FLETC ournal

ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY

Simulation and Operations 

in Law Enforcement Training

VIRTUAL 

FIREARMS 

RANGES

The Advantages

Over Live Fire Training

WHAT’S IN 

THE BLACK BOX?

Vehicle Embedded Forensics

TWO WORDS 

YOU MUST KNOW

To Solve Modern Crime 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

VOLUME 16 • Fall-Winter 2016

Artesia  Charleston  Cheltenham  Glynco
2 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Foreword

THE RAPID EXPANSION of technology in our world has both helped and challenged 

law enforcement and law enforcement training. Those same technologies that capture data, 

allow instant messaging, and work to make everyday tasks more predictable, has fast forwarded 

organized criminal activity that requires law enforcement to quickly counter with investigative 

techniques using the same data. Five different ‘takes’ on technology are covered in this issue 

that explores the implication of both fighting crime and committing crime, as well as a look at 

technologies that facilitate better training for the sworn guardians of our communities and our 

nation.

 

• Technologies developed just for training such as the MAT-MP and FLETC’s simulated

ranges for firearms training are specifically designed to help instructors and students train 

more effectively and efficiently. Such technologies are important investments for training 

and must be carefully evaluated. 

• Technologies currently in use by the public makes our lives easier, and then gets repurposed

by criminal elements to aid and abet criminal activity. 

• The use of technologies by investigators creates vulnerabilities for case investigators that 

can potentially leave their records vulnerable to compromise. Trainers must understand 

both the value of appropriately applied technologies, and how to protect data from 

criminal intrusion. 

• Technological applications are costly to purchase, maintain, and secure. Trainers and law

enforcement officials are dealing with financial challenges associated with the 

implementation and utilization of technology and its impact on modern day policing. 

• Finally, emerging technology that is reshaping our world is also changing the landscape

for law enforcement. Unmanned aerial systems not only aide law enforcement but can 

present challenges to law enforcement when used to further criminal acts. Tools like body 

worn cameras are a new frontier that will undoubtedly require significant judicial reviews 

to sort out the myriad of challenges that seem inevitable. Trainers must be ready to 

adapt to the next new thing. Looking ahead, we should be able to see some innovations 

coming. Driverless cars, biometric identifications, smart guns, and the ‘internet of things’ 

will impact law enforcement and will need to be addressed by law enforcement trainers. 

We must be ready. 

As you read this issue, consider that law enforcement and law enforcement training have no 

option but to rapidly adapt and expand capabilities to counter emerging threats, and conduct 

investigations using new technologies. By proactively working on all fronts of the technological 

landscape, we will be poised to address such new innovations. One thing's for sure. Law 

enforcement is certainly going to get more interesting!

VALERIE ATKINS

Assistant Director

FLETC
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 3

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Two Words You Must Know 

to Solve Modern Crimes

27

this issue

VOLUME 16 • Fall-Winter 2016

10

14

17

21

31

35

38

41

45

47

50

53

SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE...

Security Implications Associated 

With New Technology

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: 

Uses for Law Enforcement

DRONES: 

Your Agency’s Best Friend 

or Worst Enemy

VIRTUAL FIREARMS RANGES

THE NEW SMOKING GUN

THE VIRTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

CLASSROOM

NEW TECHNOLOGY AND ITS 

POTENTIAL TO ENHANCE TRAINING

6

Advanced 

Technology 

& Simulation

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

DRAWING ON THE BLACKBOARD:

REIMAGINING TECHNOLOGY

WORKING TOGETHER:

DHS Science & Technology and FLETC Training & 

Innovation Division Partner to Pioneer the Future 

of Law Enforcement Training

VEHICLE EMBEDDED FORENSICS

CHOOSE YOUR VIEW:

Privacy vs. evidence

Body Cams in Excessive Use of Force Cases

HOW MIGHT BODY WORN CAMS

AFFECT TRAINING ON FLETC 21 41
4 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Executive Sponsor

Michael S. Milner

Editorial Team

Preston Farley

Alicia Gregory

Michael Hullihan

Tim Miller

John Stamp

Jen Tocco

Susan Thornton

Lauren Ware

THE FLETC JOURNAL EDITORIAL TEAM from left to right, front row: Lauren Ware, Michael S. Milner, Michael Hullihan, 

Susan Thornton. Back row: Tim Miller, Preston Farley, John Stamp, Jen Tocco. 

Design/Layout

Fred Charles

Back Cover Photography

David S. Tucker

The FLETC Journal is a law enforcement training magazine produced 

and published by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 

(FLETC). It is produced, published, and printed through a joint 

collaboration with the Protocol and Communications Office and the 

Government Printing Office. The printed circulation is 2,000 and it is 

also available electronically on the FLETC website at http://www.fletc.

gov/about-fletc.

The content of this publication is written in accordance with the 

guidelines of the Associated Press (AP) style. Articles, photographs, 

and other contributions are welcomed from the law enforcement 

training community and academia. Publication depends on general 

topical interest as judged by the editorial team.

The FLETC Journal's mission is to explore and disseminate information 

about law enforcement concepts, research initiatives, programs, and 

trends that impact or will potentially affect law enforcement training.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 5

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

WAYNE ANDERSON

Site Director

FLETC Charleston

COUNTLESS BOOKS and articles have 

been and continue to be written in an 

effort to capture the very essence of 

what makes a truly great leader. I too 

have spent a considerable amount of 

time in study of this topic. Regardless 

of the amount of reading and reflection, 

I find myself circling back time and 

again to what really amounts to five 

dimensions of leadership: you must 

have a vision as to where you plan to 

take your organization, a strategy as to 

how you plan to get there, good structure or management, a 

sound process for your decision making, and finally, you must 

be a leader with great integrity.

For those like myself who are captivated by presidential 

politics, I would highly recommend the book The President as 

Leader by Michael Siegel. Siegel’s core thesis is that effective 

presidents stay focused on a clear vision. They succeed by 

surrounding themselves with talented people, not necessarily 

friends, and give them the autonomy to do their jobs. They 

encourage conflict and at times differences of opinion as a 

positive force prior to decision making. They must be willing 

to make clear and strong decisions and never fear making 

modifications along the way, and accept it as a natural 

consequence of the process. Without giving too much away, let 

me just share that Siegel walks the reader through a historical 

review of how, when measured against the aforementioned 

criteria, at least two of the recent five Presidents received high 

marks in two or more categories, while two struggled in almost 

all categories. Let’s pull out “good structure or management” 

as just one example. It has been reported by several sources 

that President Jimmy Carter would, in spite of hovering over a 

desk full of papers dealing with one world crisis after the other, 

fret over tedium like scheduling the White House tennis courts. 

In contrast, Ronald Reagan would abstain from the fine details 

of governance and would entrust them to his team to carry out 

vigorously. He shared his vision with each of them and then 

simply got out of their way.

While Siegel’s book looks at leadership from the highest 

levels of government, the same tenants of great leadership are 

applicable to each of our own pursuits. The most challenging 

aspect of my leadership tenure at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers came after accepting the position of Site 

Director for the Office of Charleston Operations. I pursued 

the opportunity with the vision of transforming a dated and 

dilapidated facility into a modern, walking campus that would 

support the FLETC mission of not only training those who 

protect our homeland, but to be the best in the world at doing 

so. Not to say that I did not have many days where I asked 

myself just what I had gotten into. Successes began to follow, 

however, after sharing that vision and proffering a strategy as 

the road map to get us there. 

We started by meeting with a landscape architect and 

putting the vision on paper as to how we planned to reshape 

and refurbish our campus. While funding would certainly 

not allow us to execute the entire plan in whole, we began to 

look at what was most pressing and take a phased approach. 

After eight years on the job here in Charleston, that original 

architectural rendering still hangs in my conference room to 

ensure we keep our eye on the prize. 

Fortunately, my tenure with FLETC Charleston has allowed 

me to establish my own leadership team. None of the many 

accomplishments at the Charleston campus would have been 

possible without a solid team of professionals in place that 

fully supports the vision. It is a team of true professionals that 

I have faith and confidence in to lead others. That trust allows 

me to keep the focus on the vision, share it with others, and 

try not to stand in their way. More simply put, I don’t need to 

schedule the tennis courts, but I need to know how many I 

have, if I need more, and if so where I plan to put them!

Today we have demolished over 17 structures, and are 

eyeing the fourth phase of the overall campus plan. While 

I anticipated having completed the job at that stage, 

modifications are inherent within the process. To that end, 

we recently completed a business case to support building 

an additional new dormitory and are now in negotiations for 

additional property transfers with the South Carolina State 

Port Authority.

Lastly, if I could single out one other dimension of leadership 

that is vital to success at any organization, it would be integrity. 

I think it can be summed up best by the words of Billy Graham 

speaking to a group of leaders about the need for integrity. 

Graham defined it as “being the same person on the inside as 

you claim to be on the outside.” He went on to say that leaders 

need “the ability to separate the trivial from the important. It’s 

essential for daily tasks and direction in life. Until priorities are 

straight, everything else will be out of order.”

Reflections on Leadership

L. WAYNE ANDERSON came to FLETC in 2002 as a detailed special 

agent with U.S. Secret Service. Prior to FLETC, he was assigned to 

Secret Service's NYC Field Office where he was serving on 9/11 and 

was awarded the Medal of Valor for assisting with evacuations of the 

World Trade Center. In January 2008, Anderson was selected as site 

director for FLETC Charleston and was most recently selected as the 

FLETC Leader of the Year for 2015. 
6 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY 

AND SIMULATION

FLETC instructor Jim Gort 

models a training vest.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 7

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY KIERAN MORIARTY

Advanced technology and simulation have 

been used across a spectrum of disciplines 

to make training more realistic and cost 

effective and to improve the overall efficiency. 

Technology and simulation feed into the never 

ending quest of training organizations to 

maximize training dollars, decrease down time, 

and improve the overall realism of training. 

The earliest uses of technology and simulation 

included using blank rounds and inert explosives 

and using video cameras and pre-positioned 

closed circuit television (CCTV) in order to 

observe and critique training scenarios. As 

technology improved, computerized judgment 

shooting was introduced, and ultimately nonlethal marking cartridges and driving simulators 

added more realism into training than ever 

before. The recent technology boom over the 

last decade has led to an upsurge in available 

technology that can benefit learning and improve 

safety and efficiency. 

The FLETC-Charleston Training Division 

and FLETC’s Training Innovation Division 

are working to continue this trend of improving 

training efficiency and realism using technology 

and simulation. This partnership provides an 

ideal environment for testing these concepts 

to determine if they meet the high standards 

needed before introducing them into the training 

environment. Training Innovation Division 

Chief Shawn Beltramo explained, “With so 

many new technologies coming out, it’s critical 

to have seasoned professionals like the FLETCCharleston Training Division staff thoroughly 

test these items to see how they hold up to 

the rigors of law enforcement training. Many 

innovative technologies, while promising, are just 

not able to deliver the high level of performance 

we need for our training community. Doing 

small scale testing with these concepts really 

helps us determine what will and will not work 

in our training.” Chief Beltramo added, “Being 

able to leverage the expertise and knowledge 

of our instructors is the single most important 

part of training innovation and working with 

the staff at Charleston dramatically increases 

our ability to find the best in training innovation 

technologies.” Through close collaboration, 

the FLETC-Charleston Training Division and 

the Training Innovation Division recognized 

the following training concepts that are being 

examined for possible inclusion into future 

training including. 

WEARABLE CAMERAS/TECHNOLOGY - In today’s 

world where almost everyone has cameras on their 

phones, a law enforcement officer can be recorded 

at a moment’s notice, sometimes without even 

being aware of it. Law enforcement officers need 

to be comfortable being recorded and critiqued. 

This is the reality of the world we live in and our 

training should closely replicate the real world. 

The GoPro Camera System, which is currently 

being used at FLETC-Charleston in the Active 

Shooter Threat Training Program, allows the 

instructor to mount a camera to the student’s 

Using Advanced Technology 

and Simulation to Enhance 

Law Enforcement Training
8 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

helmet, record the scenario being executed, and 

debrief the student on-the-spot via a handheld 

tablet. As the student progresses through the 

scenario, the camera captures the entire scenario 

through the eyes of the student. The student 

can explain his or her actions based on what 

they observed. The instructor is able to provide 

feedback from the student’s perspective, which 

would not be possible using a wall-mounted 

camera, since that shows an entirely different 

point of view. The ability for the instructor and 

the student to review the video from the same 

exact vantage point is extremely beneficial in the 

training environment.

EVALUATION TABLETS – Students in the Seaport 

Security Anti-terrorism Training Program 

traditionally used a manual process to perform 

enhanced risk and vulnerability assessments. 

Students assess three key resources on a seaport 

and take into account all hazards such as 

manmade intentional, manmade accidental, and 

environmental. Once the students complete 

their assessments, they create a briefing via 

PowerPoint to show their assessment results and 

mitigation strategies.

Collaboration with the Training Innovation 

Division and the Department of Homeland 

Security Science and Technology Directorate 

resulted in the development of a program to 

automate the enhanced risk and vulnerability 

assessments that students conduct in the 

training program. The new tablets will have a 

program installed that calculates assessment 

values. Student teams will conduct pre- and 

post-assessments on the tablet, eliminating the 

need for 90 sheets of paper and students having 

to transfer their assessment information from 

hard copy to an excel spreadsheet installed 

on a laptop computer. The tablet also has a 

camera and computer software installed, which 

eliminates the need to issue a separate camera 

and notepad. Students will also be able to access 

the internet from the tablet to research additional 

information and create their presentations.

Go Pro action camera system with helmet mount, instructor remote 

and tablet.

Tablet and holder used for Seaport Security assessments.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 9

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

SIMULATED ENGINE NOISE – Many of the maritime 

training programs conducted at FLETCCharleston utilize the SS Cape Chalmers. The 

Cape Chalmers is a 494-foot break bulk freighter 

permanently moored along pier Q at FLETCCharleston. Since the Cape Chalmers is not an 

active vessel, the engines are inoperable. As one 

can imagine, the noise generated from functional 

engines would prevent routine communication 

between team members as they are clearing the 

engine room and other spaces below deck. The 

lack of noise on the Cape Chalmers creates an 

unrealistic environment as students resort to 

traditional methods for communicating such as 

voice and radio. Since the officers may not be able 

to communicate via voice and radio in a real world 

scenario, the staff believed that we were missing 

the mark with a valuable teaching point. Staff 

at FLETC-Charleston contacted the Training 

Innovation Division and requested support in 

finding a viable solution for this problem. The 

Training Innovation Division staff identified a 

cost effective system that will provide the students 

with a more realistic training environment when 

operating in the engine room. Through a series of 

amplifiers and speakers, the instructor will be able 

to activate simulated engine noise and other alarm 

sounds when the students enter the engine room 

area. The simulated noise will expose students to 

communication challenges normally encountered 

while boarding an underway vessel.

ELECTRIC SHOCK TRAINING VEST – Conventional 

force on force training includes simulated 

projectiles such as marking cartridges, paintball, 

and airsoft. The FLETC-Charleston Firearms 

and Physical Techniques staff are currently testing 

a non-projectile, non-lethal force on force firearms 

training system that utilizes laser technology to 

deliver an electric shock. The electric shock is 

delivered to the student wearing the vest when the 

suspect registers a center mass hit. The shock is 

delivered to the abdomen for several seconds. So 

far, the noted benefits of laser technology include 

the requirement of only minimal safety equipment 

due to the system’s use of a laser as opposed to firing 

a projectile. This system eliminates the recurring 

cost for marking cartridges and paintball rounds. 

Another benefit is the ability to move from scenario 

to scenario much more quickly since the students 

and role players are not wearing an abundance of 

safety equipment. The testing so far shows that 

using the electric training vest appears to offer 

the same level of realism and stress as when using 

non-lethal projectiles. Staff at FLETC-Charleston 

is still in the testing phase and will continue to 

monitor the system for durability, accuracy, and 

overall effectiveness. The final testing results will 

be documented and provided to the Training 

Innovation Division. 

SS Cape Chalmers engine room.

KIERAN MORIARTY currently serves as 

the chief of the Charleston Training 

Division for the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers in Charleston, South 

Carolina. He is responsible for the 

development and delivery of training 

curricula at the Charleston Training 

Delivery site. Moriarty served as a 

FLETC instructor, senior instructor and branch chief in 

FLETC’s Physical Techniques Division and a branch chief 

and division chief in the FLETC’s Training Management 

Division (TMD). 
10 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

BY LAUREN WARE AND ROB PEIFER

We have all seen countless commercials advertising the latest 

wonder drug. Ridiculously happy people appear on screen, 

apparently without a care in the world, as a spokesperson lists 

the many benefits of the latest and greatest miracle pill. After what seems 

like an eternity listening to what this pill can add to your life, a short novel 

is speedily recited in the last fifteen seconds of the commercial that lists 

the many side effects of that new drug. Sometimes, the physiological costs 

of taking the new drug sound worse than the original condition requiring 

treatment. While this illustration may seem dramatic, there are similar 

considerations associated with the application of new technologies. 

The Security Implications 

Associated with New Technologies

Side Effects May Include...
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 11

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The selling point of almost all new 

technological developments are 

convenience and instant gratification. 

The more popular technologies tend to be physically 

smaller, wireless, and more mobile as a result. 

Similarly, the systems they operate on are increasingly 

becoming cloud-based, creating immediate access to 

vast quantities of data and enabling users to share 

information almost instantaneously across the globe. 

While these new technologies can be tremendously 

helpful to an organization, the “side effects” or 

accompanied vulnerabilities, must be addressed. 

Otherwise, what we gain in ease and speed of access 

we could potentially lose in security. 

MOBILE DEVICES

The beauty of mobile devices is obviously that the 

user can access electronic data from practically 

anywhere outside the home or office. Of course, 

once that device leaves the relative 

safety of the home or office, 

it becomes vulnerable to 

inadvertent loss or theft and 

consequently unauthorized 

access. In that case, someone 

else may obtain access to all 

that device’s electronic data. 

Passwords, and other methods of 

access control, are not infallible. 

When an attacker has possession 

of your hardware, they have all the 

time in the world to apply techniques 

that attempt to circumvent these 

controls. The concern then becomes 

not only the integrity of the data on 

that specific device, but also the data 

available through connected networks. If 

a mobile device is automatically connected 

to a network, the unauthorized use of that 

device can be a gateway into vast stores of 

data available through that network. Even 

worse, this unauthorized access can be used as 

a tool to attack the entire network, potentially 

compromising or destroying unconscionable 

amounts of critical data. 

Mobile devices also present a security concern 

as updates and patches are often unable to be 

pushed to devices when not connected directly to the 

network. When computers were anchored to desks 

and reliant on wired connection, these patches and 

security software updates could be easily disseminated 

to all devices. This process was accomplished during 

non-duty hours to minimize interruption to the users 

and to ensure they were operating off of the most 

current versions of needed software. When mobile 

devices are physically removed from their network 

docking stations, they can miss the updates to the 

applications needed to run securely and effectively. 

