April 1996

               Above and Beyond the Call of Duty
              Preventing Off-duty Officer Deaths 

     By Edward F. Davis, M.A. and Anthony J. Pinizzotto, Ph.D.


____________________

Mr. Davis and Dr. Pinizzotto serve in the Behavioral Science
Unit at the FBI Academy.
____________________

(A well-defined policy that clearly explains law enforcement
functions for off-duty officers can help to prevent
tragedies from occurring.)


One night, an off-duty police officer visited a local bar
and grill. While seated at the bar, he observed two men
approach the bartender. With guns drawn, the subjects
demanded cash from the register. At this point, the off-duty
officer drew his service revolver, shouting "Police!" as he
did so.

While the officer may have thought he had the situation
under control, he was shot and killed by a third subject
whom he apparently had not identified as part of the robbery
team. The shooter had entered the bar and stood apart from
the two other robbers to cover the escape route. All three
subjects did escape, but later were identified, arrested,
tried, and convicted.

As this case illustrates, for the men and women performing
law enforcement duties in the United States, personal safety
is more than a routine concern. Statistics support this
conclusion. The 1993 edition of the FBI's annual
publication, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted
(LEOKA),1 indicated that in 1992, 70 city, county, and state
officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty, and
66,975 officers were assaulted while performing law
enforcement functions both on and off duty.

Indeed, few criminals work a 9-to-5, 8-hour shift. Even when
law enforcement officers are "off the clock," they still may
face dangerous confrontations with armed subjects. In fact,
law enforcement officers often lose their lives attempting
to enforce the law while off duty.

How frequently do killings of off-duty law enforcement
officers occur? According to LEOKA, from 1975 to 1985, 130
off-duty officers were feloniously killed. The period from
1991 to 1993 saw 35 officers feloniously killed while off
duty. The largest number of deaths in this 3-year period
(15) occurred when officers intervened in robberies. The
other 20 off-duty officers died under the following
circumstances: 8 in ambush, 4 while investigating suspicious
persons/circumstances, 3 during other arrest situations, 2
while handling disturbance calls, 2 while initiating traffic
pursuits/stops, and 1 during a burglary in progress.

To delve deeper into the nature of police officer killings,
the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)
Division conducted a study into 51 cases in which 50
offenders killed 54 law enforcement officers.2 Of the 54
victims, 2 were off duty when they were involved in law
enforcement actions that resulted in their deaths.
This article reviews the two cases from the CJIS study and
then examines several more recent incidents where off-duty
officers have lost their lives while enforcing the law.
Finally, it offers advice for law enforcement agencies on
how to prevent these tragedies from occurring.

Interviews with Cop Killers

The CJIS study included interviews of the perpetrators who
killed the two off-duty officers.3 Although as a general
rule, investigators question the truthfulness of such
offenders, their accounts of the actual shootings are, for
the most part, consistent with both the forensic evidence
and investigative reports from each incident. For this
reason, their comments may provide insight into their
actions and help formulate a law enforcement response to
such incidents.

In the case outlined in the opening scenario of this
article, the killer told investigators that he had entered
the bar before his partners to avoid being seen with them.
The plan called for him to walk away during the confusion,
after the other two had made their escape. Although they had
anticipated resistance from the restaurant management, they
had not expected the presence of an off-duty officer. The
assailant stated that he did not hear the officer shout
"Police," but admitted that it would not have made a
difference. He had entered the bar prepared to shoot, and
when he observed a man with a gun, he shot him.

The killer also advised that even if the officer had waited
for his partners to get the money and start to leave before
making an effort to arrest them, he still would have shot
him. The shooter believed that the only thing the officer
could have done to avoid physical injury would have been to
remain seated, observe, and not take action. In fact, he
said, the trio had no intentions of robbing the customers of
the restaurant.

In the second case, an officer became the victim of a
carjacking. Off duty and out of uniform, the officer was
driving to a shopping center with his wife when they were
stopped by four men. The men opened the car doors and
physically removed the couple. One subject had a revolver
pointed at the officer. The officer identified himself as a
police officer and drew his service revolver. Although he
was shot immediately and subsequently died, the officer did
manage to shoot one of the carjackers.

When interviewed, the officer's killer stated that he and
his cohorts would not have harmed the officer and his wife
if they had not resisted. In the shooter's opinion, the
officer never should have drawn his weapon against four
subjects, one of whom was armed. Instead, he said, the
officer should have waited for the subjects to leave the
scene, then phoned in a description of them and the stolen
vehicle.

Unfortunately, the officers involved in these tragic
incidents are not alive to tell their side of the story. One
thing is certain, however. At the time of their deaths,
their departments did not have established procedures for 
how officers should perform police functions while off duty-
-procedures that might have saved their lives. Both
departments did, however, require that their officers be
armed while off duty.

