001 and Rule 1002.
8 Supra note 1 at 303, 311 312(However, modern technology has tossedanother monkey wrench into the eviden-tiary gearbox. Traditional emulsivephotography always had a traceable originto rely upon. The courts or opposingcounsel could always demand, Show methe negative. However, it is now possible
to create a photograph digitally withouta negative and no traceable parentage.).
9 Wesley M. Baden, Digital Photo-graphs as Evidence in Utah Courts;
retrieved from http://www.utahbarjournal .com/html/march_2004_2.html .
10 Id .11 Christina Shaw, Admissibility of
Digital Photographic Evidence: Should ItBe Any Different Than TraditionalPhotography, American Prosecutors
Research Institute 15, no. 10 (2002);retrieved from http://www.ndaa apri.org/
publications/newsletters/update_volume_15_number 10_2002.html .
12 Jill Witkowski, Can Juries Really Believe What They See? New Founda-tional Requirements for the Authenticationof Digital Images , 10 Wash. U. J.L. &POLY 267, 270 (2002); see also WilliamW. Camp, Practical Uses of DigitalPhotography in Litigation , 2 Ann. 2000ATLA CLE 1463 (2000). (Image qualityin digital photography commonly refers tothe amount of compression, if any, that isused to store the electronic digital image.)
13 Supra note 12 (Witkowski).14 274 Ga. 348, 553 S.E. 2d 803 (2001).15 274 Ga. 348, 349, 553 S.E. 2d 803,
805 (2001).16 Id. (citing Ray v. State, 266 Ga. 896,
897(1), 471 S.E. 2d 887 (1996) (video-tapes admissible with the same limitationsand on same grounds as photographs)).
17 264 A.D. 2d 690, 691, 698 N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dept., 1999).
18 90 Wash. App. 100, 950 P.2d 1024(Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
19 90 Wash. App. 100, 109, 950 P.2d1024, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
20 90 Wash. App. 100, 106, 950 P.2d1024, 1027 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
21 Id .22 90 Wash. App. 100, 108, 950 P.2d
1024, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998) , but seeMichael Cherry, Informal Opinion , 27-JUL Champion 42 (July 2003) (The IowaInternational Association for Identification(IAI) Web site highlights State v. Hayden ,950 P.2d 1024 (Wash. App. 1998), wherethe Washington Court of Appeals notedexperts claims that digital photographs
December 2005 / 7
http://www.policecentral/http://www.utahbarjournal/http://www.ndaa-apri.org/http://www.ndaa-apri.org/http://www.utahbarjournal/http://www.policecentral/8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
9/35
are superior to regular film photographsbecause digital photographs can pick upand differentiate between many morecolors and shades of gray than film
photographs. Unfortunately this is not true,forensic quality film offers at least as manycolors and more shades of gray than digitalimages.).
23 90 Wash. App. 100, 108, 950 P.2d1024, 1028 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
24 2003 WL 22683442 (Cal. Ct. App.2003) (not an officially publishedopinion).
25 Id. at 4.26 2003 WI A.B. 584; and supra note 9.27 Supra note 9.28 Hawaii House Bill 1309; and supra
note 9.29 Supra note 12 (Witkowski) at 267,
273.30 William Sloan Coats and Gabriel
Ramsey, Fair, Accurate, and True? Authenticating Evidence in the Age of Digital Manipulation , 11 No. 1 Prac.Litigator 31, 32 (2000).
31 Christine A. Guilshan, A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Lies: Electronic Imaging and the Future of the Admissi-bility of Photographs into Evidence , 18
Rutgers Computer & Tech L.J. 365, 373-374 (1992).
32 Roderick T. McCarvel, You WontBelieve Your Eyes: Digital Photographyas Legal Evidence; retrieved from http:// www.seanet.com/~rod/digiphot.html .
33 Advisory Committee on EvidenceRules, Minutes of the Meeting of October 18, 2002 , 11; retrieved from http:// www.uscourts.gov/rules/Minutes/ 1002EVMin.pdf .
34 Id .35 See, e.g., Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 1002.36 See, e.g., Federal Rules of Evidence
Rule 1001(3).37 Supra note 12 (Camp) (Arguably, a
photograph taken by a digital camera of aparticular event...is an original photo-graph as defined by Federal Rules of Evidence 1001(3)....); but see Roderick T.
McCarvel, You Wont Believe YourEyes: Digital Photography as LegalEvidence , retrieved from http:// www.seanet.com/~rod/digiphot.html
(Worse yet is any incarnation of the bestevidence rule, which follows the FederalRules of Evidence in defining a printoutas an original for purposes of the rule.).
38 Steven B. Staggs, The Admissibilityof Digital Photographs in Court; retrievedfrom http://www.crime scene investigator .net/admissibilityofdigital.html .
39 Id.40 Supra note 11.41 Supra note 11.42 Digital Camera Considerations for
Crime Scene Investigations; retrievedfrom http://www.policecentral.com/wp-digicam.htm .
43 Supra note 9.
Special Agent Nagosky serves with the FBIs New York office.
Unusual Weapon
Pepper Spray Pen This item is made of plastic and metal and appears to be a fountain or
ballpoint pen. It actually can eject pepper spray. Such unusual weapons pose aserious threat to law enforcement officers.