More and more software manufacturers and global 

companies are transitioning to Cloud-based systems. 

This is because “the Cloud” offers a number of benefits 

that are appealing to large organizations. To begin, the 

Cloud offers greater bandwidth than most companies 

choose to invest in initially; the use of the 

Cloud allows companies to increase and 

decrease in scale with much more flexibility. 

Cloud offerings can also handle the work 

involved in data back-up and recovery. 

Additionally, Cloud offerings can provide 

automatic software updates and a payas-you-go subscription to the software; 

in a Cloud system, the user no longer 

has to worry about purchasing 

physical copies of the latest editions 

of software. Updates are handled 

behind the scenes, so users can be 

assured they are always operating 

from the latest version. Finally, 

documents saved in a Cloud can 

be accessed by anyone (given 

the right permissions), from 

anywhere in the world. This 

makes collaboration on a 

common project much 

more efficient. Of course, 

with these conveniences 

come vulnerabilities. 

Use of the Cloud 

requires a data owner to 

entrust all data and the security of 

that data to a third party; this presents an 

unknown level of risk to the data owner. Under these 
12 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

circumstances, the data owner does not have direct 

control to ensure only authorized users access to the 

data. They may have no direct control over who audits 

or monitors the system, or a mechanism to directly 

ensure their data is encrypted properly. By forfeiting 

direct oversight of the security controls applied to 

their system and data, the user accepts the risk that 

the Cloud owner’s security procedures may not be as 

robust as required.

Another concern is the accessibility of Cloudstored data over the web. Any time there is greater 

access for authorized users, there is greater access 

for unauthorized users. There have been several high 

profile data breaches over the past several years, in part 

because the data was stored in a Cloud. 

RECORDING SYSTEMS

Law enforcement and those who train law 

enforcement officers have been eyeing several forms of 

technology that involve recording systems. Body-worn 

cameras and unmanned aerial systems are two of the 

most recent and controversial items currently being 

explored. The obvious advantage of these systems is 

they capture video of areas and events that wouldn’t 

otherwise be seen by a third party. This translates 

into more information, which on the surface, seems 

overwhelmingly positive; however, there are many 

unanswered questions and considerations that must 

be addressed before these forms of technology can be 

responsibly implemented. 

In addition to the obvious privacy concerns, these 

recording systems come with a number of security 

challenges and vulnerabilities. The point of digital video 

recording is to retain video for some length of time; 

whether policy dictates the recording be saved for 24 hours 

or 24 years, there is still the need to store what can become 

significant amounts of data. Not only will the department 

retaining the data need to worry about temporary storage, 

they also will have to account for backing up that data. 

In the event specific footage must be retained long-term, 

they must provide sufficient storage, back up data, and 

protect it from destruction or compromise. Whatever 

this process ultimately becomes, it must also be designed 

with consideration that this digital recording is evidence 

and must be obtained, preserved, secured, and processed 

in a manner so it is admissible in court. Once again, the 

administrative and logistical burden this process may 

place on a department or agency must be considered. 

Another concern is that recording devices are 

essentially small computers, and therefore possess all the 

same vulnerabilities and must be patched with updates 

and malware. And, just as with computers, these devices 

can be hacked. Additionally, in the case of unmanned 

aerial systems, this technology is operated remotely and 

physically distant from the law enforcement officer. This 

leaves the system rather defenseless and susceptible to 

being destroyed or intercepted. In the wrong hands, law 

enforcement could forfeit not only the video footage 

obtained, but also intelligence regarding its technical and 

tactical operating capabilities. 

SECURITY RISK MITIGATION 

The use of technology can never be wholly without risk. 

Instead, agencies seeking to use new technologies must 

NEW RECORDING SYSTEMS. 

Body-worn cameras and 

unmanned aerial systems 

with small video cameras 

are two of the most recent 

and controversial items 

currently being explored by 

law enforcement. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 13

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

weigh those risks against the potential benefits, and take 

appropriate steps to mitigate as many risks as possible. 

When vulnerabilities are sufficiently addressed, the 

benefit of the technology can outweigh the risk to the 

agency and the agency can implement the technology 

responsibly. 

First and foremost, agencies must mandate a specific 

set of cyber security policies. Users must be trained 

on what vulnerabilities exist with the new technology. 

Awareness of vulnerabilities and their impact to the 

operational security of the agency is critical if users 

are to reliably comply with mitigation efforts. This is 

accomplished by requiring users to acknowledge and 

sign an agreement stating they will take the necessary 

steps to comply with the relevant security policy. 

Mobile devices require regularly scheduled 

connection to agency networks to ensure the onboard 

firmware or software is properly patched and updated. 

While this may seem to inconvenience the user, it is 

absolutely critical to ensure the technology and the data 

stored are protected. Additional basic security measures 

would be to limit the number of individuals with access 

to the technology, protect that access with two-factor 

authentication or complex passwords, and encrypt all 

associated data. Again, this may require some additional 

steps on the part of the user, such as establishing and 

remembering unique and complicated passwords and 

changing those passwords or pins frequently. 

Agencies should carefully evaluate potential new 

technologies using a Cloud. They should consider the 

sensitivity of the data they intend to store on the Cloud, 

and whether the convenience of the Cloud outweighs 

the possible increased likelihood of the breach of the 

involved data. 

Agencies should also ensure that the Cloud provider 

ultimately selected will comply with required data 

protection standards. Depending on the provider, the 

agency may be able to specify that its security personnel 

retain some level of visibility over its data, and perhaps 

even assurance of periodic system and security auditing. 

This additional service could increase the cost, but is a 

small price to pay when considering the value of the 

protected data. 

Moore’s Law implies that the growth of digital 

electronics and consequent technology doubles every 

18 months, and indeed this rate has been demonstrated 

since 1975 to approximately 2012. While many argue 

an inevitable deceleration of technological advancement 

is occurring, few would dispute that law enforcement 

will encounter and incorporate new technologies for 

many years to come. It is therefore incumbent upon 

the agency to consider the security implications of 

these technologies during its evaluation. Fortunately, 

unlike the unavoidable negative side effects of everemerging pharmaceuticals, the vulnerabilities that come 

with new technologies can be mitigated by responsible 

identification of and diligent adherence to security 

policy and procedures. 

LAUREN WARE serves as the chief of the Forensics and Special Investigative Skills Branch at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers. In this position, she leads a staff of 18 professional forensic instructors who are 

responsible for researching, designing, and delivering the most current, relevant, and accurate forensics and 

specialized investigative techniques available to federal law enforcement officers. Ware maintains professional 

affiliation with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and serves as the Vice Chair of the Peace Corps Sexual 

Assault Advisory Council. She is an advocate for community service, working on the Feds Feeds Families Food Drive, 

the annual CASA program, and provides presentations to local school children in an effort to inspire them to pursue 

careers in science. Ware was awarded the 2014 FLETC’s leadership award and is the recipient of the Women in 

Federal Law Enforcement’s 2016 Outstanding Law Enforcement Employee Award.

ROBERT PEIFER is an information system security officer in 

the Cyber Security Division at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers. He began his career in information 

technology working for private industry in the 1990’s. He 

came to the FLETC in 2003 as a government contractor and 

transitioned to federal service in 2009.
14 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

I

n 2011 six cows strayed from a neighboring property on 

to the farm of Rodney Brossart. A dispute between the 

farmer and Brossart ensued after Brossart argued that 

the cattle became his once they crossed onto his property. 

A deputy from the Nelson County Sheriff ’s Office and an 

inspector from the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association 

went to Brossart’s farm to handle the dispute. When asked 

about the cattle, Brossart stated he wanted to finish his work 

on the farm before dealing with the livestock. The deputy and 

inspector insisted on settling the matter. Brossart responded by 

brandishing a rifle and threatening the officers. The situation 

escalated, resulting in a sixteen hour standoff between Brossart 

and law enforcement. In an attempt to 

arrest Brossart, the Grand Forks Police 

Department SWAT team requested the use 

of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to 

pinpoint Brossart’s location. A UAV from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection was 

used to locate Brossart and lead the Grand 

Forks SWAT team to his location. Brossart 

was arrested without incident. 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) reports that there are approximately 

2.5 million drones or UAVs in use in the 

United States as of March 2016. By 2020, 

the FAA expects the number of drones 

used by Americans to rise to approximately 

7 million. The use of UAVs in society is 

becoming commonplace and will be an 

Unmanned 

Aerial 

Vehicles

Uses for Law Enforcement

BY JOHN STAMP
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 15

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

accepted facet of society very soon. As with 

all emerging technology, law enforcement 

agencies are adopting UAVs to enhance 

their respective missions.

Local, state, and federal agencies have 

begun using UAVs on various missions, 

including surveillance operations, crime 

scene analysis, explosive ordinance disposal, 

search and rescue, and SWAT operations. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation stated in 

response to a query from Senator Rand Paul 

that UAVs have been used in surveillance 

operations both in criminal and national 

security investigations since 2006. The San 

Jose Police Department in California has 

added a UAV to its inventory for use by 

the bomb squad. The rationale is that the 

cameras and other equipment carried on the 

UAV can be used for remote examination 

of a suspicious device without having to 

place police personnel in danger. UAVs have 

been used to map and document fatal traffic 

investigations, and the U.S. Border Patrol 

has incorporated drones along the nation’s 

borders to police for illegal border crossings. 

In 2009, Persistence Surveillance Systems 

of Dayton, Ohio, partnered with the city of 

Ciudad, Mexico, to study the effectiveness 

of drones as a police aid. During the 

study local law enforcement used UAVs 

to conduct aerial surveillance. At the end 

of the study images captured via UAV 

detailed 34 murders as they occurred in real 

time, including a cartel-sponsored killing 

within the city. Further video analysis taken 

during this time captured images of the 

murderer, the getaway vehicle, and multiple 

accomplices.

Currently, the most popular design in 

UAVs is the quadcopter, a small robot 

suspended under four, six, or eight rotors. 

Most UAVs can be augmented by a number 

of sensing packages from the standard 

still and video camera to forward looking 

FLETC has been researching a 

variety of potential platforms for 

future program development.
16 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

infrared, radar, and mapping equipment. In the 

future developers believe UAV’s will take on a more 

biomorphic design and miniaturization. This will 

mean that what was once a loud and obvious aerial 

platform roughly the size of a pizza delivery box 

will shrink to the size of a dragon fly or a mosquito 

and thereby will be able to deploy largely unseen.

In 2012, the FAA established regulations 

governing the use of UAVs by both the public 

and commercial entities. Essentially the same 

general rules apply to UAVs as apply to manned 

aerial platforms. The FAA requires that in order to 

operate a UAV commercially the aircraft must be 

registered and authorized to fly either by certificate 

or exemption. The UAV is required to have a valid 

registration number and can be flown only by a 

certified pilot. UAVs cannot be flown within five 

miles of an airport and operators are required to 

abide by temporary or permanent flight restrictions. 

The FAA periodically releases updates on UAV 

operation rules and regulations via its website: 

https://faa.gov/uas.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Aviation Committee issued guidance on the use 

of UAVs in 2012 as well. The model policy offers 

protocols governing such procedures as image/

media retention, operational procedures, system 

requirements, and community engagement.

FLETC has initiated a feasibility study regarding 

the development of a UAV training program. 

The study consists of not only the examination of 

aerial platforms for their use, but also how best 

to implement a potential program. FLETC will 

disseminate an assessment to its 93 federal partner 

agencies to determine which missions the partners 

believe UAVs can best serve or enhance. Once 

FLETC determines the platform and demand, it 

can develop and implement a training program. 

Another major point in the feasibility study for 

UAVs is where a potential training program could 

be best implemented. Given FAA regulations, 

UAVs cannot be flown within five miles of an 

airport without authorization or exemption, and 

UAVs can only be flown by certified pilots. Two of 

FLETC’s training sites are within this restriction, 

and developers are seeking FLETC personnel 

who are both certified instructors and pilots. 

FLETC has identified several potential aerial 

platforms and a number of potential certified 

pilot instructors. FLETC is also awaiting pending 

FAA guidance on UAVs before it further pursues 

potential training related to this technology. 

References:

MEOLA, ANDREW, Drone Usage Expected to Triple by 

2020. www.businessinsider.com. March 28, 2016. http://

www.businessinsider.com/faa-says-drone-usage-willtriple-by-2020-2016-3

RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES for the use of Unmanned 

Aircraft. International Association of Chiefs of Police: 

Aviation Committee. www.theiacp.org. August 2012. 

http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACP_

UAGuidelines.pdf

LAW ENFORCEMENT Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized 

UAS Operations. US Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration. www.faa.gov. Undated. 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/

FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

ALDERTON, MATT, To the Rescue! Why Drones in Police Work 

Are the Future of Crime Fighting. www.lineshapespace.

com. April 30, 2015. https://lineshapespace.com/

drones-in-police-work-future-crime-fighting/

REESE, HOPE. Police are now using drones to apprehend 

suspects and administer non-lethal force: A police chief 

weighs in. www.techrepublic.com. November 25, 2015. 

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/police-are-nowusing-drones-to-apprehend-suspects-and-administer-nonlethal-force-a-police-chief/

JOHN STAMP is a senior instructor at 

the Forensics and Special Investigative 

Techniques Branch, Investigative 

Operations Division, for the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Centers. 

Prior to his position with FLETC, he 

served as a police officer in Charleston, 

South Carolina, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and a special agent of the Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service. Stamp also holds a master’s degree 

in forensic science from the University of Florida and is the 

author of three crime novels.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 17

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY PRESTON FARLEY

Drones:

Your Agency’s New Best Friend 

or Worst Enemy?

The concept of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

(UAV), also known as the drone, has been 

theorized since the late 1800s. Initial 

development and utilization of early prototypes 

began in the early 1900s in military usage, 

which historically has driven many of mankind’s 

innovations over the millennia. The United States 

developed and used remote controlled full-sized 

aircraft in both World Wars. The U.S. Air Force 

used UAVs extensively throughout the Vietnam War 

for dangerous reconnaissance missions. The Israeli 

military developed and deployed the first modern 

UAV in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. It had 

all of the hallmarks of the modern UAV including 

data-link systems, endurance-loitering, and live 

video-streaming. These same capabilities, along with 

miniaturization, ease of use, reduced infrastructure 

requirements and, most of all, dramatic decrease in 

costs have allowed the formerly nation-state-only 

tool to be used by all segments of society including 

law enforcement today.

The first robots used extensively by civilian law 

enforcement in the United States were probably 

bomb handlers due to the very risky nature of 

that activity. Use of these machines saved and 

continues to save people from danger or even 

death. So too with the UAV. Due to its myriad 

functions and capabilities, it can now perform tasks 

that are deemed dangerous for officers to perform. 

UAVs are uniquely suited for surveillance, patrol, 

videography and photography, and some more 

advanced functionality discussed below. As UAVs 

FLETC Assistant Director Dominick Braccio and Physical Techniques Instructor Paul 

Sanchez demonstrate the launch of a hand-held Unmanned Aerial Vehicle at FLETC 

Artesia.
18 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

have matured, they have been created in a 

vast array of sizes and forms, from the size 

of a housefly to that of the U.S. Air Force 

Reaper with a wingspan of 84 feet! UAVs 

are available in both fixed and rotary wing 

configurations, which provide differing 

functionality depending upon their intended 

use. 

A logical primary use scenario for UAVs 

is as a surveillance tool. As UAVs have the 

ability to fly over terrain and buildings, they 

have a natural bird’s-eye view. This view 

can be augmented for specific missions like 

low-light or for viewing heat signatures in a 

smoke or fog-filled environment. The camera 

resolution of these devices can be 1080p or 

greater, depending upon operational need. 

Some stated use scenarios by a California 

law enforcement agency include tactical 

intelligence gathering in SWAT scenarios, 

crime scene photography, search and rescue 

in rough terrain, and finally, traffic control 

observation. Depending upon need, some 

of the UAVs available today are capable of 

sustained 12 hour flights. One new use for 

camera-toting UAVs is that of mapping. 

One company sells a “swarm” of smaller 

UAVs, which are optimized to go to a 

predefined geographic area, deploy, and 

then create three-dimensional maps of the 

target area including to-scale elevation with 

a precision to five centimeters. These UAVs 

have a 10-mile range. The major advantage 

of UAVs over conventional aircraft is that of 

cost; UAVs are much cheaper to purchase, 

maintain, and actually fly. 

NEFARIOUS USE THAT AFFECTS LAW 

ENFORCEMENT: There have been numerous 

reports in the media over the past few 

years regarding how both ignorance and 

malevolence have revealed the downside to 

UAV deployment. Initial reports were of 

UAVs being operated by people to observe 

others in places that were heretofore 

considered private. Specifically, many people 

have reported being spied upon on while on 

their own property, or in places previously 

considered private, like clothing-optional 

beaches. One United States Senator 

reported that she awoke in her second-floor 

bedroom, looked out her windows, and 

observed a UAV looking in the window at 

her! Another misuse of UAVs has occurred 

in aircraft flight zones. It seems that there 

are weekly reports of near-misses of UAVs 

and aircraft in and around airports. In fact, 

a mid-air strike occurred in April 2016 

UAVs in a public space allows unique capabilities to law enforcement.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 19

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

between a UAV and a British Airways 727, 

which was carrying 132 passengers and five 

crewmembers. Fortunately, the UAV hit the 

nosecone of the aircraft and not an engine 

intake as that would have probably destroyed 

the engine. Another use of the UAV for 

nefarious purposes has been discovered at 

numerous prisons both inside and out of the 

United States. Confederates of prisoners are 

attempting to bring contraband into prisons 

via UAVs. A high profile attempt failed at 

a South Carolina maximum security prison 

when the UAV crashed in the brush just 

outside the walls of the prison. One of the 

operators of the UAV was apprehended near 

the scene, but a second eluded police. The 

current extreme example of UAV's potential 

for abuse was revealed in a recent viral 

video showing an amateur UAV enthusiast 

attaching a running chainsaw to one. He 

then actually cut limbs off of a tree before 

embarking upon decapitating unsuspecting 

snowmen with the airborne chainsaw. And 

then there’s the remotely controlled UAV 

with a pistol attached, which allows the 

operator to get very close to his target and 

then fire the weapon with a high degree 

of accuracy. The potential for this tool to 

be abused is limited only by a criminal’s 

imagination. 

ANTI-UAV TECHNOLOGY: As the public and 

other political entities around the globe 

have deployed UAVs, the need to possess 

counter-UAV capabilities has emerged. 

Some major military arms suppliers have 

begun to market various anti-UAV systems 

with different approaches for different 

goals. Some low-tech solutions have also 

been developed, which are proving very 

effective. The first problem with counterUAV solutions is that of observation and 

discovery. By their very nature UAVs are 

difficult to observe. They are small and 

quiet and can move from hiding place to 

hiding place with a skilled operator, which 

makes detecting them quite a challenge. 