Unarmed, Off-duty Confrontations

The question of whether offi-cers should be armed while off
duty has been the subject of considerable debate. While such
policies are left to the discretion of individual agencies,
the fact remains: Unarmed, off-duty officers still take law
enforcement action and sometimes get killed.

One such case occurred in 1994 and involved a recent
graduate from the police academy. Although he was off duty,
not in uniform, and unarmed when he witnessed an armed
robbery at a grocery store, he pursued the offender,
confronting him in the store parking lot. The officer
attempted to arrest the robber, was shot once in the chest,
and died shortly thereafter. The killer fled the parking lot
on foot and escaped, but subsequently was arrested and
charged with robbery and murder.

In another 1994 case, the victim, an 11-year police veteran,
was off duty and shopping in a grocery store with his wife
when he observed a robbery in progress. Though unarmed, he
attempted to disarm and physically restrain the robber. A
violent struggle ensued, during which both the officer and
the robber crashed through a store window. The robber then
fired one round from a sawed-off shotgun, striking the
officer in the chest, killing him. The robber escaped, but
later was captured, arrested, and charged with murder.

In these cases, the two officers' experience levels ranged
from almost none to 11 years. Yet, both officers chose to
intercede in an armed robbery while off duty and unarmed.
Although neither victim's department required officers to
remain armed while off duty, each department had a different
policy regarding off-duty confrontations.

One department trained and encouraged officers to be good
eyewitnesses while off duty, but warned against taking
police action if doing so would place them or the public at
risk. The other department's orders stated that if off-duty
officers observed violations of the law in their
jurisdictions, they should take "proper" police action.
However, this order did not indicate what proper police
action might be in any given set of circumstances.

Ambushed at Home While Off Duty

As is the case for an increasing number of citizens, home is
not   always a safe haven for off-duty  police officers.
Since 1994, two off-duty officers have been feloniously
killed at their residences. In 1994, an officer with 7 years
of law enforcement experience was in his home when someone
outside called for him to come out. When he did, he was shot
14 times with two handguns and a shotgun. The four subjects
being sought for the slaying remain at large.

In a 1995 case, an off-duty, 12-year veteran detective
answered a knock on the door of his residence. Upon opening
the door, he was shot and killed by one of three men. When
arrested, the three men revealed that they had been
contracted to kill the detective in order to prevent him
from testifying in a pending court case. 
Both of these cases beg the question: How did the killers
learn where the officers lived? While the answer remains
under investigation, clearly, departments need to protect
the home addresses of their officers.4

On-duty Officers Killing Off-duty Officers:
Cases of Mistaken Identity

If there could be a degree of tragedy added to the death of
an off-duty officer, it is when one officer is killed
mistakenly by another. For various reasons, not all of these
accidental deaths have been reported to the FBI's Uniform
Crime Reporting Program. According to available statistics,
from 1990 until 1993, 11 on- and off-duty officers were shot
and killed by other officers.

In a 1995 case, an off-duty officer in a large eastern city
was in the company of his girlfriend and her two young
children when he observed two armed men attempting to rob a
taxi driver. The officer decided to take police action. He
drew his service weapon and approached the robbers. He
identified himself as a police officer, and the three faced
one another with guns drawn.

An on-duty, uniformed patrol officer observed these
individuals, all with guns drawn, standing around the cab.
The on-duty officer approached with his gun drawn and
demanded that the three individuals drop their weapons. The
two robbers immediately obeyed the order, but the off-duty
officer did not and, instead, turned toward the on-duty
officer. Fearing for his life, the on-duty officer fired,
killing the off-duty officer.

The robbers fled, but subsequently were arrested. The
on-duty officer has been on medical leave since the
incident. Both offi-cers had worked in the same police
district for 3 years, but due to the size of their district
and their different work schedules, they never knew each
other.

Another case of mistaken identity, which involved officers
from different departments, started when one department
received a telephone report of a residential burglary. The
caller stated his name and address and reported that he had
observed several young men force open the rear window of a
neighbor's home and enter the residence. Although the caller
could not give the address, he stated that he would show the
responding officers the house.

The dispatcher broadcast the burglary call, and an officer
volunteered to respond. At the scene, the officer contacted
the complainant, who showed him the house that the young men
had entered. The complainant advised the officer that he did
not know who owned or lived in the house. Nor did he know
whether the burglars were still on the premises.