8 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
http://www.crime-scene-investigator/http://www.policecentral.com/wp-http://www.policecentral.com/wp-http://www.crime-scene-investigator/8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
10/35
A Prescription for Systemic Learning Management By Vertel T. Martin
olicing in the 21st century requires law en-forcement executives, managers, and super-
visors to learn more about the ideas, concepts,theories, and research surrounding organizationallearning, learning organizations, and systemic po-licing. Although many different definitions existfor these terms, Peter Senges notions introduced acreative framework of how institutions can changetheir perspectives about how to operate. 1 He em-phasized the importance of learning in organiza-tions and outlined five key internal interventionsfor it to continuously occur in them: mental mod-els, personal mastery, team learning, shared vision,and systems thinking. 2 Senges premise was thatif these five areas of practice were introduced andcultivated within an organization, it could help to
enhance the learning capacities of that organiza-tion and its members. 3
Challenging Mental ModelsAccording to Senge, mental models exist in the
minds of members of organizations. 4 These
P
PhotoDisc
Perspective
include the thoughts, beliefs, and assumptions thatwe hold based upon our knowledge, experiences,and opinions. These mental models are so deeply
ingrained in our minds that we cannot readily ac-cess nor easily examine them and, therefore, can-not change them without considerable effort. Thetask of learning requires that we first exhume andscrutinize our mental models because they influ-ence everything we do, sometimes without us evenknowing it. 5 Only then can we challenge the pre-mises upon which we base them.
This means that police officials need to engagein premise reflection in the way that adult learningtheorist Dr. Jack Mezirow envisioned. 6 Are ourthoughts, beliefs, and attitudes based upon soundreasoning and up to date evidence, or are they theresult of tradition, malaise, or officially sanctionedknowledge? Are they frozen in time, or can they bedefrosted periodically to respond to the elasticityrequired for the organization to survive?
Fostering Personal MasterySenge described personal mastery as the con-
tinuous, on going improvement on the use of infor-mation and resources to achieve better results. 7Essentially, this means that learning should takeplace on a day to day basis and that the discourseamong members of an organization is desirableand necessary because it improves the knowledge,skills, attitudes, and abilities of the employees.
Initiating Team LearningSenge emphasized team learning, which in-
volves working well as a group. 8 The agency needsto place emphasis on teaching members howto execute tasks together as a whole organism. 9They all must perform their functions for the teamto be fruitful and to enhance the survival of the
institution. If members work separately or do notperform in accordance with their potential, theteam (and the system) will fail.
Leaders must promote team building and teamwork. Managers must communicate with membersand reinforce the fact that they are an integral part
December 2005 / 9
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
11/35
Systems thinkingdeconstructs the
notion of theorganization as a
machine made up ofinterchangeable parts.
10 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
12/35
Ms. Martin, a retired New York City Police Department lieutenant and commander of detectives, is an adjunct professor of criminal justice at East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania and Northampton Community College.
December 2005 / 11
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
13/35
Book Review
12 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
14/35
December 2005 / 13
FBI Law Enforcement BulletinAuthor Guidelines
GENERAL INFORMATIONThe FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin is an
official publication of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 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 SPECIFICATIONSLength: Feature articles should contain 2,000
to 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 8 -by 11-inch white paper with all pages numbered.An electronic version of the article saved oncomputer disk should accompany the typedmanuscript. Authors also may e-mail articles.
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 A
Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations , 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 ensure
that their writing style meets the Bulletin srequirements.Authors also should contact the Bulletin
staff or access http://www.fbi.gov/publications/
leb/leb.htm for the expanded author guidelines,which contain additional specifications, detailedexamples, and effective writing techniques.
PHOTOGRAPHS AND GRAPHICSA photograph of the author(s) should
accompany the manuscript. Authors can submitphotos and illustrations that visually enhanceand support the text. The Bulletin does notaccept responsibility for lost or damaged photosor illustrations.
PUBLICATIONJudging Manuscripts: The Bulletin judges
articles 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 outline
before writing an article. Although designed tohelp authors, this process does not guaranteeacceptance of any article.
Author Notification: The Bulletin staff will 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.
SUBMISSIONAuthors should mail their submissions to:
Editor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , FBIAcademy, Madison Bldg., Room 201, Quantico,VA 22135; telephone: 703-632-1952; fax:703-632-1968; e-mail: [email protected].
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
15/35
Legal Digest Eyewire
Supreme Court Cases 2004-2005 Term By the FBI ACADEMYLEGAL INTSRUCTION UNIT
T he 2004 2005 U.S.Supreme Court termincluded several casesaddressing a variety of constitu-tional criminal proceduralissues and employment relatedmatters of interest to the lawenforcement community. Onecase addressed the extent towhich the Constitution recog-nizes the ability of law enforce-ment to use canine detection,ruling on whether the Consti-tution requires articulable and
specific facts indicating crimi-nal activity to use a canine. Alsobefore the Supreme Court wasa case involving the extent towhich law enforcement mayexercise authority over occu-pants of a residence for whichthe officers have a searchwarrant to search. In two othercases, the Supreme Court ruledon whether the federal statutecriminalizing conspiracy tolaunder money requires proof of an overt act and the extent to
which a defendant can bevisibly shackled during thepenalty phase of a trial. Re-garding employment matters,the Court provided furtherguidance on the extent to whichspeech engaged in by a govern-ment employee is protectedunder the First Amendment andalso ruled on an issue arisingunder the Age Discrimination inEmployment Act. A brief synopsis of each of these casesfollows.
14 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
16/35
Comstock Images
Illinois v. Caballes,125 S. Ct. 843 (2005)
The Supreme Court heldthat a dog sniff of the exterior of an automobile conducted duringthe course of a lawful vehiclestop is not a search and may beperformed without any suspi-cion that the vehicles occu-pants are engaged in criminal
activity. In so holding, the Courtdistinguished Kyllo v. United States ,1 in which it held that theuse of thermal imaging to detecta detail of the interior of a homenot otherwise knowable was asearch.