Fortunately, there are solutions already on 

the market. As almost all UAVs contain a 

functional digital camera, there are already 

well established technologies in place that 

can detect these cameras and track them. 

One company sells a solution that looks 

in a 360 degree arc for the UAV camera 

signatures and upon locating one alerts the 

user. It will then track the camera as long 

as it is within the device’s field-of-view. 

Once identification of the UAV occurs, the 

problem of “what next” occurs. A European 

company has created a man-portable device 

Assistant Director Dominick Braccio examines a UAV remote control with 

Instructor Paul Sanchez and Branch Chief John Newman. Below photo: A 

UAV with remote control.
20 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

which allows the operator to lock on to the 

UAV and essentially overpower the UAV 

operator’s controls and force the UAV to land 

where it can then be secured by authorities. 

An American company built a second system, 

which takes a more aggressive stance by 

allowing the user to send a huge blast of 

energy to the UAV thereby “killing” it in 

midair. A Dutch firm developed a decidedly 

low-tech anti-UAV tool, which has adapted 

the ancient art of falconry to teach the raptors 

to identify and attack UAVs! 

As the public continues to embrace UAV 

technology, your agency will be impacted by 

it. For many agencies, the use of UAVs can 

enhance your current work practices, often 

lowering costs. It may also give smaller 

agencies a path to provide previously cost 

prohibitive services like search and rescue. 

Again, as with any tool, the criminal element 

will also adapt to the new technology and 

leverage its use in nefarious schemes. At 

this stage of development and deployment, 

remaining UAV-ignorant is no longer an 

option. Forewarned is forearmed. UAVs are 

both your best friend AND worst enemy.

PRESTON L. FARLEY is a senior instructor for the Cyber Division at FLETC, where he has been 

an instructor since 2004. In 2006, he became the program coordinator for the Seized 

Computer Evidence Recovery Specialist Training Program, which is the introductory digital 

forensic analysis class open to all law enforcement officers/agents at both the local and 

federal level. His law enforcement career includes 20 years as a United States military 

member in both the active duty U.S. Air Force and the active duty U.S. Army culminating in 

nearly a decade of investigative experience with the United States Army Criminal Investigation 

Division Command as a special agent and cyber agent.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 21

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

CONTRIBUTORS:

DAVID BAND

DOUG DRAGOTTA

ED SIZEMORE I

n 2010, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers 

conducted an evaluation of the 

performance of local college students 

and FLETC basic training students, half 

of whom completed firearms training 

using a combination of virtual and live 

fire methodologies (virtual) and half of 

whom received only live fire training 

(traditional). It was found that for 

both local college students enrolled in 

criminal justice and for several classes of 

FLETC trainees, the pistol qualification 

scores were statistically similar regardless 

of the methodology used (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, and Burnett & Erdmier 2011). 

Based on the results of this work, as 

well as similar findings from the Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP, 

Kratzig, Hyde & Parker, 2011), FLETC 

expanded its initial pilot and constructed 

three 24-lane Virtual Firing Ranges at 

its headquarters in Glynco, Georgia. 

A Virtual Firing Range offers a 

number of advantages over live fire 

training. For new shooters, it creates 

a safe, low stress environment to learn 

the basic marksmanship fundamentals, 

such as how to grip and draw, sight 

alignment, trigger control, and range 

safety protocols. Regarding safety, virtual 

training also eliminates the risk of 

accidental discharges for new shooters. 

For instructors, the virtual range allows 

for more effective communication 

because hearing protection is not 

required; offers the ability to work with 

students from all positions, including in 

front of the shooter; and permits more 

time to train because time spent on 

setting up targets, collecting brass, and 

cleaning weapons is not required. From 

Virtual Firearms Ranges
22 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

the institutional perspective, sessions 

used with this technology save money, 

maximize space, and expand student 

throughput. Training in a virtual 

environment also enables students to 

use an unlimited number of virtual 

bullets, thus increasing the capacity to 

dramatically augment student trigger 

pulls. 

In late 2013, an initial class piloted 

the substitution of the live fire training 

with the new virtual firing ranges 

for four two-hour sessions of Basic 

Marksmanship Instruction for a single 

class. In 2014, FLETC integrated this 

methodology into its basic training 

programs – the Criminal Investigator 

Training Program (CITP), the 

Uniformed Police Training Program 

(UPTP), and the Land Management 

Police Training Program (LMTP). 

In 2014 and 2015, FLETC also 

constructed virtual ranges at its 

Artesia, New Mexico, and Charleston, 

South Carolina, locations. Since the 

implementation of virtual firearms 

training, there is now a larger sample 

of qualification data than in previous 

comparisons of these methodologies. 

This article provides a review of the 

qualification data for FLETC law 

enforcement students who completed 

training before and after this change 

in methodology. 

OVERVIEW OF MARKSMANSHIP 

TRAINING AT FLETC

FLETC BASIC MARKSMANSHIP 

INSTRUCTION consists of four twohour sessions on the Virtual Firing 

Ranges. Those who train on the virtual 

firing ranges use firearms that have 

been modified with a laser insert, 

“firing” on simulated live fire ranges 

with images of paper targets projected 

in front of students. The instruction 

with this methodology is intended 

to be similar to the instruction on 

traditional live fire ranges. 

Following this basic exposure 

to marksmanship skills, training 

continues with eight to eleven twohour live fire sessions, depending on 

the training program, that culminate 

with the Semi-Automatic Pistol 

Course (SPC) qualification course of 

fire. 

Left: Student examines 

his score from the 

Virtual Firing Range 

at FLETC Glynco. 

Below, right: Firearms 

Instructor Ed Sizemore 

assists student.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 23

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The SPC consists of 60 rounds 

fired from a variety of positions 

and distances. This is broken down 

into a “front half ” (distances of 3 to 

7 yards) and “back half ” (distances 

from 10 to 25 yards). Students can 

earn a maximum of 5 points for each 

round on target for a total of 150 

points per half, or 300 points in total. 

Rounds on the target silhouette are 

assigned points that range from 5 

points (center target) to one point 

(outer areas of the silhouette), with 

rounds not striking the silhouette 

receiving no points. The majority 

of partner agencies that train at 

FLETC have set a score of 210 

(70%) as the minimum qualification 

score while a few have opted for 240 

(80%).

FINDINGS FROM THE 

INSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE 

VIRTUAL FIRING RANGES

STUDENT POPULATION:

Data from 5,718 students from 159 

classes (76 CITP, 63 UPTP and 

20 LMTP) who underwent SPC 

qualification from Fiscal Year (FY) 

2013 through the second quarter 

of FY 2016 were included in this 

analysis. Of the 5,718 students, 

1,592 received traditional live-fire 

training and 4,126 received the 

blended environment of virtual 

and live fire training. This is a 

much larger sample than previous 

evaluations from FLETC and the 

RCMP (115-256 students). Data 

on these classes were gathered from 

end of class reports. These reports 

include summaries from each class, 

including average qualification 

score, number of students attending 

intermediate sessions, and number 

of students who successfully 

qualified, but do not include each 

students’ raw scores. 

STUDENT QUALIFICATION SCORES:

Qualification scores were reviewed 

by fiscal year. It was found there was 

an initial decrease in qualification 

scores when the Virtual Firing 

Ranges were implemented in FY 

2014; however, there was a rise in 

these scores in FY 2015 and FY 

2016. In fact, the average qualification 

score was slightly higher for FY 2016 

(virtual/live fire) than for students 

trained with traditional live fire. 

Since raw qualification scores were 

unavailable at the time of this analysis, 

it could not be determined if these 

differences in qualification scores 

were statistically significant. Previous 

work by FLETC and the RCMP 

found that while qualification scores 

were statistically similar, there was a 

trend for slightly lower performance 

using the virtual range (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, Burnett & Erdmier 2011, 

Krätzig, 2011). The current results 

suggest that through refinement of 

the training methodology, higher 

qualification scores may be possible. 

 

STUDENTS SENT 

TO INTERMEDIATE TRAINING: 

One possible explanation for 

higher qualification scores after the 

integration of the Virtual Firing 

Ranges could be contributed to 

instructors providing additional live 

fire training through intermediate 

after-hours sessions in efforts to 
24 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

achieve this performance. The trends for 

assignment of additional training sessions 

were reviewed by fiscal year (see below). 

While there was a peak during the initial 

transition (21%), data for the most recent 

year shows there were actually fewer 

students sent to additional training (12%) 

than when live fire was used. Also, this 

data suggests additional live fire training 

is not required to achieve the same level 

of proficiency when virtual training is 

integrated into firearms instruction. 

STUDENT QUALIFICATION RATE: 

Overall, FLETC’s firearms instructional 

staff and curriculum is extremely effective 

in training students on the fundamentals of 

marksmanship leading to qualification with 

their weapons. Less than 1% of students fail 

to qualify. When this qualification rate was 

assessed for each fiscal year, it was found 

there was actually a higher qualification 

rate for students trained with the virtual 

range in FY 2015 and FY 2016. While the 

qualification rates are objectively higher for 

the more current years, they are essentially 

equal. In fact, a Chi Square analysis, a test 

to see if these results are statically different 

across these years, cannot be performed 

because the number of failures is less than 

5 students for several of these years (there 

must be at least 5 responses per cell to run 

this test). 

OVERALL DATA RESULTS:

Previous evaluations found slightly lower 

but statically equivalent qualification scores 

when using a virtual range (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, Burnett & Erdmier 2011, Krätzig, 

2011). This evaluation found that after 

an initial drop in performance, students 

training in the virtual environment for the 

most recent fiscal year had slightly higher 

qualification scores than traditional Basic 

Marksmanship Instruction training. This 

was the case with fewer students being 

assigned to receive extra intermediate 

training sessions and with a slightly higher 

qualification rate. 

These results using a larger student sample 

than previous work confirm that firearms 

training, in which a virtual environment 

is incorporated, can be equally as effective 

as traditional live fire training. While 

FLETC has not compared the retention 

of marksmanship skills between these 

methodologies, the RCMP has conducted 

this analysis (Krätzig, 2014). Krätzig found 

that there was no statistical difference in 

retention between those trained in a live 

fire or virtual environment in subsequent 

requalification and adding further support 

for the use of this methodology. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 25

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

COST AVOIDANCE:

For fiscal year 2016, FLETC projects a total 

cost avoidance of $338,393.51 in terms of 

supply costs alone (ammunition, targets, 

target backers, weapon cleaning supplies, etc.) 

by using Virtual Firing Ranges. With larger 

student numbers and increases in the cost 

of ammunition, cost avoidance is projected 

to increase every year. When other costs for 

running a live fire range are also considered, 

such as range equipment, maintenance, and 

electricity (running ventilation systems), 

these savings may be even higher. 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTATION:

As is common with new technologies 

or methodologies, change was an initial 

challenge. This was observed anecdotally, 

through increased assignments to afterhour training sessions, and overall lower 

qualification scores during the initial 

implementation. 

Determining the right method of training 

with the new equipment and approach was 

demanding for the staff. With over 120 

firearms instructors on staff, there has been 

a continuous process of refinement. Some of 

the initial challenges included familiarizing 

instructors with the advantages of the Virtual 

Firing Ranges, training staff on technical 

aspects of the system, obtaining all of the 

pistol models used by various agencies, and 

standardizing training sessions to best make 

use of this training methodology. 

Training organizations wishing to 

implement virtual firing ranges for their 

agencies should be prepared for some initial 

stumbling blocks. However, after this 

learning curve, students may achieve even 

higher performance than with traditional 

live fire training. 

FIREARMS TRAINING MOVING FORWARD:

A testament to FLETC firearms instructors’ 

experience and capability is that as they 

become more familiar with using the 

simulators, they are developing better 

methods for maximizing their effectiveness. 

As part of the ongoing refinement process, 

FLETC created a new Firearms Technology 

and Innovation Branch to manage and 

maintain a directed focus on the Virtual 

Firing Ranges, as well as other virtual 

simulation initiatives and training such as 

Judgment Pistol Shooting. 

Using simulation to model live fire ranges 

is just the tip of the iceberg for the potential 

of simulation to improve firearms proficiency. 

While most law enforcement officers 

routinely demonstrate their marksmanship 

during range requalification, accuracy during 

gun fights is exceptionally low (15-22%, 

Morrison & Vila, 1998). Simulation offers 

the potential to address the gaps to improve 

real world performance. For instance, 

training can safely be conducted with moving 

and realistic targets, from various shooting 

positions, and with realistic and higher 

stress scenarios that require decision making. 

Unlike live role player scenarios, simulation 

has the ability to accurately track student 

accuracy during more realistic scenarios. 

This exploration of the use of simulation to 

improve reaction times and accuracy during 

more realistic scenarios also extends beyond 

FLETC (Wright, 2013). 

FLETC and its Partner Organizations are 

exploring ideas such as integrating driving 

simulation and use of force simulation, 

conducting evaluations of high definition 

immersive use of force simulators, integrating 

physical conditioning into firearms decision 

making tasks, and potentially integrating 

virtual reality into training. FLETC is 

committed to supporting ideas that will 

make students better prepared to protect our 

homeland, as well as generating cost savings 

for U.S. taxpayers. 
26 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Virtual Firearms Training:

A Cross Organizational Effort

DANIEL BALASH

2016 RECIPIENT OF THE FEDERAL 100 AWARD

Bringing virtual firearms training to the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers (FLETC) was a crossorganizational effort. In addition to the 

transformative efforts of FLETC’s training 

staff, personnel from throughout the 

organization made significant 

contributions in bringing the benefits of this technology to 

FLETC and its students. 

Daniel Balash, Information Technology Project Manager, 

led the integrated project team that developed, procured, 

installed, and tested the Virtual Firing Ranges at FLETC, 

an accomplishment that earned him the prestigious 2016 

Federal 100 Award this past spring. The Fed 100 Awards 

recognize government and industry leaders who have 

gone above and beyond their daily responsibilities and 

have made a difference in the way technology is bought, 

managed, or used.

In his role as Project Manager, Balash was responsible 

for the cradle to grave development and implementation 

of the Virtual Firing Ranges into FLETC training, resulting 

in the revolution of firearms training at FLETC. Besides 

freeing up time on live-fire ranges and increasing students’ 

opportunities to practice, the virtual ranges also cut 

ammunition usage, lower maintenance costs, and have a 

lesser impact on the environment. 

Balash’s team overcame decades of institutional 

cultural bias in favor of students training only with live-fire. 

His passion for technology and belief in this new learning 

methodology enabled him to become a passionate 

advocate for the virtual ranges. Balash conducted group 

and one-on-one capability demonstrations to create a 

trusting partnership between technology and instructional 

delivery. The resultant capability is now a fixture in FLETC’s 

basic training, as students attending FLETC’s three 

flagship basic training program received training on the 

Virtual Firing Ranges as part of their basic marksmanship 

curriculum. Thousands of students have now successfully 

completed basic marksmanship training using virtual 

firing ranges in combination with live fire.

While Balash received the well-deserved Fed 100 

Award, he is quick to acknowledge that integrating virtual 

firearms into FLETC training was a true team effort. FLETC’s 

experience with integrating virtual firearms training 

demonstrates the enormous power of collaboration 

among diverse professionals in using new technology to 

improve how we train law enforcement personnel.

References:

HAWTHORNE, S., Wollert, T., Burnett R. & Erdmier K. 

(2011). Firearms Simulation Study. FLETC Journal. 

Spring 2011. pp. 26-31. 

KRÄTZIG, G. (2011). Pistols Skills Transfer from 

a Synthetic Environment to Real World Setting. 

Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and 

Education Conference. Paper No. 11322.

KRÄTZIG, G., Parker, C., Hyde. M (2014). Pistol Skill 

Acquisition and Retention: A 3-Year Longitudinal 

Study. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and 

Education Conference. Paper No. 14042.

MORRISON G. & Vila B. (1998). Police handgun 

qualification: practical measure or aimless activity? 

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies 

& Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, 1998, pp. 510-533,

WRIGHT, Richard A., (2013) “Effects of Virtual Reality 

on the Cognitive Memory and Handgun Accuracy 

Development of Law Enforcement Neophytes”. 

Graduate Theses and Dissertations.

DAVID BAND has served as an 

engineering research psychologist at the 

FLETC since February of 2011. He is 

currently assigned to the Applied 

Research Branch within FLETC’s Training 

Research and Innovation Directorate. 

Band received his bachelor’s degree in 

Psychobiology from Binghamton 

University and a Master’s of Science in Applied Psychology 

from Clemson University.

DOUG DRAGOTTA is the Chief over the 

Firearms Technology and Innovation 

Branch at the Glynco Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center’s Firearms 

Division. Doug began his law 

enforcement career in 1995 as an 

officer with the Secret Service Uniformed 

Division, where he served in various 

assignments. In 2007 he began his career with the FLETC and 

has served as an Instructor, Senior Instructor, and Branch 

Chief, in multiple training divisions. Doug holds a Bachelor of 

Science degree in Criminal Justice from Troy University. 

ED SIZEMORE, M.A., M.S., CPP, Is a lead 

instructor in the FLETC’s Firearms 

Division at Glynco, Georgia, where he 

has served for 18 years. With graduate 

degrees in security management and 

counseling as well as postgraduate work 

in homeland security, he has served in 

both Firearms Division and as a senior 

instructor in the former FLETC Management Institute. A retired 

Coast Guard officer and a former special agent of the Coast 

Guard Investigative Service, Sizemore is a true believer in 

providing quality professional law enforcement training to all 

of FLETC’s students. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 27

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY PRESTON FARLEY AND TRACY GATWOOD

A convicted criminal, while serving time for his crimes, was suspected of continuing to run 

his criminal enterprise while in prison through the use of contraband cell phones. During 

the execution of a search warrant of his jail cell, the suspect, knowing his phone would 

be seized and potentially examined for incriminating evidence, broke the phone in half before 

officers could seize it. The phone was taken to a local cellular provider for assistance in recovering its 

contents, but company representatives stated they could not assist. A few years ago, this would have 

been the end of the story and the latest criminal misdeeds of this prisoner would be lost; however, 

this is no longer the case. A duo of related investigative tools has been developed and mastered by 

many law enforcement agencies over the past few years which allows them to potentially recover 

data from heavily damaged smart phones. 

JTAG AND 

CHIP-OFF

two words you must know

to solve modern crimes

Student using JCSTP-issued 

tools to review in-class 

soldering techniques.
28 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

The first tool is JTAG, which is an 

acronym for the Joint Test Action Group, 

an electronics industry association formed 

to develop a method of verifying designs 

and testing printed circuit boards after 

they are manufactured. This is done 

by embedding each circuit board with 

hardware and software, which allows 

them to be checked for errors prior to 

being assembled into their final form, like 

a smartphone or GPS device. Access to 

the software is accomplished via on-chip 

test access ports (TAPs). These TAPs are 

various sizes, and locations depend upon 

the manufacturer’s design. As a wonderful 

side effect, the JTAG system allows a 

trained investigator to solder wires to the 

TAPs, connect these wires to a harness, 

and the harness to a computer running 

a dedicated program that then “reads” 

all of the data from the storage chips 

on the circuit board. In plain terms, the 

investigator can obtain a physical image 

of the memory chips which can then be 

analyzed using traditional digital forensic 

techniques. This would include potential 

recovery of texts, emails, pictures, call 

records, and social media artifacts, both 

current and deleted.