The officer left the complainant and parked his patrol car
about 300 yards from the house. He walked to the rear of the
building and discovered an open window. After calling for
backup and a K-9 patrol unit, he continued to check the rear
of the home. While standing beside an open window, he saw a
person's shadow. He then observed what seemed to be the
shadow of a gun in the person's hand. A man appeared in the
window and started to point the gun in the officer's
direction. The officer fired one round, striking the subject
and knocking him to the floor. The officer sought cover and
notified the police dispatcher of the shooting and that the
gunman remained in the house.

Numerous officers responded and surrounded the house,
convinced that a barricade situation had developed. After
learning that the house was owned and occupied by a police
officer from a neighboring jurisdiction, the police entered
the house and found the owner dead on the floor, shot once
by the first responding officer.

The victim had been at work when contacted and advised that
burglars had broken into his home. Going off duty, he drove
home to investigate, but did not notify the local    police
department. A heavy overcoat concealed his police uniform.

Several years later, FBI investigators5 interviewed the
officer who had fired the fatal round. He related that on
the night of the incident, he had been assigned as an
"overlap," or extra, officer and had been scheduled to take
leave during the second half of his shift. Hearing the call
for a burglary, he volunteered, thinking that after he had
responded to the call and completed the paperwork, his shift
would be over. He stated that even though he had called for
backup at the scene, he thought the house was empty. Then,
he had seen a person's shadow in the window. He had hoped
that the person inside would back away from the window, to
allow him to seek cover. But when the individual appeared to
point the gun toward him, he fired one round and retreated.

While investigating the inci-dent, the officer's department
relieved him of his official police  powers. After a very
lengthy judi-cial process, he returned to duty. However, 7
years later, his department still refuses to return him to
patrol; he remains on administrative duty.

Law Enforcement's Response

In response to both on- and off-duty deaths, law enforcement
agencies throughout the country have developed safety
training programs to help officers survive potentially
deadly encounters with armed offenders. Still, the number of
assaults and killings has not been reduced significantly,
and in some areas, has increased.

Off-duty homicides can be particularly devastating,
especially if the incident could have been avoided. Each
agency should have a well-defined policy that clearly
explains what, if any, law enforcement functions off-duty
officers must perform. Such a policy should not conflict
with other departmental edicts. For example, if an agency
requires its officers to be "on-duty" 24 hours a day, then a
rule that forbids off-duty officers to carry weapons would
be contradictory and unadvisable. 

Regardless of whether departments expect officers to carry
firearms while off duty, they should make all employees
aware of the policy. Additionally, off-duty offi-cers who
remain armed should be required to qualify with the off-duty
weapon if it is a personally owned rather than the
department-issued service weapon.

The departmental policy also should address how off-duty
officers should act when observing an offense on their
assigned beats, as well as in other jurisdictions. Another
important area of consideration is how off-duty officers
should react if they become victims of a crime. In addition
to establishing a policy for officers, the department should
strongly encourage officers to develop a plan of action for
their families, clearly covering what each family member
should say or do if the family becomes drawn into a crime in
progress.

For example, each family member old enough to use the
telephone should know how to contact the emergency police
dispatcher and relay the appropriate information. In some
cases, simply reporting the fact that one or both parents
are off-duty officers, the name of their agency, and the
fact that they have a problem may save a life.

Whether crime victims or witnesses, armed, off-duty officers
run the risk of being confronted by on-duty officers.
Agencies should develop and articulate a procedure for
off-duty officers to follow during such circumstances,
stressing that armed, off-duty officers never should turn
toward armed, on-duty officers.

Finally, the department should ensure that the personal
informa-tion of all departmental employees remains
confidential. No one should have access to personal
information, such as a home address, without the employee's
permission.

Conclusion

Law enforcement officers frequently are killed in the line
of duty. While off-duty officers are murdered less
frequently, these incidents can be even more disconcerting
to a department unprepared to deal with them. In fact, many
off-duty homicides may be avoided if departments prepare
officers in advance to handle confrontations with armed
offenders.

Every department should institute a policy that outlines
whether off-duty officers should carry weapons, what they
should do if they witness a crime or become victims of
crime, and how to handle encounters with on-duty law
enforcement offi-cers. Off-duty officers who confront
dangerous criminals show a dedication to duty that few
employees possess. They should not have to die for it.
_____________
Endnotes

1 U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Officers
Killed and Assaulted (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, 1993).

2 U.S. Department of Justice, Killed in the Line of Duty: A
Study of Selected Felonious Killings of Law Enforcement
Officers (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1992).

3 The authors conducted these interviews while serving in
the CJIS Division.

4 In some states, members of the public can obtain the
addresses of law enforcement employees through avenues such
as voter registration lists and courthouse precinct records.
Exceptions for law enforcement, which mandate including a
post office box in lieu of an actual street address, can be
made only through appropriate legislation.

5 The authors conducted this interview.

                   ________________________________