In Caballes , an Illinois statetrooper stopped Roy I. Caballesfor speeding and while radioingin to dispatch, a second trooperoverheard the transmission and
drove to the scene with hisnarcotics detection dog. Whilethe first trooper was writingCaballes a warning ticket, the
second trooper walked the dogaround the vehicle. When thedog alerted to the trunk, both
officers searched it and foundmarijuana. Caballes was thenarrested and later convictedon drug charges. The IllinoisSupreme Court reversed thedrug conviction, finding thatbecause there was no specificand articulable facts to suggestdrug activity, use of the dogsniff unjustifiably enlarged aroutine traffic stop into a druginvestigation. 2
In reversing the Illinois Su-preme Court, the U.S. SupremeCourt found that the arrivalof another officer at the scenewhile the traffic stop was inprogress and the use of thenarcotics detection dog to sniff around the exterior did not it-self constitute any additionalinfringement on Fourth
Amendment rights that wouldhave to be supported by areasonable suspicion of criminal
activity unrelated to the stop.3
Recognizing that a seizure thatis lawful at its inception canviolate the Fourth Amendmentif its manner of execution isunreasonable, the SupremeCourt held that in this case, thetraffic stop was not extendedbeyond the time necessary toissue a warning ticket. Theoutcome would be differentif the dog sniff was conductedduring an unlawful detention,not because of the constitution-ality of the search, but ratherdue to the unreasonableness of the seizure.
The Court cited United States v. Place 4 to support itsconclusion that the dog sniff itself was not a search withinthe meaning of the Fourth
December 2005 / 15
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
17/35
Amendment because the use of a well trained dog does notexpose noncontraband items
that otherwise would remainhidden from public view. 5Because it can reveal only theexistence of an illegal sub-stance, a dog sniff does notintrude into any legitimateexpectation of privacy. Distin-guishing this case from Kyllo v.United States the Courtstated 6
This conclusion is entirelyconsistent with our recentdecision that the use of athermal imaging device todetect the growth of mari-
juana in a home constitutedan unlawful search....Critical to that decision wasthe fact that the device wascapable of detecting lawfulactivityin that case, inti-mate details in a home....The legitimate expectation
that information about per-fectly lawful activity willremain private is categori-cally distinguishable fromrespondents hopes orexpectation concerning thenondetection of contrabandin the trunk of his car. Adog sniff conducted duringa concededly lawful trafficstop that reveals no informa-tion other than the locationof a substance that noindividual has any right topossess does not violatethe Fourth Amendment. 7
Comstock Images
Muehler v. Mena ,125 S. Ct. 1465 (2005)
In this case, the SupremeCourt provided additionalguidance on the authority todetain, handcuff, and questionoccupants during the executionof a search warrant. In Michiganv. Summers, 8 the Court ruledthat officers serving a searchwarrant for drugs could detain
occupants of the premises whilesearching to prevent flightsin the event incriminatingevidence is found, minimizingthe risk of harm to the officers,and to facilitate the search,because occupants self-interest may induce them toopen locked doors or lockedcontainers to avoid the use of force. 9 Although the Court inSummers clearly held that awarrant to search for contrabandcarries with it the limited au-thority to detain occupants of the premises while a search is
conducted, Summers did notresolve whether detained occu-pants could be handcuffed, or
for how long, or questioned, norwhether its ruling also appliedto searches for evidence asopposed to contraband. Theseissues were addressed in
Muehler v. Mena .Police in Simi Valley,
California, obtained a warrantin connection with a drive byshooting to search a suspectedgang members house forweapons, ammunition, and gangparaphernalia. Because of thehigh risk nature of the case,SWAT made the initial entry.Four occupants, including IrisMena, were handcuffed atgunpoint and taken to a garageon the premises, where theywere detained for the 2 to 3hours it took to finish thesearch. Although Mena was notimplicated in any crime, an INS
agent who had accompanied thepolice briefly questioned herabout her identity and immigra-tion status. She was ultimatelyreleased. Mena brought a civilaction against officers alleging aviolation of her Fourth Amend-ment rights.
The U.S. District Court forthe Central District of Califor-nia upheld a jury verdict award-ing Mena $60,000 in damages.The U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit affirmed. 10 Inupholding the judgment againstthe police, the Ninth Circuit
16 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
18/35
took issue with the continueddetention of Mena during thesearch despite determining that
she was not a suspect, as well asthe use of handcuffs during thesearch despite what the courtbelieved to be insufficientinformation suggesting sheposed a threat to officer safety. 11
The Supreme Court re-versed, finding that Menasdetention was, under Summers ,plainly permissible. 12 In soconcluding, the Court made nodistinction between searches forcontraband and searches forevidence. An officers authorityto detain occupants incident tothe execution of a search war-rant was described as beingcategoricalmeaning absoluteand unqualified and not requir-ing any justification beyond thewarrant itself. The authoritydoes not depend on the amountof proof justifying detention nor
the extent of intrusion imposedby the seizure. 13 The Courtconcluded that Menas deten-tion for the duration of thesearch was reasonable simplybased on the existence of awarrant for a residence in whichshe was an occupant at the timeof the search. 14
The Court also found thatthe officers continuing safetyinterests rendered the use of handcuffs for the full length of the search reasonable. 15 Inher-ent in the authority to detainoccupants is the authority to use
Digital Juice
reasonable force to effect thedetention. 16 What force is rea-sonable will depend on the factsof the case. Here, the underlyingcase was a crime of violence;the warrant was based on prob-able cause to believe that gangmembers and weapons wouldbe located at the residence.Further, there were multiple
occupants and only a limitednumber of officers to controlthem while the search wascompleted. 17
On the issue of questioning,the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an officermust have reasonable suspicionthat an individual is not a citi-zen to interrogate that indi-vidual about citizenship status.The U.S. Supreme Court dis-agreed and held that officers donot need independent reason-able suspicion to question anoccupant detained during a
lawful search. As the Courtexplained, We have heldrepeatedly that mere policequestioning does not constitutea seizure and [h]ence, theofficers did not need reasonablesuspicion to ask Mena hername, date and place of birth,or immigration status. 18
Comstock Images
December 2005 / 17
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
19/35
Corbis
18 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
20/35
courtrooms. But given theirprejudicial effect, due processdoes not permit the use of vis-
ible restraints if the trial courthas not taken account of thecircumstances of the particularcase. 29
Comstock Images
Whitfield v. United States,125 S. Ct. 687 (2005)
In this case, a number of co-defendants were charged by an
indictment that described, ingeneral terms, the manner andmeans used to accomplish theobjects of a money launderingconspiracy. The indictment,however, did not charge thedefendants with any overt act infurtherance of the scheme. Attrial, the government presentedevidence that the defendants, asprincipals in Greater MinistriesInternational Church, managedand promoted a fraudulentinvestment scheme. At theclose of the evidence, thedefendants asked the districtcourt to instruct the jury that the
government was required toprove beyond a reasonabledoubt that at least one of the co-
conspirators had committed anovert act in furtherance of themoney laundering conspiracy.The court denied the request,and the jury returned a verdictof guilty.