Unfortunately, the physical destruction 

of a cell phone (as in the case above) renders 

JTAG moot as the system requires the 

circuit board to be intact and functional. 

This is where another new technology, 

Chip-off, comes into play. Chip-off is a 

term that literally means what is says, to 

remove a computer memory chip off of the 

circuit board. When JTAG is no longer 

an option, Chip-off becomes an option 

of last resort. Instead of using the circuit 

board of the device under investigation 

to power and obtain data from computer 

chips, the investigator removes the chip 

from the circuit board. 

Removal of the chip is accomplished 

using specialized hardware that applies 

very high heat to both the top and bottom 

of the chip simultaneously to loosen the 

solder and epoxy, which holds the chip 

in place. Once removed, the chip must 

generally be cleaned and then placed in 

a die or adapter connected to a computer 

Above photo: Example of student's first soldering attempt using JTAG. 

Right photo: How to identify relevant memory chips for chipoff analysis.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 29

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

running specialized software to obtain a 

RAW or physical image of the memory 

contained within the chip. This image 

is then analyzed as outlined above using 

traditional digital forensic techniques. 

This description of the chip-off process 

is very simplistic as the actual process of 

safely removing the chip requires a number 

of safety procedures and specialized 

training and equipment to successfully 

and safely accomplish removal. For 

instance, a typical smartphone may 

contain six or more chips. These chips 

are cryptically numbered and must be 

identified to ensure the correct memory 

chip is removed. Once identified, the 

correct die must be located so that reading 

of the chip may be accomplished. Once 

that task is completed, the actual removal 

of the chip must occur. This is the most 

delicate step as too little heat and too 

much leverage on the chip to attempt to 

remove it could literally break the chip 

in two. Conversely, too much heat can 

bake the chip rendering it unusable and 

unreadable. The line between these two 

extremes is very limited and expertise 

in this endeavor can only come from 

experience removing numerous chips in a 

trial-and-error methodology. Fortunately, 

FLETC now has such a program for 

all law enforcement officers to become 

proficient at this relatively new forensic 

technique. It’s called the JTAG Chip-Off 

for Smartphones Training Program.

Digital forensic investigators 

representing state, local, regional, 

tribal, military, and federal civilian law 

enforcement agencies graduated from the 

pilot JTAG Chip-Off training program 

in the Spring of 2016. The two-week 

course of instruction was expansive and 

intense with topics ranging from safety 

concerns due to the extreme temperatures 

involved in the chip-off process to special 

air-handling concerns due to heating the 

Top photo: Student reviewing soldering job. Bottom photo: Review of student soldering 

practice board using equipment issued in JCSTP.
30 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

TRACY GATWOOD is a senior instructor for the Cyber Division at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers (FLETC). He has been a full-time instructor since 2015 and became the program 

coordinator for the JTAG Chip-off for Smartphones Training Program (JCSTP) in 2015. This is the 

advanced mobile forensics class for all law enforcement agencies both federal and state offered 

by the FLETC. His law enforcement career includes 29 years in the Metropolitan Nashville Police 

Department. He spent several years in the Criminal Investigation Surveillance Unit, both as a 

detective and supervisor. During his service with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, 

he also oversaw the Cyber and Mobile Device investigations unit.

epoxy and solder on the computer boards to 

remove the chips to a basic understanding of 

Python coding to obtain passwords of interest 

from the RAW images obtained from the 

smartphones themselves. The course was the 

first one ever coordinated by new FLETC 

instructor Tracy Gatwood, who has vast 

experience in both traditional digital forensics 

and mobile device forensics, which he honed 

after successfully graduating from FLETC’s 

own Seized Computer Evidence Recovery 

Specialist Training Program in 2006. He was 

assisted by another FLETC new instructor, 

Teri Hamel, who recently left the field as a 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Homeland Security Investigations special 

agent.

 The outcome of the prisoner/criminal 

who destroyed his cell phone in hopes of 

destroying evidence was not a good one. 

With the aid of advanced investigative skills 

provided by FLETC, one of the recent 

graduates of the JTAG Chip-Off training 

program was able read all of the active files 

on the cellphone he thought he destroyed. 

The data recovered revealed there were many 

files that most people consider “deleted.” The 

effect of the course on the investigation was 

incredible. Not only was evidence of the 

primary suspect’s involvement with a murderfor-hire plot confirmed, but three additional 

previously unknown co-conspirators were 

also implicated. The case was blown wide 

open and was able to be moved from a local 

level of prosecution to the federal level. 

For more information on future JTAG 

Chip-Off for Smartphone Training Programs 

at FLETC, or other FLETC training 

programs, contact the author at preston.

farley@dhs.gov or visit https://www.fletc.

gov/training-catalog
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 31

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY LAUREN WARE

The New

Smoking Gun 

of Technology 

in Training

In the digital age, software now provides 

the smoking gun link between training 

and technology

The “smoking gun” analogy is often used to 

describe the indisputable physical evidence 

that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the 

guilt of the accused. The fact that it is deliberately 

referred to as the “smoking” gun and not just a “gun” 

illustrates a critical but often overlooked element 

of physical evidence: context. The value of physical 

evidence to any criminal investigation is to a large 

extent contingent upon its context. The fact that item 

of evidence “A” exists isn’t necessarily significant; 

instead, it is the fact that item of evidence “A” was 

recovered from a particular location, at a particular 

time, and in a particular context. In the case of the 

smoking gun, the gun was not necessarily valuable 

until it could be described as having been recently 

fired (hence the smoke). That additional detail is 

responsible for adding tremendous evidentiary value 

to an otherwise circumstantial object. 

For this reason, crime scene investigation is a long 

and laborious process. Crime scene investigators 

might spend eight to 10 hours at a crime scene, but 

this is not because the evidence is so difficult to find. 

Instead, the majority of that time is spent preserving 

that most valuable of physical evidence traits: 

context. Crime scene investigators meticulously 

document scenes through written notes, sketches, 
32 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

diagrams, photographs, video recordings, and recently 

even three-dimensional laser scanners. In essence, 

this documentation forever bonds the “smoke” to 

the “gun.” While the requirement to preserve the 

contextual elements of evidence at crime scenes 

will likely never change, the manner in which it is 

collected and recorded is absolutely evolving with 

new technologies. 

AN ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE COLLECTION MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM

Most federal investigative organizations transitioned 

to electronic investigative databases long ago, and to 

date, countless case file systems have been created, 

improved, and become linked to still other databases, 

making instantaneous information sharing and report 

generation possible. Up until recently, though, hardcopy crime scene documentation had to be manually 

input into these systems. Evidence tags and forms 

handwritten at the scene had to be transcribed into 

investigative databases sometimes in the middle of 

the night following hours of crime scene processing. 

Hand-drawn sketches and measurements had to 

be transferred into computer assisted diagramming 

software in order to produce a professional product 

worthy of presentation at trial. The process of 

transitioning crime scene information to an electronic 

database was not only time-consuming, but also 

created an opportunity for transcription errors. In the 

unforgiving field of forensic evidence, one misplaced 

digit can cost an item of evidence its admissibility 

in court. Additionally, missed steps are often not 

identified until this mountain of information is being 

transferred to the database; at that point, it is no 

longer an option to go back to the scene and take 

that last measurement, or capture that one overlooked 

photograph. 

In 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

developed a software application known as the 

Evidence Collection Management (ECM) System. 

This application was designed for use by crime scene 

investigators to document the investigative work done 

at FBI crime scenes by organizing into a workflow 

the products from all the common roles involved in 

the processing of the scene. For the first time ever, 

a crime scene diagram could be linked with digital 

photographs, electronic evidence tags, and the written 

documentation associated with each item of evidence. 

Not only was time and energy saved by documenting 

these features electronically the first time, but also 

the software allowed investigators to observe the 

totality of their evidence’s documentation in one, 

consolidated application. This made understanding 

and analysis of the crime scene much more readily 

accessible. 

Through their partnerships with the FBI, the 

Department of Defense (DoD) Biometrics Program 

Managers identified a common use for the software, 

and following some modifications to bring the software 

in line with DoD requirements, they brought on-line 

their own version of the evidence collection system, 

which the DoD refers to as ECMX. This software 

provides prompts for specific descriptions, drop-down 

menus for required information, and link capabilities 

between the scene sketch, photographs, and evidence 

descriptions. There is also an output Word document 

that serves as a crime scene investigative report 

including evidence custody documents, receipts for 

items seized, and photography-logs. This software has 

the capability to operate on a standalone computer 

or on a network. The DoD intends to place ECMX 

on a mobile platform that operates on networked 

computers. Eventually, users will be able to connect 

to an internet hotspot and communicate between 

ECMX applications through a secure DoD server. This 

will allow for better on-scene management and near 

real time oversight by the crime scene lead. Because 

the software allows multiple agents performing 

various roles at a crime scene to simultaneously input 

data into a single report, missed steps can be more 

easily identified, and important relationships within 

the crime scene can be detected at an earlier time by 

managers or analysts in an entirely different location. 

The implications of this software would be exciting to 

any crime scene investigator; for that reason, FLETC’s 

Military Criminal Investigative Organizations 

FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, A CRIME SCENE DIAGRAM COULD BE LINKED WITH 

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE TAGS, AND THE WRITTEN 

DOCUMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ITEM OF EVIDENCE.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 33

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

(MCIO) partners were eager to implement this 

software in their training programs. Their first stop 

was FLETC’s Crime Scene Investigator Training 

Program. 

THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR 

TRAINING PROGRAM 

In January of 2014, the Forensics and Biometrics 

program managers from the Air Force Office 

of Special Investigations, the Army Criminal 

Investigation Command, and the Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service decided to overhaul the 

specialized training provided to select agents 

destined to serve as Forensic Science technicians 

and consultants for their agencies. Prior to this 

date, each of the three MCIOs sent their forensic 

agent selectees to nine different specialized training 

programs to obtain the advanced skills necessary to 

serve as forensic subject-matter-experts. This was an 

expensive and time-intensive process to certify their 

experts, taking sometimes two years to complete all 

the required training. Additionally, because each 

of the three agencies obtained their training from 

different entities, there was variation in their agents’ 

methods and techniques. The MCIOs concluded, 

then, that a standardized, consolidated, and joint 

forensic technical school would be both a practical 

and economic solution to produce the forensic 

science experts critical to the success of their criminal 

investigative mission. 

Over the course of 2014, the Biometrics program 

Screen shots of ECMX software organizing the many components 

of crime scene processing procedures taught in the Crime Scene 

Investigators Training Program.
34 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

managers visited not only FLETC, but also numerous 

training academies to compare facilities, existing 

curriculum, the credentials of the instructional cadre, 

and importantly, the institutions’ ability to respond 

swiftly and agilely to new training requests. The MCIO 

representatives unanimously selected FLETC’s 

Forensics and Special Investigative Skills Branch to 

build this unprecedented training program, and in 

September of 2015, FLETC piloted the first iteration 

of the Crime Scene Investigator Training Program. 

This seven-week advanced forensic training program 

has set the standard for how federal law enforcement 

employs forensics at crime scenes and has effectively 

equipped the MCIOs’ forensic science agents with the 

specialization and knowledge to consult on and lead 

the processing of the military’s most complex crime 

scenes. As such, these leaders in their field need to be 

among the first in their agencies to learn and master 

new technologies, like the ECMX software. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECMX

The great utility of the ECMX software is its ability 

to receive, organize, and relate information as it is 

immediately collected from a crime scene. It was 

therefore imperative that the students be able to 

undock their networked computers and take them 

into crime scene exercises at various training venues on 

FLETC. In anticipation of this training requirement, 

the forensics instructors acquired training network 

tablets for student use in the program, and executed 

several iterations of the training programs to ensure 

instructor proficiency with this learning tool. All the 

planning and advance troubleshooting paid off, as 

the ECMX software was successfully implemented 

in the Crime Scene Investigator Training Program 

in May of 2016. The instructional cadre of the 

training program embedded the software into their 

presentations, and used it as a framework to instruct 

students on the required crime scene documentation. 

Over the course of seven weeks, students process 12 

crime scenes and utilize the ECMX software to track 

and catalogue their efforts. At the conclusion of the 

program, students receive a subpoena notifying them 

they will testify to a particular item of evidence they 

identified, processed, and collected at one of these 12 

crime scenes. The ECMX software is used to generate 

a crime scene report that prosecuting and defense 

attorney role players use to question the students 

about their methods of collecting a particular item of 

evidence. Now, as students are learning the forensic 

techniques taught by FLETC, they simultaneously 

develop a proficiency documenting those techniques 

in the software they will encounter in the field. In this 

way, the cradle to grave application of this software 

envisioned for use in real world cases is successfully 

mirrored in its cradle to grave application throughout 

the training. 

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVING PARTNERSHIPS . . . AND 

PARTNERSHIPS IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY

Among the many benefits of sharing technology 

from the field with those administering training is 

the mutual strengthening of both the training and 

technology products. The training improves because 

the students are able to use tools that reflect those 

which are actually used in the field, making the 

training environment more realistic and consequently 

more relevant. The technology also improves because, 

unlike the real world where mistakes can cost law 

enforcement a successful prosecution, instructors 

and students can test the technology in a “safe” 

environment. In training, risks can be taken, limits 

can be pushed, and “what if ” scenarios are actually 

encouraged. FLETC has done precisely that with its 

implementation of ECMX; after just one iteration, 

instructors have provided invaluable feedback on what 

worked, what did not, and suggestions on how the 

technology can be changed to avoid issues in the field. 

It has also revolutionized advanced forensics training 

by putting the most cutting-edge technological 

developments in the hands of the FLETC student. 

Indeed, one could cite FLETC’s implementation of 

the DoD’s ECMX software as the “smoking gun” 

of a successful partnership between technology and 

training. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 35

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The Virtual 

Law Enforcement 

Classroom

BY DIANA FLEMING

AFOSI INSTRUCTOR

Twenty years ago, the term “Virtual 

Classroom” may very well have 

evoked images of a hypothetical 

alternate reality, or perhaps an exaggeration 

of the extent to which technology would 

envelop normal everyday lives. Today, 

however, virtual classrooms are at the very 

least a reality and most likely a necessity. 

Indeed, long established traditional colleges 

and universities are increasingly emphasizing 

in their advertisements the availability of 

online degree programs, blended learning 

environments, and distance education 

opportunities. This is due not only to the 

fact that technological advancements make 

distance learning possible, but also because 

the target student audience seeking higher 

education demand it; these students have 

grown up with these technologies and are 

used to absorbing information through 

these modalities, they are proficient with 

the technology, and they require it to 

accommodate their busy lifestyles. Of course, 

institutions of higher learning benefit from 

these endeavors as well. The virtual classroom 

offers the benefits of scheduling flexibility, 

an inexpensive physical infrastructure and 

training platform, and a much wider reach 

than the traditional classroom. It may come 

as no surprise that these features make it 

attractive not only for higher education 

institutions, but for law enforcement 

training and education as well.

Opponents of law enforcement 

training evolving into the virtual learning 

environment would argue that the practical 

Instructional Preparation for the Virtual Classroom: U.S. 

AFOSI and On-line Instructor Diana Fleming, recording 

audio for lesson presentations for students enrolled in 

AFOSI’s Basic Extension Program.
36 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

aspects of policing simply cannot be taught 

effectively in an online environment. There 

is indeed merit to this argument, as not all 

components of law enforcement training are 

suitable for distance learning. Physical techniques 

and tactics, firearms, and operational skills, all 

require some in-person instruction, performance, 

and evaluation. There are, however, other facets of 

law enforcement education that are appropriate 

for the distance learning environment. In order 

for this environment to be used appropriately, a 

normal Instructional Systems Design process 

must be followed, during which the learning 

objective is identified, the required level of 

proficiency determined, and then, only then, the 

most appropriate method of delivery selected. In 

fact, accomplished properly, the virtual classroom 

becomes just one more option for consideration 

next to lecture halls, mat rooms, and firearms 

ranges. 

In 2011, the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (OSI) recognized a gap in training 

between the agency’s basic and advanced skill 

training and requirements, which was not 

consistently addressed for every agent in on-thejob training. Following graduation, agents spend 

a year on “probation” during which they apply the 

skills they learn at FLETC in the context of a 

real world operational environment. This on-thejob-training varied according to the agent’s duty 

station, the nuances of their particular mission 

and jurisdiction, and the unpredictability of both 

frequency and type of case work. The U.S. Air Force 

Special Investigations Academy staff realized that 

in order to deliver a more standardized training 

program to a student audience that was literally 

scattered across the globe, they would have to 

utilize a virtual classroom. Thus was born the 

Basic Extension Program (BEP), a first of its 

kind, online training program offered to OSI 

students beginning in 2012. As the staff who 

stood up the program can attest, the virtual law 

enforcement classroom did offer many benefits, 

but also presented some unique challenges. 

INITIAL CHALLENGES

Like any good training program, the inception 

of the BEP followed the ADDIE-R process. 

The ADDIE model is the generic process 

traditionally used by instructional designers 

and training developers. The five phases—

Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, 

Evaluation and Revision — represent a dynamic, 

flexible guideline for building effective training. 

The OSI Academy staff analyzed the training 

gap, designed a program solution, developed 

curriculum, implemented the program, evaluated 

student performance, and revised the training 

based on feedback. The developmental stage 

was the most challenging, as curriculum had to 

be developed for four distinct blocks, and this 

curriculum needed to be engaging in a virtual 

environment, and include student activities, 

labs, and final examinations. Initially, the BEP 

required students to complete each distinct block 

in a certain sequence, with specific start and end 

dates, regardless of their duty station. First was 

recruitment of sources, then interviewing, and so 

on. Assignments involved a variety of activities, 

to include readings, meetings with entities, and 

review of case studies. All assignments and final 

examinations followed an essay format. One BEP 

instructor, Special Agent Hillary Zuege shared 

that one of the challenges was the “inherent stress 

upon the instructors to provide a great level of 

detail to an open-ended question. The desire to 

encompass all possible options made the feedback 

very lengthy.” 

THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE WAS THE MOST CHALLENGING, 

AS CURRICULUM HAD TO BE DEVELOPED FOR FOUR DISTINCT 

BLOCKS, AND THIS CURRICULUM NEEDED TO BE ENGAGING IN 

A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT, AND INCLUDE STUDENT ACTIVITIES, 

LABS, AND FINAL EXAMINATIONS. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 37

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

In order to gauge the efficacy of the BEP, OSI 

Academy staff collected student and supervisor 

surveys from customers using this training in 

the field. This feedback proved invaluable, as 

it illustrated a strong need for an even more 

flexible learning environment. Responsive to 

this feedback, the staff revised the program 

to allow probationary agents to enroll in and 

accomplish any of the four blocks, and in any 

order they chose. They also were allowed to 

enroll in multiple courses at the same time. This 

enhanced not only the flexibility, but the buy-in 

from the customer as these changes empowered 

the students to schedule more optimal times to 

take a class and still balance work requirements 

and life obligations. As Zuege shared, before 

these changes were made “students were unable 

to engage as much as they wanted in the course 

material due to the effort required for the essaystyle questions. Students were already trying to 

balance between work and home obligations, 

and BEP took up any time they had left. Several 

students stated the material was very interesting, 

but they weren’t able to read all of it or apply 

critical thinking because of time constraints.” 

OSI Academy staff expects that their revisions 

to the program will help alleviate this challenge 

and enable their students to engage more fully 

in the online learning process.

Results

Level II feedback on the BEP has produced 

some surprising and unexpected results. The 

staff at the academy suspected that their use 

of the virtual classroom would achieve greater 

reach and save their command money in the 

long run, but they never expected students 

to enjoy the training to the extent they did. 

Student feedback overwhelmingly valued 

the in-depth, personalized interaction with 

instructors on their assignments. The reason 

this may be surprising is that many perceive 

the online learning environment as impersonal, 

and cite the lack of face to face exchange as a 

shortcoming of that medium. However, one of 

the by-products of using an essay-style design 

of labs and examinations is the requirement 

to interact and communicate on an individual 

level. With more individual effort on the part of 

the student, the instructor is compelled to give each 

individual student personal attention and feedback 

on their submitted product, something that cannot 

always happen in a classroom environment. While 

several challenges remain concerning the logistics 

of supporting an online learning platform and 

continuing to design engaging curriculum, the 

OSI Academy has in a very short amount of time 

created subject matter experts in this arena. In fact, 

the BEP is so successful, it is the first and only 

online program pursuing Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Accreditation at this time. 

Virtual classrooms have indeed become a part 

the norm when it comes to education. The virtual 

classroom is not only here to stay, but is an expectation 

in the current age of global connectedness. Law 

enforcement should not shy away, but should 

embrace the virtual classroom for the benefits it 

can offer and capitalize on a platform that certainly 

allows for flexibility, lower training costs, and much 

wider audience reach. 

SPECIAL AGENT DIANA M. FLEMING is 

assigned as an instructor in the Advanced 

Training Division, United States Air Force 

Special Investigations Academy (USAFSIA), 

Federal Law Enforcement Center (FLETC), 

Glynco, Georgia. In this position, she is 

responsible for instructing all forensics 

topics in four AFOSI basic and advanced 

in-residence courses to over four hundred and twenty 

students.

Fleming is the director for the online criminal investigation 

skills block of the basic extension program, which reaches 

two hundred probationary agents annually. She is responsible 

for designing curriculum and training agents to use all newly 

procured forensics equipment for Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI). Fleming interfaces with the AFOSI 

liaison at the United States Army Criminal Investigations 

Laboratory in Forest Park, Georgia, on training and research 

needs. She also oversees USAFSIA’s execution of strategic 

engagements with international partner agencies. 

Fleming informally mentors and encourages families, 

whose children are medically fragile, similar to her daughter, 

on the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition proving practical 

guidance and hope.
38 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

BY ALICIA GREGORY

SENIOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST

PHOTOS BY HEATHER SANTOS

Most instructors strive to get into the mind of the 

student. Knowing what a student sees or feels 

during a practical exercise can allow for more 

specific and precise training and improved results, which is 

beneficial for both the instructor and the student. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers is 

testing a new technology that can enhance the way 

firearms instructors teach. Rather than relying solely on 

direct observation of the shooter to diagnose a student’s 

challenges in firing a weapon, instructors will have access 

to real-time sensor and video data that will allow them 

to more quickly pinpoint the issues and save valuable 

instructor and student time. 

New Technology 

and its Potential to Enhance Training

Top photo: A technician points out statistical information based 

on the MAT-MP testing. Above: A FLETC firearms instructor fires 

a weapon equipped with monitoring technology.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 39

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems 

Division (NAWCTSD) developed a weapon-mounted 

sensor package that is capable of recording and 

analyzing shooter data, such as trigger pressure, trigger 

pull, cant angle, buttstock pressure, and steadiness. The 

instructor can also observe the student/shooter’s point 

of view through a high-definition camera attached to 

the sighting system. The data and video are captured 

and transmitted in real time to the instructor’s tablet 

or laptop computer and can be viewed live or played 

back later for evaluating marksmanship fundamentals.

Originally sponsored by the Navy’s Office of Naval 

Research, the Modular Advanced Technologies 

Marksmanship Proficiency (MAT-MP) prototype 

is currently designed for use with rifles such as the 

M16/M4 platform. According to Tyson Griffin, 

Head of the NAWCTD’s Advanced Modeling and 

Simulation Branch, the technology could be adapted 

for law enforcement training. 

“The ultimate vision for law enforcement is an 

application for handguns,” explained Griffin. “This 

will take additional engineering work in order to 

miniaturize components and instrumentation for a 

sidearm. That is the long-range vision . . . it would 

not only benefit FLETC, but also state and local law 

enforcement training academies.”

Griffin’s teams have partnered with FLETC on 

transferring and adapting Department of Defense 

technologies to law enforcement while working on 

FLETC’s After-Action Review system; the Advanced 

Use of Force Training System at sites in Glynco, 

Georgia, and Artesia, New Mexico; courtroom 

upgrades in Glynco, Artesia, and Charleston, South 

Carolina; and the Scenario Planning and Effects 

Control System at Glynco. 

The potential application of MAT-MP for law 

enforcement was identified by Mr. Don Lapham, 

Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 

Defense and America’s Security Affairs, whose job it 

is to find Department of Defense technologies with 

the potential to benefit first responders. 

 “The MAT-MP Project was first demonstrated 

to FLETC at the Interservice/Industry Training, 

Simulation and Education Conference in December 

2014,” said Dee Marshall, former program manager 

for FLETC’s cooperative research and development 

The results from the MAT-MP firearms 

test are show to a FLETC instructor.

Rocco Portoghese, senior reseach and development engineer, NAWCTSD 

Orlando Rapid Design and Fabrication Lab, explains how the MAT-MP 

prototype works to FLETC staff.

Portoghese and FLETC FAD instructors identify and discuss 

improvement modifications for the MAT-MP. Photo by Doug 

Dragotta, FLETC.
40 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

agreement program. Marshall worked closely 

with the NAWCTD engineers on a variety of 

projects during her tenure with the FLETC. 

According to Marshall, several representatives 

from FLETC, including FLETC Firearms 

Division Chief Scott Donovan, attended the 

conference where they were able to see the 

demonstrations and had an opportunity to talk 

directly with the engineers and Lapham on 

site. “MAT-MP was immediately endorsed as 

a potential technology that could significantly 

assist firearms instructors. A subsequent visit 

to Orlando involving firearms staff members 

confirmed our interest and the potential value of 

this technology.” 

FLETC Firearms Branch Chief and former 

FLETC representative at Team Orlando, Doug 

Dragotta, facilitated the relationship between the 

FLETC instructors and NAWCTD engineers 

to determine if this technology could work in 

practice.

The first test and evaluation was conducted in 

May 2015 using live fire in one of the FLETC 

ranges in Glynco, Georgia. “The overall objective 

for the initial testing was to evaluate whether 

this technology would be applicable and effective 

for use in our basic and advanced rifle training 

programs,” explained Dragotta. The team also 

set out to define specific requirements for any 

customization needed to the current prototype.

Several instructors participated in the process, 

providing subject matter expertise and feedback 

to the engineers and ultimately determining 

the sensor package could be used to assist with 

diagnosing student marksmanship deficiencies 

when using a rifle. The team of instructors would 

also like to see this technology adapted to a 

pistol where marksmanship deficiencies are more 

prevalent. 

According to Rocco Portoghese, NAWCTSD’s 

MAT-MP lead engineer, “The interest level and 

engagement of instructors was outstanding. 

They weren’t just observing, they were asking 

questions to figure out how to make the best use 

of the technology. This is invaluable to the creation 

of new technologies.” “In terms of the power of 

the government conducting this development, 

while for-profit companies have to ask themselves 

‘what can I sell?’ here NAWCTSD and FLETC 

can specifically concentrate on what we can do for 

instructors and students,” Griffin has noted. And it’s 

not just NAWCTD giving technology to FLETC – 

each organization leverages each other’s knowledge, 

skills, and abilities; NAWCTSD takes successes with 

FLETC and passes them onto the Fleet.

Portoghese recalled the same kind of engagement 

with previous projects with FLETC. “We’ve always 

had a high level of cooperation with the FLETC 

training community. The instructors and the Partner 

Organizations recognize that if they put the time in 

evaluating and helping to define technologies, it will 

give FLETC a better capability to train.”

“The interactive relationship with FLETC 

instructors has made us better,” added Griffin. 

He went on to discuss the importance of the 

technologists working with the instructional design 

specialists, research psychologists, and instructors 

to really explore how technology can help training. 

“From a partnership perspective, this will lead to a 

better product.” 

With promising results from initial testing, the 

team is looking forward to continuing with the 

development of the MAT-MP and integrating the 

technology into firearms training.

ALICIA GREGORY is a senior public affairs 

specialist in the FLETC Protocol and 

Communications Office. She arrived at 

FLETC in 2005, after serving as the Public 

Affairs Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in Charleston, South Carolina. 

Gregory has more than 25 years working 

in the public affairs field and has an 

extensive background in internal communications, community 

relations, and media relations. She is a graduate of the 

Defense Information School in Fort Meade, Maryland. 

Gregory earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from 

South University.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 41

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Enrico Fermi at the 

original blackboard.

Drawing on the Blackboard:

Reimagining a Technology

BY MARY ANNE LESIAK
42 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Organizations bring on new technologies 

to advance strategies or solve problems 

that are generally well defined and 

articulated as part of the adoption process. In 

these lean economic times, neither public nor 

private organizations expend scarce resources 

without a clear understanding of exactly what they 

are getting and the benefits to the organization. 

During the adoption process, teams craft 

functional and technical requirement documents 

that spell out exactly what the technology needs 

to do, how it will operate, and what other systems 

it will communicate with. Products that provide 

the best match to these requirements within the 

allowable budget are selected and away we go – 

off to implementation!

Occasionally, entrepreneurial problem solvers 

see new technologies adopted and figure out 

how to use them in unexpected and enterprising 

ways. One such example is the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers’ Investigative 

Skills Branch Chief Bill Newbauer, who 

recognized that technology supporting FLETC’s 

Online Campus could update and improve 

FLETC basic training program delivery.

Newbauer leads FLETC’s Continuous Case 

Investigation training program – or CCI – which 

provides newly hired criminal investigators with 

an introduction to the criminal investigative 

process and the skills necessary to prepare and 

present a case to an Assistant United States 

Attorney as part of the Criminal Investigator 

Training Program. Through the 12-week CCI, 

students learn how to initiate criminal cases, 

the methods of conducting investigations, 

procedures for maintaining case files, and 

the finalization and judicial processing of 

cases. While CCI includes direct classroom 

instruction, the bulk of the learning takes place 

as the students work in teams running their own 

ongoing scenario-based cases. 

Mimicking a real case, the ongoing training 

case requires finding, developing, organizing, and 

maintaining various pieces of documentation, 

information and evidence. These could include 

maps, forensic reports, photographs, interview 

memoranda, phone bills, credit card receipts, or 

numerous other types of documents depending 

on the case. As student teams develop their cases, 

they maintain their case files in traditional file 

folders. At the conclusion of the investigation, 

students have a large binder full of documentary 

evidence that must be re-created into a second 

binder and turned over to the defense attorney 

Senior Instructor Craig Cupp demonstrates the latest techniques in trace evidence location, recovery, and analysis.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 43

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Senior Instructor Scott Wright debriefs students 

following the execution of a search warrant. 

for discovery during the mock trial. 

Newbauer identified two major inefficiencies 

with the status quo. The daily production of paper 

documents to support scenarios – generally on 

a single, overworked, shared copier – required 

hours of instructor preparation time. “I couldn’t 

bear watching them stand over the machine and 

spend hours making copies,” said Newbauer. “It 

was just a terrible waste of time.” 

Additionally, many partner organizations for 

whom the students would eventually work cases 

had digitized their case management systems, 

making the paper system obsolete “We want to 

give our students the best training available. We 

were giving them the very best knowledge and 

skills, but in this one instance, our tool was out 

of date,” stated Newbauer.

In support of FLETC's “paperless initiative,” 

Newbauer began a search for a digital solution to 

replace the multiple volumes of paper produced 

during the ongoing criminal investigation. 

Eventually, Newbauer teamed up with FLETC’s 

Instructor and Online Training Division. 

FLETC’s Online Campus Team selected 

Blackboard® as its learning management system 

for its distance training and learning delivery 

capability. The primary function of the learning 

management system is to manage all facets of the 

online training process, including registration, 

program administration and delivery, instructor 

communication, trainee evaluation, and transcript 

management for an audience that may never step 

foot on a traditional FLETC training campus. 

After a little background research into 

Blackboard and a few discussions with Instructor 

and Online Training Division Deputy Chief Joe 

Augeri, Newbauer believed that Blackboard 

could serve as a permanent online repository 

for all the materials and artifacts necessary 

for the CCI training program and the case 

management files for the ongoing cases. In 

addition to eliminating the frustrations, cost, 

and environmental impact of producing and 

managing paper, Blackboard would also give 

instructors and students collaboration and 

communication tools that could enhance 

learning and feedback around the investigative 

process. By integrating Blackboard, CCI would 

become FLETC’s first hybrid learning program, 

enhancing traditional classroom instruction with 

newer online instruction, activities and resources. 

Many obstacles were identified. Students 

and instructors would need tablets and Wi-Fi 

to access the system around the clock. Would 

FLETC have the data infrastructure to support 

this program? How do we grant internal 

students access to an online system built for 

external students? How would students get IT 

support from a system that closes its help desk 

at 5:00 p.m.? Contributors across the FLETC 

enterprise, with the support of Director Patrick 

and the FLETC Executive Team, continue to 

collaborate to solve these and a myriad of other 

challenges. 

Augeri and his team managed the Blackboard 

CCI implementation. “We’ve been using 

Blackboard to work with the online students for a 

while now,” said Augeri. “It is exciting to leverage 

the learning management system and wireless 

tools/technology to deliver realistic training that 

is indexed to the needs and requirements of the 

field.” 

Preparing traditional classroom instructors to 

maximize the impact of training using this new 

multi-modality platform is of critical importance. 
44 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

“People sometimes think training is training. 

Training and education online is different and 

requires additional skillsets. Students are generally 

familiar with this sort of technology before they get 

here. We need to make sure the instructors have 

equal or better familiarity,” added Instructor and 

Online Training Division Senior Instructor Bobby 

McGettrick. In response to this challenge, the 

Instructor and Online Training Division created a 

series of web-based training modules constructed 

for someone completely unfamiliar with Blackboard. 

They cover everything from basic uploading lessons, 

to computations, to receiving survey results. 

Newbauer realizes the project is moving forward; 

however, he initially underestimated its complexity. 

“It was easy to get started because I could see the 

vision. I could see how much better it could be for 

students and instructors, and I knew Blackboard 

could do it. What I didn’t see was all the other 

progress – big and small – that have to occur in 

order to fully realize that vision. I’m so grateful 

for the expertise and teamwork from Joe Augeri, 

Bobby McGettrick, Pam Potaczek and Scott 

Wright, and our team of dedicated Continuous 

Case Investigation Coordinators. They are really 

working to make our vision a reality.” 

The use of Blackboard to support the CCI 

program goes beyond the intention of the system’s 

original adopters, thereby extending its use in a way 

that better serves the entire enterprise, creating 

additional beneficiaries and leveraging its initial 

expenditure. When considering technology to solve 

an existing problem, it may make sense to reinvent 

something that exists within the organization rather 

than look outside. 

Senior Instructor Greg King educates law enforcement students in the use of internet tools to optimize their investigations.

MARY ANNE LESIAK is a program analyst in the Regional and International 

Training Directorate. Prior to joining FLETC in 2014, Mary Anne served in 

several roles at Apple Tree Institute for Education Innovation, including Chief 

of Staff, Chief of Strategic Initiatives and Director of Education. At Apple Tree 

Institute, a non-profit located in Washington, DC, she led the development, 

implementation and dissemination of research-based curricula, teacher 

training and evaluation tools designed to improve teaching and learning in 

under-resourced schools. Mary Anne has also served as an Educational Website Coordinator at 

the US Mint, a Program Analyst at the US Department of Education, and a teacher in the District 

of Columbia Public Schools. She earned a Master in Teaching from American University and a 

Bachelor of Arts in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland, College Park..
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 45

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

We are fortunate to live in such an 

exciting time in the world! The 

Digital Revolution has led to 

unprecedented access to information and 

an incredible number of innovations. Smart 

phones, body worn cameras, unmanned 

aerial systems and all the other incredible 

technology highlighted in this edition of 

the FLETC Journal are great examples of 

how these new technologies are leading to 

amazing innovations in law enforcement 

and education. While all this technology 

can provide new and exciting solutions to a 

wide range of training challenges, the human 

element remains the most critical piece of any 

potential new innovation. Having an actual 

person in the loop to determine how and 

why this technology will be used is a critical 

step. Connecting the right people to the 

right technology at the right time is a major 

factor in determining if a new technological 

advancement will succeed or fail.

The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Science and 

Technology Directorate (S&T) recently 

took a significant step forward to ensure 

the right people are part of the training 

innovation process by embedding an S&T 

employee at the FLETC-Glynco campus 

as part of the PIONEER program. The 

PIONEER – Partnering for Innovation and 

Operational Needs through Embedding 

for Effective Relationships – program 

was started in 2015 with the objective of 

bettering the understanding of the research 

and development process and gaining 

insights into components’ operational needs, 

capability gaps, and working environment. 

PIONEER embeds S&T members 

into the DHS components’ environments, 

enabling access to current-state awareness 

of the components’ most critical needs, and 

concurrently embeds DHS component 

personnel into the S&T research, 

development, test, and evaluation processes. 

Embedding component personnel into S&T 

will ensure a better understanding of what it 

takes to bring a potential technology from 

an idea to an operational product, as well as 

the importance of having a clear notion of 

operational requirements before S&T starts 

developing a technology.