The Eleventh Circuit Courtof Appeals affirmed the con-victions, holding that the juryinstructions were proper be-cause the money launderingconspiracy charge 30 does notrequire proof of an overt act. 31The Eleventh Circuit noted thatwhile neither it nor the SupremeCourt had previously deter-mined whether commission of an overt act is an essential ele-ment of a conviction under themoney laundering conspiracystatute, other circuit courtswere split on the issue. 32 Thosecircuit courts that had found
that the statute required proof of an overt act relied, erroneouslyin the view of the EleventhCircuit, on case law interpretingthe general conspiracy statute(Title 18, U.S. Code, section371). 33
The U.S. Supreme Courtagreed to hear the case and heldthat conviction for conspiracy tocommit money laundering doesnot require proof of an overt actin furtherance of the conspiracy.Writing for a unanimous Court,Justice OConner looked tothe case of United States v.Shabani 34 in which the Court
had held that the nearly identi-cal language of the drug con-spiracy statute (Title 21, U.S.
Code, section 846) does notrequire proof of an overt act.Justice OConner pointed outthat, in deciding Shabani , theCourt found instructive acomparison between the moneylaundering conspiracy statuteand the general conspiracystatute that expressly includesan overt act requirement.Indeed, the general conspiracystatute supercedes the commonlaw rule by expressly includingan overt act requirement. 35 TheCourt concluded that the ruleapplied in Shabani dictated theoutcome here as well. 36 Becausethe plain text of the moneylaundering conspiracy statutedoes not expressly make com-mission of an overt act anelement of the conspiracyoffense, the government need
not prove an overt act to obtaina conviction. Comstock Images
December 2005 / 19
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
21/35
Smith v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, 125 S. Ct. 1536(2005)
This case provided theSupreme Court an opportunityto decide whether the AgeDiscrimination in EmploymentAct (ADEA) 37 afforded com-plainants an opportunity to sue,not on the basis of direct dis-crimination (disparate treat-ment) but, rather, by arguingindirect discrimination, referredto as disparate impact. Smith v.City of Jackson, Mississippi ,38
involved a claim on the part of certain police and public safetyofficers alleging that the citysrevision of a pay plan designedto bring salaries to a competi-tive level with other municipal-ities by providing more of apercentage increase for lesssenior officers as opposed toofficers over the age of 40 had adiscriminatory impact on older
officers in violation of theADEA. The Fifth Circuit Courtof Appeals rejected this theory,ruling that a disparate impacttheory of discrimination is notavailable under the ADEA. 39
The Supreme Court re-versed, holding that the ADEAshould be read consistent withTitle VII of the Civil Rights Actwith respect to allowing forconsideration of a disparateimpact theory of liability underthe ADEA. However, the Courtultimately held that the plain-tiffs failed to establish such aclaim. In so ruling, the Court
concluded that while a disparateimpact claim of discriminationis viable under the ADEA,
language in the ADEA itself restricts its scope as comparedwith disparate impact discrimi-nation under Title VII of theCivil Rights Act. The ADEAcontains a provision that signifi-cantly limits its scope by allow-ing for an employer to take anyaction otherwise prohibited bythe ADEA where the differen-tiation is based on reasonablefactors other than age. 40 In otherwords, can the discriminationbe explained by a nonage factorthat was reasonable? Addition-ally, to establish a disparateimpact claim, the plaintiffs mustidentify a specific test or re-quirement or point to a specificpolicy that has the disparateimpact. The plaintiffs may notsimply allege that a disparateimpact exists. 41
The Supreme Court con-cluded that the plaintiffs failedto identify a specific practicethat had a disparate impact. TheCourt stated that petitionershave done little more than pointout that the pay plan at issue isrelatively less generous to olderworkers than to younger work-ers. 42 The Court further con-cluded that the citys pay planwas based on a reasonable
factor other than age, in thiscase, seniority. While recog-nizing the theory of liabilitydisparate impactas viableunder the ADEA, the Court
concluded that the plaintiffsfailed to establish a case.
Comstock Images
City of San Diego v. Roe,125 S. Ct. 521 (2004)
In City of San Diego v. Roe ,the Supreme Court providedguidance on the extent to whichspeech and expressive conducton the part of public employeesis considered as relating to a
matter of public concern. Thisfinding is crucial to the viabilityof a claim brought by a govern-ment employee challenging anadverse employment action onthe grounds that it violates theFirst Amendment. The longestablished framework for de-termining the constitutionalityof taking adverse action againsta government employee in-cludes balancing the interestsof the employee in engaging inthe speech or expressive con-duct and the interests of theemployer. 43 In the seminal caseof Connick v. Myers, 44 the
20 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
22/35
Comstock Images
December 2005 / 21
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
23/35
state and federal courts onwhether an occupant may givevalid consent to law enforce-
ment over the objections of another occupant when both theconsentor and non consentorhave authority to give consentto search the common areas of premises shared among the two.In Booker T. Hudson v. Michi-gan ,51 the Court will considerwhether evidence seized follow-ing a violation of the knock andannounce rule should be subjectto a per se admissibility ruleunder the inevitable discoverydoctrine. In an employmentrelated matter, the Court agreedto hear Garcetti, et al. v.Ceballos ,52 which may furtherclarify the concept of publicconcern within the meaningof the First Amendment.
Endnotes 1 533 U.S. 27 (2001).2 People v. Caballes , 207 Ill. 2d 504,
510; 280 Ill. Dec. 277, 280; 802 N.E. 2d202, 205 (2003).
3 125 S. Ct. 834, 837.4 420 U.S. 696 (1983).5 Id. at 838.6 533 U.S. 27 (2001).7 Id. (The U.S. Supreme Court vacated
the judgment and remanded to a DistrictCourt of Appeal of Florida for furtherconsideration in light of Caballes, a caseinvolving the dog sniff of the exterior of aresidence. See , Florida v. Rabb , 125 S. Ct.2246 (5/16/2005). In Rabb , a BrowardCounty Sheriffs Office detective and drugdog walked from a public roadway in frontof the residence up to the front door wherethe dog alerted. This information wasused to obtain a search warrant for the
residence. The Florida court had ruled thatthe use of a dog sniff to reveal thepresence of drugs within a home was asearch in light of Kyllo . See , State v. Rabb ,
881 So.2d 587 (Fla. App. 4 Dist. 2004)).8 452 U.S. 692 (1981).9 Id . at 703.10 Mena v. City of Simi Valley , 332 F.3d
1255 (9th Cir. 2003).11 Id . at 1263.12 125 S. Ct. 1465, 1470.13 Id.14 Id .15 Id. at 1471. Mena underscores a
distinction between the categorical rulethat permits the detention of occupantswhile serving a search warrant and themore limited rule that permits the use of
handcuffs only when it is reasonable to
Cormstock Images
do so. Detention of occupants always ispermitted without further justificationwhile the search is completed, but the useof handcuffs will be evaluated as a use of force that must be justified on the basis of the circumstances confronted.
16 125 S. Ct. 1465, 147017 Id . at 1471.18 Id . (It should be noted that the Court
remanded the case on the question of whether Mena could show that she hadbeen detained after the search was
completed. This suggests that routinedetention should end once the search iscompleted.)
19 Deck v. Missouri , 125 S. Ct. 2007,
2009 (2005). Lower court opinion can befound at 136 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. 2004)(en banc).
20 Deck was originally convicted andsentenced to death by the same jury.However, on appeal, the MissouriSupreme Court upheld his conviction butset aside the sentence [68 S.W.3d 418, 432(Mo. 2002)], requiring the state to proceedwith a new sentencing proceeding.
21 125 S. Ct. at 2010.22 Id . at 2016 (Thomas, J., dissenting).23 125 S. Ct. at 2010.24 Id . at 2013 (citation omitted).25 125 S. Ct. at 2014.26 Id . at 2013.27 Id .28 Id . at 2015.29 Id . at 2014. (A recent example of the
type of tragedy alluded to was the March11, 2005, courthouse shooting in FultonCounty, Georgia. In that particular case,Brian Nichols was to appear before JudgeRowland Barnes. Prior to the daysproceedings, Barnes overpowered twosheriffs deputies and used one of theirservice weapons to kill Barnes and hiscourt reporter. He then killed a sheriffsdeputy he encountered while escapingfrom the courthouse. Nichols wasapprehended the following day.)
30 18 U.S.C. 1956(h).31 U.S. v. Hall , 349 F.3d. 1320,1324
(11th Cir. 2003).32 Fourth and Ninth Circuits did not
require the indictment to allege an overtact; Fifth and Eighth Circuits requiredproof of an overt act for conviction.
33 Id. at 1323.34 513 U.S. 10 (1994).35 25 S. Ct. 687, 691 (As we explained
in Shabani , these decisions follow thesettled principle of statutory constructionthat, absent contrary indications, congressintends to adopt the common law defini-tion of statutory terms.).
22 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
24/35
settled principle of statutory constructionthat, absent contrary indications, congressintends to adopt the common law defini-tion of statutory terms.).
36 Id.37 Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, Pub. L. 90 202, codified at29 U.S.C. 621, et. seq .
38 125 S. Ct. 1536 (2005). Lower courtcase can be found at 351 F.3d 183 (5thCir.).
39 351 F.3d 183.40 29 U.S.C. 623, commonly referred
to as the RFOA provision.41 See Wards Cove Packing Co. v.
Atonio , 490 U.S. 642 (1989). As a resultof this decision Congress amended Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act to address thisburden of proof issue to expand theprotections afforded employees under TitleVII. However, Congress did not amend the
ADEA. Accordingly, the Supreme Courtheld that the Wards Cove standard appliesto the ADEA. See 125 S. Ct. at 1545.
42 Smith at 1545.43 Pickering v. Board of Education of
Township High School Dist. 205 Will Cty. ,391 U.S. 563 (1968).
44 461 U.S. 138 (1983).45 356 F.3d 1108 (2004).46 Roe at .47 Id , citing Connick at 146 147.48 Id.49 Id.
50 604 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. 2004), cert.granted, 04 1067 (2005).
51 Unpublished, cert. granted , 04 1360(2005).
52 849 A.2d 410 (Md.App. 2004), cert.granted , 04 373 (2005).
53 361 F.3d 1168 (9 th Cir. 2004), cert.granted , 04 473 (2005).