Jim Grove was recently selected to be 

the first PIONEER liaison assigned to the 

FLETC and is embedded with the Training 

DHS Science & Technology Directorate partner with 

the FLETC Training Innovation Division

BY SHAWN BELTRAMO

Working Together to PIONEER the 

Future of Law Enforcement Training
46 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Innovation Division at FLETC-Glynco. The Training 

Innovation Division and S&T have a longstanding 

relationship of collaboration. Having an S&T liaison 

embedded at FLETC creates valuable opportunities to 

strengthen this relationship and leverage the capabilities 

of each organization. “S&T’s expanded relationship with 

FLETC instructors and subject matter experts provides 

a great opportunity for our program managers to further 

develop operational requirements, test new technologies 

and applications, and make final adjustments before 

deploying them in an operational environment,” said 

Grove.

S&T has access to a wide range of technical experts and 

resources to design and develop new innovations, while 

FLETC has many of the top experts in the law enforcement 

training field. By linking these subject matter experts 

with the technical experts, we greatly increase the overall 

quality of the innovations for both agencies. Additionally, 

by having access to the state-of-the-art training venues at 

FLETC, the program managers at S&T are able to test 

the newest technologies in realistic scenarios and compile 

critical feedback on their utility and performance. 

“I am excited about this detail because it provides 

a window into how technology development impacts 

both training and doctrine and where new or enhanced 

technologies may increase student learning and skill 

proficiency,” Grove said. “It also provides an opportunity 

to look beyond the DHS components to identify crosscutting requirements, collaborate on emerging S&T 

projects, and work with the private sector to facilitate 

the development of innovative tools, technologies, and 

products.”

Through the partnership, FLETC instructors and 

students are able to get a first look at some of the newest 

technology coming into the field and have an opportunity 

to provide their input toward the design and future 

implementation of these technologies. These combined 

efforts are helping to bring the latest technologies to the 

future of law enforcement training.

SHAWN BELTRAMO serves as the division 

chief for the Training Innovation Division 

for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers. He provides guidance and 

oversight to division’s three branches; the 

Applied Research branch, the Outreach & 

Exploration branch and the Evaluation and 

Analysis branch. The Training Innovation 

Division’s primary mission is to research, identify, channel, 

and validate new instructional methods and technologies into 

the curricula. Prior to this assignment, Beltramo served as a 

supervisory special agent with the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations where he performed and oversaw a wide range 

of felony criminal investigations and counter-intelligence 

matters. He served over 22 years with the United States Air 

Force and performed duties in numerous stateside locations 

and eight foreign countries. These duties included working as 

a patrolman, dispatcher, investigator, recruiter and special 

agent. Beltramo received his bachelor’s degree in Criminal 

Justice Administration from Columbia Southern University 

and his master’s degree in Criminal Justice from American 

Military University.

Jim Grove, DHS Science and 

Technology Directorate liaison, 

demonstrates a virtual reality 

headset to a staff member in 

the FLETC Future Concepts 

Rooms.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 47

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Vehicle Embedded Forensics

BY PRESTON FARLEY

The call came in at 11:30 p.m.* A silent alarm 

had been triggered at a local electronics 

store. Patrol officers were dispatched 

immediately to the scene and arrived approximately 

12 minutes later. The store had a broken glass door 

but no one was visible in the building. Smashed 

store displays littered the scene and high-end 

electronics were missing from many of them. It 

was the same “Modus Operandi” as other recent 

breaking and entering crimes recently investigated 

in the area. This time, however, a break in the case 

originated from a bystander, who provided police 

with a vehicle description and license plate number. 

Through diligent police work, a search warrant 

was issued for the vehicle owner’s residence and 

vehicle. Unfortunately, no physical evidence of 

the crime was discovered at the home or in the 

vehicle; however, digital evidence recovered from 

the vehicle itself told a very interesting story.

Vehicle embedded forensics is a relatively new 

discipline driven by the automobile industry’s 

introduction of electronic circuitry into our nation’s 

vehicles. Much of the early investigative work in 

this field came from traffic accident analysts who 

learned you could obtain the state of various vehicle 

systems at the time of impact such as accelerator 

position, brake pedal position, speed, steering 

wheel direction, etc., from the “little black box” in 

most vehicles. While those items are still available 

in today’s vehicle computers, there is a vastly larger 

Laptop is connected to vehicle infotainment system to obtain digital evidence.
48 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

dataset to pull from to generate leads or 

provide hard evidence in an investigation not 

necessarily related to an automobile accident. 

In 1996 the OBD-II (Onboard Diagnostics 

2) specification was made mandatory for all 

cars manufactured to be sold in the United 

States. This system was originally designed 

to provide vehicle repair technicians with selfdiagnostic and reporting of problems with 

the vehicle. This system has been improved 

over its life and many capabilities have been 

added over the years that are not specifically 

related to vehicle maintenance. Some of the 

more well-known capabilities include Global 

Positioning Systems (GPS), Entertainment 

Systems, and Telecommunications via syncing 

with user smartphones. Some less wellknown capabilities include monitoring vehicle 

idle times, speed, engine Revolutions Per 

Minute, fuel efficiency, and fuel levels. Some 

vehicle manufacturers also include things such 

as door lock status, when each door is opened 

and closed, and even mobile Wi-Fi hotspots, 

which may contain records of smartphones or 

computers that have been attached to it in the 

past, including the time/date and geographic 

location. 

In the past five years, there has been a lot 

of research done on the embedded vehicle 

computer systems with an eye toward how law 

enforcement could leverage this information 

for criminal investigative purposes. Only 

a handful of companies currently provide 

support for this function; however, when 

this information is used, it can make a case. 

A major problem is that there is no industry 

standard for what information may be 

available via the embedded computer systems, 

nor is there a standard format for presentation 

of the information to law enforcement. This 

is in stark contrast to the Communications 

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which 

mandates that telecommunication companies 

must provide law enforcement with a 

standardized way to conduct telephone and 

internet intercepts. A second major hurdle 

is that simply accessing the information 

requires, in many cases, disassembling 

the vehicle to gain physical access to the 

electronic components. This necessitates that 

the investigators have prior training in the 

safe removal of vehicle components; know 

where the vehicle computer components are 

located, as each manufacturer places them 

in different places throughout the vehicle; 

and have the correct physical adapters and 

software to obtain and interpret the requisite 

information from each of these proprietary 

vehicle computer systems.

In addition to the artifacts already listed, 

there are many more potential evidentiary 

items that may be available to law enforcement. 

For instance, with some vehicles the owner 

can download their contacts into the vehicle’s 

computer system. When calls are made or 

received, the vehicle will archive these call 

records. When texts are received, the vehicle 

will display the sender and the text itself, which 

is also retained in the vehicle’s computer. GPS 

Photo of an actual "little black box".
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 49

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

positions can be retained for very long periods 

of time indicating where and when a vehicle 

was at a specific geographic area. This list of 

artifacts is sure to grow as our smart phones 

become more capable, and these capabilities 

will spill over in the vehicle arena.

 Armed with a forensic analysis report of 

the suspect’s vehicle, investigators sat down 

with the suspect and began questioning his 

actions on the night of the aforementioned 

burglary. The suspect admitted to driving 

in the area and stopping “to think” when the 

witness reported his vehicle, but admitted 

nothing further. Investigators then revealed 

that they had obtained a detailed report from 

his vehicle’s computer system. This report 

contained information that on the evening 

of the burglary, his vehicle stopped at the 

reported location and began idling at 11:28 

p.m. Approximately 15 seconds later the 

front and rear passenger doors as well as the 

driver’s side passenger door opened and closed 

within two seconds of each other. At 11:33 

p.m., the trunk opened and the same three 

doors opened and closed, and immediately 

following the vehicle departed the scene. 

During that time, four texts were sent and 

received by another individual whose cell 

phone records indicated that he was in the 

exact same geographic area. Presented with 

this information, the suspect admitted his 

responsibility in the criminal act and revealed 

the names of the three accomplices, who then 

revealed the location of the remainder of the 

stolen goods that ended this quartet’s criminal 

activity spree. 

 Currently, obtaining vehicle-based digital 

forensic training is still primarily in the 

purview of the civilian sector. As awareness of 

the capabilities of this new line of investigative 

activity develop, I would expect to see a request 

for law enforcement-centric agencies to take 

a larger role in this type of investigation; 

particularly when self-driving cars become the 

norm. Of course if you conduct an internet 

search today for “hack a moving car,” you’ll 

find plenty of examples of the “next thing” 

in vehicle forensics. If someone hacks the 

vehicle’s guidance computer and causes a death 

or serious bodily injury today, who would you 

call to conduct that forensic examination? 

*This report is based upon a composite of multiple 

reported crimes and is not necessarily intended to 

depict any specific persons or events.

Photo of an aftermarket car data recorder.

The inside view of the "black box".
50 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Body Cameras in E

BY TIM MILLER

S

o far the debates about body cameras in 

cases of alleged excessive force have been 

about whether they get to the truth about 

what really happened. One argument is that the 

recording can refresh an officer’s memory. Another 

is that the officer will simply shape his or her 

testimony around the recording. Enter the Fourth 

Amendment’s reasonable officer standard. It 

considers the totality of the facts and circumstances 

from the perspective of a reasonable officer (which is 

obviously the reviewing court, reviewing everything 

through a hypothetical eye). But since the focus 

is on what a reasonable officer could believe, what 

really happened is not determinative. Here is how 

this came up: 

Dispatch told me there was an officer down. 

When I arrived on scene a crowd of people ran by 

pointing wildly to where they had been. I walked 

on, looking for the injured officer and saw someone 

in a blue uniform lying on the ground. The officer 

appeared to be unconscious or worse. A man with a 

pistol in his hand was standing over the officer. He 

shouted and waived the gun around. I yelled, “Drop 

the gun!” but he continued to shout and point the 

gun - - first at the officer on the ground and then at 

me. I shot him. 

That was only a scenario on a use of force simulator; 

but the instructor’s feedback raised questions about 

how a court would consider the events, had they 

been real. 

• INSTRUCTOR: What did you hear when the

 crowd ran by?

• MILLER: Nothing, really. 

• INSTRUCTOR: You didn’t hear the woman yell, 

 “He’s got a gun?”

• MILLER: No; I certainly didn’t hear that. 

• INSTRUCTOR: Ok; let’s review. (Like a body

camera, the instructor re-played the crowd 

running past me. Sure enough, a woman in the 

crowd shouted, “He’s got a gun!”)

• MILLER: I still don’t remember; but no matter. 

I saw a gun and I shot to stop the threat posed by 

the man holding it. (I quoted the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. An officer is 

not required to wait for an armed and dangerous 

felon to draw a bead on him, especially after 

orders to drop the gun have gone unheeded. )

• INSTRUCTOR: That wasn’t a gun. (And sure

 enough, the re-play showed the man holding a 

 hammer.) 

• MILLER: Oh... 

The Police Executive Research Forum reported 

that reviewing body camera footage may help get 

to the truth of what really happened. The review 

may jog the officer’s memory. (But not in my case. I 

reviewed the tape and I still cannot recall a warning 

about a gun. And I still picture the man holding 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 51

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Excessive Force Cases

a pistol instead of a hammer.) Other executives 

believe that the truth – and the officer’s credibility 

– are better served if an officer is not permitted 

to review footage of an incident prior to making 

a statement. One said, “In terms of the officer’s 

statement, what matters is the officer’s perspective 

at the time of the event, not what is in the video.” 

(Personally, I would love to be judged from my 

own perspective, but the plaintiff ’s attorney might 

object.) 

Then comes the Supreme Court’s analysis in 

Graham v. Connor, the seminal case for judging 

police officers accused of using excessive force to 

seize someone under the Fourth Amendment. 

The Court’s instructions were to consider “... the 

totality of the facts and circumstances ...” (not 

what I can remember) and to consider everything 

“from the perspective of a reasonable officer on 

the scene ...” (obviously not my own). Whether 

I can recall the statement about a gun should be 

no more determinative than ... well, my personal 

motive for shooting the man. If motive was 

determinative, the fate of two officers – using the 

same force, and under the same circumstances 

– would depend on who had the better motive. 

If memory was determinative, their fate would 

depend on who had the better memory. The 

Graham analysis does not look into the subjective 

hearts and minds of the officers. It is an objective 

test that looks at everything through the lens of a 

reasonable officer. 

The saying goes that hindsight is always 20/20, 

but after-the-fact assessments like “You should 

have ...” or “I would have ...” are forbidden. 

(Incidentally, they are also generally made after 

getting to the truth about what really happened.) 

There are no perfect answers under an objective 

test and looking for one goes against the grain 

of the Graham analysis. The camera stopped, 

so to speak, after I pulled the trigger. Now the 

reasonable officer looks backwards. 

Hindsight is a rule of relevance, and while the 

Court does not give specific instructions about 

what is relevant and what is hindsight, in an 

analysis where the operative word has always been 

reasonableness, a fact should be relevant if it was 

reasonably known at the time. Stated differently: 

Looking backwards, could a reasonable officer in 

the shoes of the real one have seen or heard that 

fact, or at least believed it to be true? If a fact 

was reasonably known (or reasonably believed 

to be true based on other facts) it should be 

considered. Obviously, if the woman came up to 

me after the shooting and said “I thought he had 

a gun” her statement would be after-the-fact – 

gained in hindsight – and not relevant. But her 

warning was as clear as a bell on the replay. I 

did not hear her; but a reasonable officer could 

have. Her statement was reasonably known. The 

question now: Based on everything else that 

was reasonably known, could a reasonable officer 

believe that the man was holding a gun? If so, 
52 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

the fact that it turned out to be a hammer should be 

hindsight. 

Not hearing the woman’s warning about a gun was 

probably due to a natural human reaction to stress 

that causes the sense of hearing to diminish. Stress, 

fatigue, and exertion – conditions well known to law 

enforcement officers – can greatly affect memory. In 

a survey of officers involved in shootings, 84 percent 

reported not hearing even the loudest of sounds. “If 

it hadn’t been for the recoil, I wouldn’t have known 

my gun was working,” an officer reported. The 

same study reported that 79 percent of the officers 

experienced tunnel vision and almost half could not 

recall significant details about what they did. 

Another study found inconsistencies between 

written use of force reports and body camera 

recordings. Eleven officers were asked to react to 

certain use of force scenarios, report what they saw, 

and then compare their written report to the footage 

on their body cameras. Every officer failed to report 

other potential weapons in the scenario, including 

a gun plainly visible on a table. Eight of the eleven 

officers failed to report a third person in the room. 

Two did not report uses of force.

There is probably nothing more subjective than 

memory, and memory is probably most vulnerable 

during a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving 

situation where an officer is trying to defend himself 

or others from a significant threat. Body cameras 

are just another piece of technology that gets some 

of the facts before the court. They are no different 

than the hundreds of millions of smart phones that 

make every citizen a reporter – and neither friend nor 

foe to anyone. They simply record facts. Officers can 

certainly add to the facts. Force science experts may 

add more by explaining why an officer did not hear 

something, or saw something that was not there. But 

in the end, the court through the reasonable officer 

decides if the plaintiff established that the force was 

constitutionally excessive.

Officers are more likely to be truthful if they are told 

the truth about how they are judged. And the truth is 

that the recording in an officer’s brain will most likely 

be different than the electronic copy. Me? I thought 

the man was holding a gun. I would also like my 

attorney to argue that the woman’s statement about 

a gun makes my belief more objectively reasonable, 

whether I heard it or not. Still, the reasonable officer 

may find both of us incredible (in a bad way). Then 

forget the gun. Could a reasonable officer believe that 

the man posed a significant threat while swinging 

the hammer? Sometimes what actually happened is 

reasonable. 

1Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) citing 

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968). 2“Officer down” is an alert that a police officer has been killed 

or wounded. 

3Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181, 185 (11th Cir. 1997).

4See Miller Lindsay, and Jessica Toliver. Police Executive 

Research Forum (PERF). 2014. Implementing a Body-Worn 

Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

6An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment 

violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will 

an officer’s good intentions make an unreasonable use of 

force constitutional. Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. The Court has 

repeatedly rejected attempts to bring the officer’s subjective 

beliefs into a Fourth Amendment analysis. See also Brendlin 

v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 260 (2007). The Court has stated 

that probable cause to arrest depends on the facts known to 

the officer. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). 

But there is a world of difference between the test for an arrest 

and objectively reasonable force to effect one. The officer has 

time to make a calculated decision before taking someone 

into custody. Graham at 397 (officers often have to make split 

second decisions about force). 

7Artwoh, A. Perceptual and Memory Distortion during OfficerInvolved Shootings. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 71, 2002.

8Dawes, Heegard, Brave, Paetow, Weston, and Ho. Body-Worn 

Cameras Improve Law Enforcement Officer Report Writing 

Accuracy. Journal of Law Enforcement. 2015. 

TIM MILLER is the subject matter expert 

for Use of Force for the FLETC Legal 

Division. Miller joined the U.S. Marine 

Corps in 1984, after taking the Illinois 

state bar exam. He served as a prosecutor, 

defense counsel, military judge, and staff 

judge advocate. Miller received a Bachelor 

of Science Degree and Juris Doctorate 

from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois. He 

received his Master of Laws from the Army Judge Advocate 

General’s School in Charlottesville, Virginia.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 53

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The question of whether law enforcement 

officers should wear body worn cameras 

in the course of their duties has sparked 

impassioned dialogue regarding issues of privacy, 

government overreach, civil rights, officer safety, and 

economic resources. As government officials and 

American citizens debate the merit and feasibility 

of implementing body worn camera systems on our 

uniformed officers, FLETC is actively monitoring 

the implications of such a policy change on how 

we execute our training mission. 

The staff of the Outreach and Exploration Branch 

of the FLETC Training Innovation Division have 

been out ahead of this emerging development, and 

are already coming up with strategies for FLETC 

to consider as it seeks to prepare students to do 

their jobs utilizing this new piece of technology. 

At this stage, each option identified brings with 

it a litany of questions that must be addressed. For 

instance, can we achieve our training objectives 

by simply adding a block of instruction on the 

realities of body worn cameras? Would one 

scenario requiring the student to actually wear 

the camera suffice? What value could be gained 

by having students wear the cameras at all times 

during training? Much like we require students to 

wear a duty belt with an inert red gun to become 

accustomed to ever-present responsibility of a 

loaded firearm, would we not achieve a similar 

effect by strapping a recording device to the front 

of student uniforms? Does it matter whether 

the devices are “in role” or not? If their value 

is contingent upon actively recording video, is 

FLETC equipped with the capacity to store and 

analyze this footage? Is FLETC prepared to 

address the privacy implications of employees who 

are inevitably inadvertently recorded as the student 

navigates the FLETC campus? These are just 

some of the many questions FLETC is wrestling 

with as it anticipates implementation of this new 

technology. 