Law enforcement officers of other than federal jurisdiction who are interested in this article should consult their legal advisors. Some police procedures ruled permissible under federal constitutional law are of questionable legality under state law or are not permitted at all.
T he FBI Law Enforcement Bulle-
tin staff invites you to communi-
Digital Vision
cate with us via e mail. Our Internetaddress is [email protected] .
We would like to know yourthoughts on contemporary law en-forcement issues. We welcome yourcomments, questions, and suggestionsabout the magazine. Please includeyour name, title, and agency on alle mail messages.
Also, the Bulletin is available forviewing or downloading on a numberof computer services, as well as theFBIs home page. The home pageaddress is http://www.fbi.gov.
The Bulletins E-mail Address
December 2005 / 23
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
25/35
Bulletin Reports
Public Relations
Corrections
Bulletin Reports is an edited collection of criminal justice studies, reports, andproject findings. Send your material for consideration to FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin , FBI Academy, Madison Building, Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135. (NOTE:The material in this section is intended to be strictly an information source and
should not be considered an endorsement by the FBI for any product or service.)
24 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
26/35
2005 Subject Index
ADMINISTRATION
Activity Based Budgeting:Creating a Nexus BetweenWorkload and Costs,Jon M. Shane, June, p. 11.
BOOK AND VIDEOREVIEWS
Autism and Law Enforcement ,reviewed by Mary Otto andJohn M. Skinner, March,p. 10
Common Sense Police Supervi-sion: Practical Tips for theFirst Line Leader , reviewedby Larry R. Moore, May,p. 26.
Enhancing Police Response toPersons in Mental HealthCrisis: Providing Strategies,Communication Techniques,and Crisis InterventionPreparation in Overcoming
Institutional Challenges ,reviewed by Don W.
Castellano Hoyt, December,p. 12.
Officer Involved Shootings and
Use of Force: Practical Investigative Techniques ,reviewed by Larry R. Moore,March, p. 31.
Police Traffic Stops and RacialProfiling , reviewed by LarryR. Moore, June, p.10.
Problem Oriented Policing:From Innovation to Main-stream , reviewed by Larry R.Moore, January, p. 9.
Spores, Plagues, and History:The Story of Anthrax , re-viewed by John A. Sylvester,November, p. 20.
Stress and the Police Officer ,reviewed by James D.Sewell, April, p. 21.
Treating Police Stress: TheWork and the Words of Peer Counselors , reviewed byJames D. Sewell, February,
p. 7.
CRIME PROBLEMS
Construction Licensing: Ne-vadas Response, GeorgeLyford, November, p. 13.
The Cybersex Offender andChildren, Arthur Bowkerand Michael Gray, March,p. 12.
EQUIPMENT
Use of Force and High Inten-sity Tactical Police Flash-lights: Policy Concerns, R.Paul McCauley, November,p. 10.
ETHICS
Gratuities: There Is No FreeLunch, Mike Corley,October, p. 10.
FIREARMS
Selecting a Duty Issue Hand-gun, Chad A. Kaestle andJon H. Buehler, January,
p. 1.FORENSICS
Blood Spatter Interpretation atCrime and Accident Scenes:A Basic Approach, Louis L.Akin, February, p. 21.
INTELLIGENCE
The Law Enforcement Intelli-gence Function: State, Lo-cal, and Tribal Agencies,
David L. Carter, June, p. 1.INVESTIGATIVETECHNIQUES
Child Pornography Cases:Obtaining Confessions with
December 2005 / 25
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
27/35
an Effective Interview Strat-egy, Randy Bowling andDave Resch, March, p. 1.
Homicide Investigative Strate-gies, John B. Edwards,January, p. 11.
Implementing a Cold CaseHomicide Unit: A Challeng-ing Task, Vivian B. Lord,February, p. 1.
Polygraph Testing: A Utili-tarian Tool, William J.Warner, April, p. 10.
Reducing a Guilty SuspectsResistance to Confessing:Applying CriminologicalTheory to InterrogationTheme Development, BrianP. Boetig, August, p. 13.
Resurrecting Cold Case SerialHomicide Investigations,Leonard G. Johns, Gerard F.Downes, and Camille D.Bibles, August, p. 1.
Serial Murder in the Nether-lands: A Look at Motivation,Behavior, and Characteris-tics, Alan C. Brantleyand Robert H. Kosky, Jr.,January, p. 26.
Situational Policing, James J.Nolan, Norman Conti, andJack McDevitt, November,p. 1.
JUVENILES
Juvenile Arson: The Impor-tance of Early Intervention,Paul Zipper and David K.Wilcox, April, p. 1.
LEGAL ISSUES
Deliberate Indifference:Liability for Failure toTrain, Martin J. King,October, p. 22.
Enforcing Criminal Law onNative American Lands, M.Wesley Clark, April, p. 22.
The Motor Vehicle Exception,Edward Hendrie, August,p. 22.
Revoking Consent to Search,Jayme W. Holcomb,February, p. 25.
Serving Their Country andTheir Communities: TheUniformed Services Employ-ment and ReemploymentRights Act of 1994, Lisa A.
Baker, July, p. 25.The Supreme Court Brings an
End to the End Run Around Miranda , Lucy Ann Hoover,June, p. 26.
Supreme Court Cases: 2004-2005 Term, FBI AcademyLegal Instruction Unit,
December, p. 14.Use of Force, Civil Litigation,
and the Taser: One AgencysExperience, Steve Houg-land, Charlie Mesloh, andMark Henych, March, p. 24.
When Is Force Excessive?Insightful Guidance fromthe U.S. Supreme Court,Thomas D. Petrowski,September, p. 27.
MANAGEMENTPraise and Recognition: The
Importance of Social Supportin Law Enforcement, TraceyG. Gove, October, p. 14.
A Prescription for SystemicLearning Management,Vertel T. Martin, December,p. 9.
Productivity Analysis for BasicPolice Patrol Activities, RoyH. Herndon III, May, p. 20.
SWOT Tactics: Basics forStrategic Planning, RandyGarner, November, p. 17.
PERSONNEL
After Firing the Shots, WhatHappens? Shannon Bohrer,September, p. 8.
The Characteristics of anEffective Law Enforcement
Officer, Chuck Knight,January, p. 22.Early Detection of the Problem
Officer, Dino DeCrescenzo,July, p. 14.
26 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
28/35
POLICE-COMMUNITYRELATIONS
Fostering Community Partner-ships That Prevent Crime andPromote Quality of Life,Clyde L. Cronkhite, May,p. 7.
McKeesport Aging Program: A3 Year Community Survey of Senior Citizen Encounterswith Fire and Police Ser-vices, Sharyn A. Gesmond,Nadereh Tafreshi Darabi,Barry L. Farkas, and RobertT. Rubin, November, p. 26.
The Start of a New Lifestyle:A Police Officers Mission,Debbie Kuidis, March, p. 18.
POLICE PROBLEMS
Excessive Force 101, DanMontgomery, August, p. 8.
The List: A Warrant ServiceStrategy, James D. Fox andMichael S. New, November,p. 22.
RESEARCH
Suicide by Cop: Defining aDevastating Dilemma,Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Ed-ward F. Davis, and CharlesE. Miller III, February, p. 8.
TECHNOLOGY
The Admissibility of DigitalPhotographs in CriminalCases, David P. Nagosky,December, p. 1.
IACP Speech, Robert S.Mueller III, April, p. 16.
MassMostWanted: An OnlineTool for Law Enforcement,William G. Brooks III,March, p. 8.
TERRORISM
Coordinated Terrorist Attacks:Implications for LocalResponders, Brian K.Houghton and Jonathan M.Schachter, May, p. 11.
Defending Against Cyber-crime and Terrorism: A NewRole for Universities, TonyAeilts, January, p. 14.
The Future of Officer Safetyin an Age of Terrorism,Michael E. Buerger andBernard H. Levin,September, p. 2.
The Patrol Officer: AmericasIntelligence on the Ground,Earl M. Sweeney, September,p. 14.
Risk Assessments and FutureChallenges, W. Dean Lee,July, p. 1.
Terror by Sea: The UniqueChallenges of Port Securi-ty, Cole Maxwell and
Tony Blanda, September,p. 22
TRAINING
Developing a Scenario BasedTraining Program: GivingOfficers a Tactical Advan-tage, Michael D. Lynch,October, p. 1.
Personal and DepartmentalBenefits of Continuing Edu-cation: The FBI NationalAcademy Experience,Troy Lane, May, p. 1.
Physical Fitness: Tips for theLaw Enforcement Execu-tive, Daniel E. Shell, May,p. 27.
Preparing Law EnforcementLeaders: The FBI AcademysLeadership Fellows Pro-gram, Scott L. Salley, July,p. 20.
December 2005 / 27
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
29/35
2005 Author Index
A
Aeilts, Tony, Chief, CaliforniaState University Police De-partment, San Luis Obispo,Defending Against Cyber-crime and Terrorism: ANew Role for Universities,January, p. 14.
Akin, Louis L., Investigator,Austin, Texas, Blood Spat-ter Interpretation at Crimeand Accident Scenes: ABasic Approach, February,p. 21.
B
Baker, Lisa A., Chief, LegalInstruction Unit, FBI Acad-emy, Quantico, Virginia,Serving Their Country andTheir Communities: TheUniformed Services Em-ployment and Reemploy-ment Rights Act of 1994,July, p. 25.
Bibles, Camille D., AssistantU.S. Attorney, District of Arizona, ResurrectingCold Case Serial HomicideInvestigations, August,p. 1.
Blanda, Tony, Senior Instruc-tor, Marine TrainingBranch, Federal Law En-forcement Training Center,Glynco, Georgia, Terrorby Sea: The Unique Chal-lenges of Port Security,September, p. 22.
Boetig, Brian P., SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, Reduc-
ing a Guilty SuspectsResistance to Confessing:Applying CriminologicalTheory to InterrogationTheme Development,August, p. 13.
Bohrer, Shannon, RangeMaster, Maryland Policeand Training Commissions,Sykesville, After Firing theShots, What Happens?September, p. 8.
Bowker, Arthur, ComputerCrime Specialist, U.S.District Court, NorthernDistrict of Ohio ProbationOffice, Cleveland, TheCybersex Offender andChildren, March, p. 12.
Bowling, Randy, SpecialAgent, FBI Academy,Quantico, Virginia, Child
Pornography Cases: Obtain-ing Confessions with anEffective Interview Strat-egy, March, p. 1.
Brantley, Alan C., retiredSpecial Agent, FBI Acad-emy, Quantico, Virginia,Serial Murder in the Neth-erlands: A Look at Motiva-tion, Behavior, and Charac-teristics, January, p. 26.
Brooks, William G., III,Deputy Chief, Wellesley,Massachusetts, PoliceDepartment, MassMostWanted: An Online Tool forLaw Enforcement, March,p. 8.
Buehler, Jon H., Detective,Modesto, California, PoliceDepartment, Selecting aDuty Issue Handgun,
January, p. 1.Buerger, Michael E., AssociateProfessor, Bowling GreenState University, Ohio, TheFuture of Officer Safety inan Age of Terrorism,September, p. 2.
C
Carter, David L., Professor,Michigan State University,East Lansing, The LawEnforcement IntelligenceFunction: State, Local, andTribal Agencies, June, p. 1.