Rather than just see another training 

requirement, FLETC is viewing body worn 

cameras as a training enhancement opportunity. If 

FLETC is eventually tasked with training students 

to comfortably operate with the body worn camera 

device, could not this new piece of technology be 

leveraged simultaneously to improve our training 

product? FLETC has long embraced the studentcentered feedback model, and has utilized after 

action review videos to help demonstrate training 

concepts to students. Many times, during a scenario 

debrief, the student must acknowledge the disparity 

between what they perceived their actions to be 

and what their actions were in reality. Nothing is 

more effective than letting the student self-assess 

and learn from his or her own observations of his 

or her own conduct. 

Recordings captured on body worn camera 

devices could potentially offer an up-close and 

personal view of student performance that would 

aid in feedback and evaluation. It may further 

reinforce concepts taught by the Behavioral 

Science Division concerning the impact of 

stress and the narrowing or exclusion of sensory 

information during a law enforcement encounter. 

Just as described in the previous article by Tim 

Miller, it is very eye-opening for a student to hear 

something on a recording that they didn’t hear 

during the real-time scenario. 

While it is unclear how long the debate over law 

enforcement’s use of body worn cameras will go 

on, FLETC will continue to track the storms of 

change, and prepare to answer that call with fast, 

focused, and flexible training.

How might Body Worn Cameras 

Affect Training on FLETC....? 

BY LAUREN WARE
54 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

THAILAND

HUNGARY

BOTSWANA

EL SALVADOR

NEW MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA

MARYLAND

FAST FACTS

FLETC Domestic Training Sites:

• Artesia, New Mexico 

• Charleston, South Carolina 

• Cheltenham, Maryland 

• Glynco, Georgia 

• LA Port, California

Export Locations:

State and Local Law Enforcement

• Nationwide

International Law Enforcement Academies:

Academic, Operational and Program Support

• Bangkok, Thailand 

• Budapest, Hungary 

• Gaborone, Botswana 

• San Salvador, El Salvador

• Roswell, New Mexico 

International Training and Capacity Building Programs:

• Delivered Worldwide

Consolidation: Consolidation of law enforcement training 

permits the Federal Government to emphasize training 

excellence and cost-effectiveness. Professional instruction 

and practical application provide students with the skills and 

knowledge to meet the demanding challenges of a federal law 

enforcement career. They not only learn the responsibilities of 

a law enforcement officer, but through interaction with students 

from many other agencies, also become acquainted with the 

missions and duties of their colleagues. This interaction 

provides the foundation for a more cooperative federal law 

enforcement effort. 

Integrated Instructional Staff: FLETC has assembled the finest 

professionals to serve on its faculty and staff. Approximately 

50 percent of the instructors are permanent FLETC employees. 

The remaining instructional staff are federal officers and 

investigators on assignment from their parent organizations or 

recently retired from the field. The mix provides a balance of 

instructional experience and fresh insight.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 55

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

U. S. Department of Homeland Security

1131 Chapel Crossing Road

Glynco, Georgia 31524

www.fletc.gov

A Historical Perspective

U.S. Immigration Service Border Patrol inspectors, Camp Chigas, El Paso, 

TX in 1927.

Today U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents employ off-road vehicles 

and helicopters.

Customs inspectors at the Detriot-Windsor Ferry station in 1898. U.S. Customs Rainbow Bridge Port of Entry, Buffalo, NY. Photos courtesy: 

U.S Customs & Border Protection.

FLETC ournal

ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY

Simulation and Operations 

in Law Enforcement Training

VIRTUAL 

FIREARMS 

RANGES

The Advantages

Over Live Fire Training

WHAT’S IN 

THE BLACK BOX?

Vehicle Embedded Forensics

TWO WORDS 

YOU MUST KNOW

To Solve Modern Crime 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

VOLUME 16 • Fall-Winter 2016

Artesia  Charleston  Cheltenham  Glynco
2 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Foreword

THE RAPID EXPANSION of technology in our world has both helped and challenged 

law enforcement and law enforcement training. Those same technologies that capture data, 

allow instant messaging, and work to make everyday tasks more predictable, has fast forwarded 

organized criminal activity that requires law enforcement to quickly counter with investigative 

techniques using the same data. Five different ‘takes’ on technology are covered in this issue 

that explores the implication of both fighting crime and committing crime, as well as a look at 

technologies that facilitate better training for the sworn guardians of our communities and our 

nation.

 

• Technologies developed just for training such as the MAT-MP and FLETC’s simulated

ranges for firearms training are specifically designed to help instructors and students train 

more effectively and efficiently. Such technologies are important investments for training 

and must be carefully evaluated. 

• Technologies currently in use by the public makes our lives easier, and then gets repurposed

by criminal elements to aid and abet criminal activity. 

• The use of technologies by investigators creates vulnerabilities for case investigators that 

can potentially leave their records vulnerable to compromise. Trainers must understand 

both the value of appropriately applied technologies, and how to protect data from 

criminal intrusion. 

• Technological applications are costly to purchase, maintain, and secure. Trainers and law

enforcement officials are dealing with financial challenges associated with the 

implementation and utilization of technology and its impact on modern day policing. 

• Finally, emerging technology that is reshaping our world is also changing the landscape

for law enforcement. Unmanned aerial systems not only aide law enforcement but can 

present challenges to law enforcement when used to further criminal acts. Tools like body 

worn cameras are a new frontier that will undoubtedly require significant judicial reviews 

to sort out the myriad of challenges that seem inevitable. Trainers must be ready to 

adapt to the next new thing. Looking ahead, we should be able to see some innovations 

coming. Driverless cars, biometric identifications, smart guns, and the ‘internet of things’ 

will impact law enforcement and will need to be addressed by law enforcement trainers. 

We must be ready. 

As you read this issue, consider that law enforcement and law enforcement training have no 

option but to rapidly adapt and expand capabilities to counter emerging threats, and conduct 

investigations using new technologies. By proactively working on all fronts of the technological 

landscape, we will be poised to address such new innovations. One thing's for sure. Law 

enforcement is certainly going to get more interesting!

VALERIE ATKINS

Assistant Director

FLETC
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 3

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Two Words You Must Know 

to Solve Modern Crimes

27

this issue VOLUME 16 • Fall-Winter 2016

10

14

17

21

31

35

38

41

45

47

50

53

SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE...

Security Implications Associated 

With New Technology

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES: 

Uses for Law Enforcement

DRONES: 

Your Agency’s Best Friend 

or Worst Enemy

VIRTUAL FIREARMS RANGES

THE NEW SMOKING GUN

THE VIRTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 

CLASSROOM

NEW TECHNOLOGY AND ITS 

POTENTIAL TO ENHANCE TRAINING

6

Advanced 

Technology 

& Simulation

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

DRAWING ON THE BLACKBOARD:

REIMAGINING TECHNOLOGY

WORKING TOGETHER:

DHS Science & Technology and FLETC Training & 

Innovation Division Partner to Pioneer the Future 

of Law Enforcement Training

VEHICLE EMBEDDED FORENSICS

CHOOSE YOUR VIEW:

Privacy vs. evidence

Body Cams in Excessive Use of Force Cases

HOW MIGHT BODY WORN CAMS

AFFECT TRAINING ON FLETC 21 41
4 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Executive Sponsor

Michael S. Milner

Editorial Team

Preston Farley

Alicia Gregory

Michael Hullihan

Tim Miller

John Stamp

Jen Tocco

Susan Thornton

Lauren Ware

THE FLETC JOURNAL EDITORIAL TEAM from left to right, front row: Lauren Ware, Michael S. Milner, Michael Hullihan, 

Susan Thornton. Back row: Tim Miller, Preston Farley, John Stamp, Jen Tocco. 

Design/Layout

Fred Charles

Back Cover Photography

David S. Tucker

The FLETC Journal is a law enforcement training magazine produced 

and published by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers 

(FLETC). It is produced, published, and printed through a joint 

collaboration with the Protocol and Communications Office and the 

Government Printing Office. The printed circulation is 2,000 and it is 

also available electronically on the FLETC website at http://www.fletc.

gov/about-fletc.

The content of this publication is written in accordance with the 

guidelines of the Associated Press (AP) style. Articles, photographs, 

and other contributions are welcomed from the law enforcement 

training community and academia. Publication depends on general 

topical interest as judged by the editorial team.

The FLETC Journal's mission is to explore and disseminate information 

about law enforcement concepts, research initiatives, programs, and 

trends that impact or will potentially affect law enforcement training.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 5

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

WAYNE ANDERSON

Site Director

FLETC Charleston

COUNTLESS BOOKS and articles have 

been and continue to be written in an 

effort to capture the very essence of 

what makes a truly great leader. I too 

have spent a considerable amount of 

time in study of this topic. Regardless 

of the amount of reading and reflection, 

I find myself circling back time and 

again to what really amounts to five 

dimensions of leadership: you must 

have a vision as to where you plan to 

take your organization, a strategy as to 

how you plan to get there, good structure or management, a 

sound process for your decision making, and finally, you must 

be a leader with great integrity.

For those like myself who are captivated by presidential 

politics, I would highly recommend the book The President as 

Leader by Michael Siegel. Siegel’s core thesis is that effective 

presidents stay focused on a clear vision. They succeed by 

surrounding themselves with talented people, not necessarily 

friends, and give them the autonomy to do their jobs. They 

encourage conflict and at times differences of opinion as a 

positive force prior to decision making. They must be willing 

to make clear and strong decisions and never fear making 

modifications along the way, and accept it as a natural 

consequence of the process. Without giving too much away, let 

me just share that Siegel walks the reader through a historical 

review of how, when measured against the aforementioned 

criteria, at least two of the recent five Presidents received high 

marks in two or more categories, while two struggled in almost 

all categories. Let’s pull out “good structure or management” 

as just one example. It has been reported by several sources 

that President Jimmy Carter would, in spite of hovering over a 

desk full of papers dealing with one world crisis after the other, 

fret over tedium like scheduling the White House tennis courts. 

In contrast, Ronald Reagan would abstain from the fine details 

of governance and would entrust them to his team to carry out 

vigorously. He shared his vision with each of them and then 

simply got out of their way.

While Siegel’s book looks at leadership from the highest 

levels of government, the same tenants of great leadership are 

applicable to each of our own pursuits. The most challenging 

aspect of my leadership tenure at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers came after accepting the position of Site 

Director for the Office of Charleston Operations. I pursued 

the opportunity with the vision of transforming a dated and 

dilapidated facility into a modern, walking campus that would 

support the FLETC mission of not only training those who 

protect our homeland, but to be the best in the world at doing 

so. Not to say that I did not have many days where I asked 

myself just what I had gotten into. Successes began to follow, 

however, after sharing that vision and proffering a strategy as 

the road map to get us there. 

We started by meeting with a landscape architect and 

putting the vision on paper as to how we planned to reshape 

and refurbish our campus. While funding would certainly 

not allow us to execute the entire plan in whole, we began to 

look at what was most pressing and take a phased approach. 

After eight years on the job here in Charleston, that original 

architectural rendering still hangs in my conference room to 

ensure we keep our eye on the prize. 

Fortunately, my tenure with FLETC Charleston has allowed 

me to establish my own leadership team. None of the many 

accomplishments at the Charleston campus would have been 

possible without a solid team of professionals in place that 

fully supports the vision. It is a team of true professionals that 

I have faith and confidence in to lead others. That trust allows 

me to keep the focus on the vision, share it with others, and 

try not to stand in their way. More simply put, I don’t need to 

schedule the tennis courts, but I need to know how many I 

have, if I need more, and if so where I plan to put them!

Today we have demolished over 17 structures, and are 

eyeing the fourth phase of the overall campus plan. While 

I anticipated having completed the job at that stage, 

modifications are inherent within the process. To that end, 

we recently completed a business case to support building 

an additional new dormitory and are now in negotiations for 

additional property transfers with the South Carolina State 

Port Authority.

Lastly, if I could single out one other dimension of leadership 

that is vital to success at any organization, it would be integrity. 

I think it can be summed up best by the words of Billy Graham 

speaking to a group of leaders about the need for integrity. 

Graham defined it as “being the same person on the inside as 

you claim to be on the outside.” He went on to say that leaders 

need “the ability to separate the trivial from the important. It’s 

essential for daily tasks and direction in life. Until priorities are 

straight, everything else will be out of order.”

Reflections on Leadership

L. WAYNE ANDERSON came to FLETC in 2002 as a detailed special 

agent with U.S. Secret Service. Prior to FLETC, he was assigned to 

Secret Service's NYC Field Office where he was serving on 9/11 and 

was awarded the Medal of Valor for assisting with evacuations of the 

World Trade Center. In January 2008, Anderson was selected as site 

director for FLETC Charleston and was most recently selected as the 

FLETC Leader of the Year for 2015. 
6 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY 

AND SIMULATION FLETC instructor Jim Gort 

models a training vest.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 7

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY KIERAN MORIARTY

Advanced technology and simulation have 

been used across a spectrum of disciplines 

to make training more realistic and cost 

effective and to improve the overall efficiency. 

Technology and simulation feed into the never 

ending quest of training organizations to 

maximize training dollars, decrease down time, 

and improve the overall realism of training. 

The earliest uses of technology and simulation 

included using blank rounds and inert explosives 

and using video cameras and pre-positioned 

closed circuit television (CCTV) in order to 

observe and critique training scenarios. As 

technology improved, computerized judgment 

shooting was introduced, and ultimately nonlethal marking cartridges and driving simulators 

added more realism into training than ever 

before. The recent technology boom over the 

last decade has led to an upsurge in available 

technology that can benefit learning and improve 

safety and efficiency. 

The FLETC-Charleston Training Division 

and FLETC’s Training Innovation Division 

are working to continue this trend of improving 

training efficiency and realism using technology 

and simulation. This partnership provides an 

ideal environment for testing these concepts 

to determine if they meet the high standards 

needed before introducing them into the training 

environment. Training Innovation Division 

Chief Shawn Beltramo explained, “With so 

many new technologies coming out, it’s critical 

to have seasoned professionals like the FLETCCharleston Training Division staff thoroughly 

test these items to see how they hold up to 

the rigors of law enforcement training. Many 

innovative technologies, while promising, are just 

not able to deliver the high level of performance 

we need for our training community. Doing 

small scale testing with these concepts really 

helps us determine what will and will not work 

in our training.” Chief Beltramo added, “Being 

able to leverage the expertise and knowledge 

of our instructors is the single most important 

part of training innovation and working with 

the staff at Charleston dramatically increases 

our ability to find the best in training innovation 

technologies.” Through close collaboration, 

the FLETC-Charleston Training Division and 

the Training Innovation Division recognized 

the following training concepts that are being 

examined for possible inclusion into future 

training including. 

WEARABLE CAMERAS/TECHNOLOGY - In today’s 

world where almost everyone has cameras on their 

phones, a law enforcement officer can be recorded 

at a moment’s notice, sometimes without even 

being aware of it. Law enforcement officers need 

to be comfortable being recorded and critiqued. 

This is the reality of the world we live in and our 

training should closely replicate the real world. 

The GoPro Camera System, which is currently 

being used at FLETC-Charleston in the Active 

Shooter Threat Training Program, allows the 

instructor to mount a camera to the student’s 

Using Advanced Technology 

and Simulation to Enhance 

Law Enforcement Training
8 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

helmet, record the scenario being executed, and 

debrief the student on-the-spot via a handheld 

tablet. As the student progresses through the 

scenario, the camera captures the entire scenario 

through the eyes of the student. The student 

can explain his or her actions based on what 

they observed. The instructor is able to provide 

feedback from the student’s perspective, which 

would not be possible using a wall-mounted 

camera, since that shows an entirely different 

point of view. The ability for the instructor and 

the student to review the video from the same 

exact vantage point is extremely beneficial in the 

training environment.

EVALUATION TABLETS – Students in the Seaport 

Security Anti-terrorism Training Program 

traditionally used a manual process to perform 

enhanced risk and vulnerability assessments. 

Students assess three key resources on a seaport 

and take into account all hazards such as 

manmade intentional, manmade accidental, and 

environmental. Once the students complete 

their assessments, they create a briefing via 

PowerPoint to show their assessment results and 

mitigation strategies.

Collaboration with the Training Innovation 

Division and the Department of Homeland 

Security Science and Technology Directorate 

resulted in the development of a program to 

automate the enhanced risk and vulnerability 

assessments that students conduct in the 

training program. The new tablets will have a 

program installed that calculates assessment 

values. Student teams will conduct pre- and 

post-assessments on the tablet, eliminating the 

need for 90 sheets of paper and students having 

to transfer their assessment information from 

hard copy to an excel spreadsheet installed 

on a laptop computer. The tablet also has a 

camera and computer software installed, which 

eliminates the need to issue a separate camera 

and notepad. Students will also be able to access 

the internet from the tablet to research additional 

information and create their presentations.

Go Pro action camera system with helmet mount, instructor remote 

and tablet.

Tablet and holder used for Seaport Security assessments.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 9

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

SIMULATED ENGINE NOISE – Many of the maritime 

training programs conducted at FLETCCharleston utilize the SS Cape Chalmers. The 

Cape Chalmers is a 494-foot break bulk freighter 

permanently moored along pier Q at FLETCCharleston. Since the Cape Chalmers is not an 

active vessel, the engines are inoperable. As one 

can imagine, the noise generated from functional 

engines would prevent routine communication 

between team members as they are clearing the 

engine room and other spaces below deck. The 

lack of noise on the Cape Chalmers creates an 

unrealistic environment as students resort to 

traditional methods for communicating such as 

voice and radio. Since the officers may not be able 

to communicate via voice and radio in a real world 

scenario, the staff believed that we were missing 

the mark with a valuable teaching point. Staff 

at FLETC-Charleston contacted the Training 

Innovation Division and requested support in 

finding a viable solution for this problem. The 

Training Innovation Division staff identified a 

cost effective system that will provide the students 

with a more realistic training environment when 

operating in the engine room. Through a series of 

amplifiers and speakers, the instructor will be able 

to activate simulated engine noise and other alarm 

sounds when the students enter the engine room 

area. The simulated noise will expose students to 

communication challenges normally encountered 

while boarding an underway vessel.

ELECTRIC SHOCK TRAINING VEST – Conventional 

force on force training includes simulated 

projectiles such as marking cartridges, paintball, 

and airsoft. The FLETC-Charleston Firearms 

and Physical Techniques staff are currently testing 

a non-projectile, non-lethal force on force firearms 

training system that utilizes laser technology to 

deliver an electric shock. The electric shock is 

delivered to the student wearing the vest when the 

suspect registers a center mass hit. The shock is 

delivered to the abdomen for several seconds. So 

far, the noted benefits of laser technology include 

the requirement of only minimal safety equipment 

due to the system’s use of a laser as opposed to firing 

a projectile. This system eliminates the recurring 

cost for marking cartridges and paintball rounds. 

Another benefit is the ability to move from scenario 

to scenario much more quickly since the students 

and role players are not wearing an abundance of 

safety equipment. The testing so far shows that 

using the electric training vest appears to offer 

the same level of realism and stress as when using 

non-lethal projectiles. Staff at FLETC-Charleston 

is still in the testing phase and will continue to 

monitor the system for durability, accuracy, and 

overall effectiveness. The final testing results will 

be documented and provided to the Training 

Innovation Division. 