28 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
30/35
December 2005 / 29
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
31/35
30 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
32/35
Levin, Bernard H., Com-mander, Policy and Plan-ning Bureau, Waynesboro,Virginia, Police Depart-ment, The Future of Of-ficer Safety in an Age of Terrorism, September, p. 2.
Lord, Vivian B., Chair, Crimi-nal Justice Department,University of North Caro-lina, Charlotte, Implement-ing a Cold Case HomicideUnit: A Challenging Task,February, p. 1.
Lyford, George, Director of Investigations, Nevada StateContractors Board,Henderson, ConstructionLicensing: Nevadas Re-sponse, November, p. 13.
Lynch, Michael D., Sergeant,West Virginia State PoliceAcademy, Charleston, De-veloping a Scenario Based
Training Program,October, p. 1.
M
Martin, Vertel T., Professor,University of Pennsylvania,East Stroudsburg, APrescription for SystemicLearning Management,December, p. 9.
Maxwell, Cole, Senior Instruc-tor, Marine TrainingBranch, Federal Law En-forcement Training Center,
Glynco, Georgia, Terror bySea: The Unique Challengesof Port Security, Septem-ber, p. 22.
McCauley, R. Paul, Professor,Indiana University of Penn-sylvania, Use of Force andHigh Intensity Tactical Po-lice Flashlights: Policy Con-cerns, November, p. 10.
McDevitt, Jack, Professor,
Northeastern University,Boston, Massachusetts,Situational Policing,November, p. 1.
Mesloh, Charlie, AssistantProfessor, Florida Gulf Coast University, FortMeyers, Use of Force,Civil Litigation, and theTaser: One AgencysExperience, March, p. 24.
Miller, Charles F., III, Instruc-tor, FBI, Clarksburg, WestVirginia, Suicide by Cop:Defining a DevastatingDilemma, February, p. 8.
Montgomery, Dan, Chief,Westminster, Colorado,Police Department, Exces-
sive Force 101, August,p. 8.
Mueller, Robert S., III, Direc-tor, FBI, Washington, D.C.,IACP Speech, April,p. 16.
N
Nagosky, David P., SpecialAgent, FBI, New York,New York, The Admissi-bility of Digital Photographsin Criminal Cases,December, p. 1.
New, Michael S., Lieutenant,Newport News, Virginia,Police Department, TheList: A Warrant ServiceStrategy, November,p. 22.
December 2005 / 31
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
33/35
Nolan, James J., AssistantProfessor, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown,
Situational Policing,November, p. 1.
P
Petrowski, Thomas D., SpecialAgent, FBI, Dallas, Texas,When Is Force Excessive?Insightful Guidance fromthe U.S. Supreme Court,September, p. 27.
Pinizzotto, Anthony J., Foren-sic Psychologist, FBI Acad-emy, Quantico, Virginia,Suicide by Cop: Defining aDevastating Dilemma,February, p. 8.
R
Resch, Dave, Special Agent,FBI Academy, Quantico,Virginia, Child Pornog-raphy Cases: ObtainingConfessions with an Effec-
tive Interview Strategy,March, p. 1.
Rubin, Robert T., MedicalDoctor, Los Angeles,California, McKeesportAging Program: A 3 YearSurvey, November, p. 26.
S
Salley, Scott L., Captain,Collier County, Florida,
Sheriffs Office, PreparingLaw Enforcement Leaders:The FBI Academys
Leadership Fellows Pro for the Law Enforcementgram, July, p. 20. Executive, May, p. 27.
Schachter, Jonathan M., Lec Sweeney, Earl M., Assistantturer, Northwestern Univer Commissioner, New Hamp-sity, Evanston, Illinois, shire Department of Safety,Coordinated Terrorist The Patrol Officer:Attacks: Implications for Americas Intelligence onLocal Responders, May, the Ground, September,p. 11. p. 14.
T
Tafreshi Darabi, Nadereh,Medical Doctor,
McKeesport, Pennsylvania,McKeesport Aging Pro-gram: A 3 Year Survey,November, p. 26.
W
Warner, William J., SpecialAgent, FBI, Washington,D.C., Polygraph Testing:A Utilitarian Tool, April,p. 10.
Wilcox, David K., Instructor,
Shane, Jon M., Captain, New Harvard Medical School,
ark, New Jersey, Police Cambridge, Massachusetts,Juvenile Arson: TheDepartment, Activity Importance of Early InterBased Budgeting: Creating a vention, April, p. 1.Nexus Between Workloadand Costs, June, p. 11.
Z Shell, Daniel E., Special Pro-
jects Coordinator, Division Zipper, Paul, Sergeant, Massa-of Public Safety Leadership, chusetts State Police, Juve
Johns Hopkins University, nile Arson: The ImportanceBaltimore, Maryland, of Early Intervention,Physical Fitness: Tips April, p. 1.
32 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
34/35
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.
The Bulletin Notes
Officer DiMaria Officer Watson
Officer Espinola
Officer MacLaughlan
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 officers safety. Submissionsshould include a short write-up (maximum of 250words), a separate photograph of each nominee, and aletter from the departments ranking officer endorsingthe nomination. Submissions should be sent to theEditor, FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin , FBI Academy,Madison Building, Room 201, Quantico, VA 22135.
8/9/2019 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin - Dec05leb
35/35
U.S. Department of Justice PeriodicalsFederal Bureau of Investigation Postage and Fees Paid
Federal Bureau of InvestigationFBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ISSN 0014-5688935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20535-0001
Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300
Patch Call
A local 8th grade student won the BlountCounty, Tennessee, Sheriffs Offices patch designcontest and saw his entry adapted for official use
The patch of the Sequim, Washington, PoliceDepartment features the New Dungeness Light-house the first in the Straight of Juan de Fuca