SS Cape Chalmers engine room.

KIERAN MORIARTY currently serves as 

the chief of the Charleston Training 

Division for the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers in Charleston, South 

Carolina. He is responsible for the 

development and delivery of training 

curricula at the Charleston Training 

Delivery site. Moriarty served as a 

FLETC instructor, senior instructor and branch chief in 

FLETC’s Physical Techniques Division and a branch chief 

and division chief in the FLETC’s Training Management 

Division (TMD). 
10 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

BY LAUREN WARE AND ROB PEIFER

We have all seen countless commercials advertising the latest 

wonder drug. Ridiculously happy people appear on screen, 

apparently without a care in the world, as a spokesperson lists 

the many benefits of the latest and greatest miracle pill. After what seems 

like an eternity listening to what this pill can add to your life, a short novel 

is speedily recited in the last fifteen seconds of the commercial that lists 

the many side effects of that new drug. Sometimes, the physiological costs 

of taking the new drug sound worse than the original condition requiring 

treatment. While this illustration may seem dramatic, there are similar 

considerations associated with the application of new technologies. 

The Security Implications 

Associated with New Technologies

Side Effects May Include...
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 11

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The selling point of almost all new 

technological developments are 

convenience and instant gratification. 

The more popular technologies tend to be physically 

smaller, wireless, and more mobile as a result. 

Similarly, the systems they operate on are increasingly 

becoming cloud-based, creating immediate access to 

vast quantities of data and enabling users to share 

information almost instantaneously across the globe. 

While these new technologies can be tremendously 

helpful to an organization, the “side effects” or 

accompanied vulnerabilities, must be addressed. 

Otherwise, what we gain in ease and speed of access 

we could potentially lose in security. 

MOBILE DEVICES

The beauty of mobile devices is obviously that the 

user can access electronic data from practically 

anywhere outside the home or office. Of course, 

once that device leaves the relative 

safety of the home or office, 

it becomes vulnerable to 

inadvertent loss or theft and 

consequently unauthorized 

access. In that case, someone 

else may obtain access to all 

that device’s electronic data. 

Passwords, and other methods of 

access control, are not infallible. 

When an attacker has possession 

of your hardware, they have all the 

time in the world to apply techniques 

that attempt to circumvent these 

controls. The concern then becomes 

not only the integrity of the data on 

that specific device, but also the data 

available through connected networks. If 

a mobile device is automatically connected 

to a network, the unauthorized use of that 

device can be a gateway into vast stores of 

data available through that network. Even 

worse, this unauthorized access can be used as 

a tool to attack the entire network, potentially 

compromising or destroying unconscionable 

amounts of critical data. 

Mobile devices also present a security concern 

as updates and patches are often unable to be 

pushed to devices when not connected directly to the 

network. When computers were anchored to desks 

and reliant on wired connection, these patches and 

security software updates could be easily disseminated 

to all devices. This process was accomplished during 

non-duty hours to minimize interruption to the users 

and to ensure they were operating off of the most 

current versions of needed software. When mobile 

devices are physically removed from their network 

docking stations, they can miss the updates to the 

applications needed to run securely and effectively. 

More and more software manufacturers and global 

companies are transitioning to Cloud-based systems. 

This is because “the Cloud” offers a number of benefits 

that are appealing to large organizations. To begin, the 

Cloud offers greater bandwidth than most companies 

choose to invest in initially; the use of the 

Cloud allows companies to increase and 

decrease in scale with much more flexibility. 

Cloud offerings can also handle the work 

involved in data back-up and recovery. 

Additionally, Cloud offerings can provide 

automatic software updates and a payas-you-go subscription to the software; 

in a Cloud system, the user no longer 

has to worry about purchasing 

physical copies of the latest editions 

of software. Updates are handled 

behind the scenes, so users can be 

assured they are always operating 

from the latest version. Finally, 

documents saved in a Cloud can 

be accessed by anyone (given 

the right permissions), from 

anywhere in the world. This 

makes collaboration on a 

common project much 

more efficient. Of course, 

with these conveniences 

come vulnerabilities. 

Use of the Cloud 

requires a data owner to 

entrust all data and the security of 

that data to a third party; this presents an 

unknown level of risk to the data owner. Under these 
12 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

circumstances, the data owner does not have direct 

control to ensure only authorized users access to the 

data. They may have no direct control over who audits 

or monitors the system, or a mechanism to directly 

ensure their data is encrypted properly. By forfeiting 

direct oversight of the security controls applied to 

their system and data, the user accepts the risk that 

the Cloud owner’s security procedures may not be as 

robust as required.

Another concern is the accessibility of Cloudstored data over the web. Any time there is greater 

access for authorized users, there is greater access 

for unauthorized users. There have been several high 

profile data breaches over the past several years, in part 

because the data was stored in a Cloud. 

RECORDING SYSTEMS

Law enforcement and those who train law 

enforcement officers have been eyeing several forms of 

technology that involve recording systems. Body-worn 

cameras and unmanned aerial systems are two of the 

most recent and controversial items currently being 

explored. The obvious advantage of these systems is 

they capture video of areas and events that wouldn’t 

otherwise be seen by a third party. This translates 

into more information, which on the surface, seems 

overwhelmingly positive; however, there are many 

unanswered questions and considerations that must 

be addressed before these forms of technology can be 

responsibly implemented. 

In addition to the obvious privacy concerns, these 

recording systems come with a number of security 

challenges and vulnerabilities. The point of digital video 

recording is to retain video for some length of time; 

whether policy dictates the recording be saved for 24 hours 

or 24 years, there is still the need to store what can become 

significant amounts of data. Not only will the department 

retaining the data need to worry about temporary storage, 

they also will have to account for backing up that data. 

In the event specific footage must be retained long-term, 

they must provide sufficient storage, back up data, and 

protect it from destruction or compromise. Whatever 

this process ultimately becomes, it must also be designed 

with consideration that this digital recording is evidence 

and must be obtained, preserved, secured, and processed 

in a manner so it is admissible in court. Once again, the 

administrative and logistical burden this process may 

place on a department or agency must be considered. 

Another concern is that recording devices are 

essentially small computers, and therefore possess all the 

same vulnerabilities and must be patched with updates 

and malware. And, just as with computers, these devices 

can be hacked. Additionally, in the case of unmanned 

aerial systems, this technology is operated remotely and 

physically distant from the law enforcement officer. This 

leaves the system rather defenseless and susceptible to 

being destroyed or intercepted. In the wrong hands, law 

enforcement could forfeit not only the video footage 

obtained, but also intelligence regarding its technical and 

tactical operating capabilities. 

SECURITY RISK MITIGATION 

The use of technology can never be wholly without risk. 

Instead, agencies seeking to use new technologies must 

NEW RECORDING SYSTEMS. 

Body-worn cameras and 

unmanned aerial systems 

with small video cameras 

are two of the most recent 

and controversial items 

currently being explored by 

law enforcement. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 13

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

weigh those risks against the potential benefits, and take 

appropriate steps to mitigate as many risks as possible. 

When vulnerabilities are sufficiently addressed, the 

benefit of the technology can outweigh the risk to the 

agency and the agency can implement the technology 

responsibly. 

First and foremost, agencies must mandate a specific 

set of cyber security policies. Users must be trained 

on what vulnerabilities exist with the new technology. 

Awareness of vulnerabilities and their impact to the 

operational security of the agency is critical if users 

are to reliably comply with mitigation efforts. This is 

accomplished by requiring users to acknowledge and 

sign an agreement stating they will take the necessary 

steps to comply with the relevant security policy. 

Mobile devices require regularly scheduled 

connection to agency networks to ensure the onboard 

firmware or software is properly patched and updated. 

While this may seem to inconvenience the user, it is 

absolutely critical to ensure the technology and the data 

stored are protected. Additional basic security measures 

would be to limit the number of individuals with access 

to the technology, protect that access with two-factor 

authentication or complex passwords, and encrypt all 

associated data. Again, this may require some additional 

steps on the part of the user, such as establishing and 

remembering unique and complicated passwords and 

changing those passwords or pins frequently. 

Agencies should carefully evaluate potential new 

technologies using a Cloud. They should consider the 

sensitivity of the data they intend to store on the Cloud, 

and whether the convenience of the Cloud outweighs 

the possible increased likelihood of the breach of the 

involved data. 

Agencies should also ensure that the Cloud provider 

ultimately selected will comply with required data 

protection standards. Depending on the provider, the 

agency may be able to specify that its security personnel 

retain some level of visibility over its data, and perhaps 

even assurance of periodic system and security auditing. 

This additional service could increase the cost, but is a 

small price to pay when considering the value of the 

protected data. 

Moore’s Law implies that the growth of digital 

electronics and consequent technology doubles every 

18 months, and indeed this rate has been demonstrated 

since 1975 to approximately 2012. While many argue 

an inevitable deceleration of technological advancement 

is occurring, few would dispute that law enforcement 

will encounter and incorporate new technologies for 

many years to come. It is therefore incumbent upon 

the agency to consider the security implications of 

these technologies during its evaluation. Fortunately, 

unlike the unavoidable negative side effects of everemerging pharmaceuticals, the vulnerabilities that come 

with new technologies can be mitigated by responsible 

identification of and diligent adherence to security 

policy and procedures. 

LAUREN WARE serves as the chief of the Forensics and Special Investigative Skills Branch at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers. In this position, she leads a staff of 18 professional forensic instructors who are 

responsible for researching, designing, and delivering the most current, relevant, and accurate forensics and 

specialized investigative techniques available to federal law enforcement officers. Ware maintains professional 

affiliation with the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and serves as the Vice Chair of the Peace Corps Sexual 

Assault Advisory Council. She is an advocate for community service, working on the Feds Feeds Families Food Drive, 

the annual CASA program, and provides presentations to local school children in an effort to inspire them to pursue 

careers in science. Ware was awarded the 2014 FLETC’s leadership award and is the recipient of the Women in 

Federal Law Enforcement’s 2016 Outstanding Law Enforcement Employee Award.

ROBERT PEIFER is an information system security officer in 

the Cyber Security Division at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers. He began his career in information 

technology working for private industry in the 1990’s. He 

came to the FLETC in 2003 as a government contractor and 

transitioned to federal service in 2009.
14 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

I

n 2011 six cows strayed from a neighboring property on 

to the farm of Rodney Brossart. A dispute between the 

farmer and Brossart ensued after Brossart argued that 

the cattle became his once they crossed onto his property. 

A deputy from the Nelson County Sheriff ’s Office and an 

inspector from the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association 

went to Brossart’s farm to handle the dispute. When asked 

about the cattle, Brossart stated he wanted to finish his work 

on the farm before dealing with the livestock. The deputy and 

inspector insisted on settling the matter. Brossart responded by 

brandishing a rifle and threatening the officers. The situation 

escalated, resulting in a sixteen hour standoff between Brossart 

and law enforcement. In an attempt to 

arrest Brossart, the Grand Forks Police 

Department SWAT team requested the use 

of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to 

pinpoint Brossart’s location. A UAV from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection was 

used to locate Brossart and lead the Grand 

Forks SWAT team to his location. Brossart 

was arrested without incident. 

The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) reports that there are approximately 

2.5 million drones or UAVs in use in the 

United States as of March 2016. By 2020, 

the FAA expects the number of drones 

used by Americans to rise to approximately 

7 million. The use of UAVs in society is 

becoming commonplace and will be an 

Unmanned 

Aerial 

Vehicles

Uses for Law Enforcement

BY JOHN STAMP
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 15

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

accepted facet of society very soon. As with 

all emerging technology, law enforcement 

agencies are adopting UAVs to enhance 

their respective missions.

Local, state, and federal agencies have 

begun using UAVs on various missions, 

including surveillance operations, crime 

scene analysis, explosive ordinance disposal, 

search and rescue, and SWAT operations. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation stated in 

response to a query from Senator Rand Paul 

that UAVs have been used in surveillance 

operations both in criminal and national 

security investigations since 2006. The San 

Jose Police Department in California has 

added a UAV to its inventory for use by 

the bomb squad. The rationale is that the 

cameras and other equipment carried on the 

UAV can be used for remote examination 

of a suspicious device without having to 

place police personnel in danger. UAVs have 

been used to map and document fatal traffic 

investigations, and the U.S. Border Patrol 

has incorporated drones along the nation’s 

borders to police for illegal border crossings. 

In 2009, Persistence Surveillance Systems 

of Dayton, Ohio, partnered with the city of 

Ciudad, Mexico, to study the effectiveness 

of drones as a police aid. During the 

study local law enforcement used UAVs 

to conduct aerial surveillance. At the end 

of the study images captured via UAV 

detailed 34 murders as they occurred in real 

time, including a cartel-sponsored killing 

within the city. Further video analysis taken 

during this time captured images of the 

murderer, the getaway vehicle, and multiple 

accomplices.

Currently, the most popular design in 

UAVs is the quadcopter, a small robot 

suspended under four, six, or eight rotors. 

Most UAVs can be augmented by a number 

of sensing packages from the standard 

still and video camera to forward looking 

FLETC has been researching a 

variety of potential platforms for 

future program development.
16 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

infrared, radar, and mapping equipment. In the 

future developers believe UAV’s will take on a more 

biomorphic design and miniaturization. This will 

mean that what was once a loud and obvious aerial 

platform roughly the size of a pizza delivery box 

will shrink to the size of a dragon fly or a mosquito 

and thereby will be able to deploy largely unseen.

In 2012, the FAA established regulations 

governing the use of UAVs by both the public 

and commercial entities. Essentially the same 

general rules apply to UAVs as apply to manned 

aerial platforms. The FAA requires that in order to 

operate a UAV commercially the aircraft must be 

registered and authorized to fly either by certificate 

or exemption. The UAV is required to have a valid 

registration number and can be flown only by a 

certified pilot. UAVs cannot be flown within five 

miles of an airport and operators are required to 

abide by temporary or permanent flight restrictions. 

The FAA periodically releases updates on UAV 

operation rules and regulations via its website: 

https://faa.gov/uas.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Aviation Committee issued guidance on the use 

of UAVs in 2012 as well. The model policy offers 

protocols governing such procedures as image/

media retention, operational procedures, system 

requirements, and community engagement.

FLETC has initiated a feasibility study regarding 

the development of a UAV training program. 

The study consists of not only the examination of 

aerial platforms for their use, but also how best 

to implement a potential program. FLETC will 

disseminate an assessment to its 93 federal partner 

agencies to determine which missions the partners 

believe UAVs can best serve or enhance. Once 

FLETC determines the platform and demand, it 

can develop and implement a training program. 

Another major point in the feasibility study for 

UAVs is where a potential training program could 

be best implemented. Given FAA regulations, 

UAVs cannot be flown within five miles of an 

airport without authorization or exemption, and 

UAVs can only be flown by certified pilots. Two of 

FLETC’s training sites are within this restriction, 

and developers are seeking FLETC personnel 

who are both certified instructors and pilots. 

FLETC has identified several potential aerial 

platforms and a number of potential certified 

pilot instructors. FLETC is also awaiting pending 

FAA guidance on UAVs before it further pursues 

potential training related to this technology. 

References:

MEOLA, ANDREW, Drone Usage Expected to Triple by 

2020. www.businessinsider.com. March 28, 2016. http://

www.businessinsider.com/faa-says-drone-usage-willtriple-by-2020-2016-3

RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES for the use of Unmanned 

Aircraft. International Association of Chiefs of Police: 

Aviation Committee. www.theiacp.org. August 2012. 

http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACP_

UAGuidelines.pdf

LAW ENFORCEMENT Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized 

UAS Operations. US Department of Transportation, 

Federal Aviation Administration. www.faa.gov. Undated. 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/regulations_policies/media/

FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

ALDERTON, MATT, To the Rescue! Why Drones in Police Work 

Are the Future of Crime Fighting. www.lineshapespace.

com. April 30, 2015. https://lineshapespace.com/

drones-in-police-work-future-crime-fighting/

REESE, HOPE. Police are now using drones to apprehend 

suspects and administer non-lethal force: A police chief 

weighs in. www.techrepublic.com. November 25, 2015. 

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/police-are-nowusing-drones-to-apprehend-suspects-and-administer-nonlethal-force-a-police-chief/

JOHN STAMP is a senior instructor at 

the Forensics and Special Investigative 

Techniques Branch, Investigative 

Operations Division, for the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Centers. 

Prior to his position with FLETC, he 

served as a police officer in Charleston, 

South Carolina, a special agent of the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, and a special agent of the Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service. Stamp also holds a master’s degree 

in forensic science from the University of Florida and is the 

author of three crime novels.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 17

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY PRESTON FARLEY

Drones:

Your Agency’s New Best Friend 

or Worst Enemy?

The concept of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

(UAV), also known as the drone, has been 

theorized since the late 1800s. Initial 

development and utilization of early prototypes 

began in the early 1900s in military usage, 

which historically has driven many of mankind’s 

innovations over the millennia. The United States 

developed and used remote controlled full-sized 

aircraft in both World Wars. The U.S. Air Force 

used UAVs extensively throughout the Vietnam War 

for dangerous reconnaissance missions. The Israeli 

military developed and deployed the first modern 

UAV in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. It had 

all of the hallmarks of the modern UAV including 

data-link systems, endurance-loitering, and live 

video-streaming. These same capabilities, along with 

miniaturization, ease of use, reduced infrastructure 

requirements and, most of all, dramatic decrease in 

costs have allowed the formerly nation-state-only 

tool to be used by all segments of society including 

law enforcement today.

The first robots used extensively by civilian law 

enforcement in the United States were probably 

bomb handlers due to the very risky nature of 

that activity. Use of these machines saved and 

continues to save people from danger or even 

death. So too with the UAV. Due to its myriad 

functions and capabilities, it can now perform tasks 

that are deemed dangerous for officers to perform. 

UAVs are uniquely suited for surveillance, patrol, 

videography and photography, and some more 

advanced functionality discussed below. As UAVs 

FLETC Assistant Director Dominick Braccio and Physical Techniques Instructor Paul 

Sanchez demonstrate the launch of a hand-held Unmanned Aerial Vehicle at FLETC 

Artesia.
18 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

have matured, they have been created in a 

vast array of sizes and forms, from the size 

of a housefly to that of the U.S. Air Force 

Reaper with a wingspan of 84 feet! UAVs 

are available in both fixed and rotary wing 

configurations, which provide differing 

functionality depending upon their intended 

use. 

A logical primary use scenario for UAVs 

is as a surveillance tool. As UAVs have the 

ability to fly over terrain and buildings, they 

have a natural bird’s-eye view. This view 

can be augmented for specific missions like 

low-light or for viewing heat signatures in a 

smoke or fog-filled environment. The camera 

resolution of these devices can be 1080p or 

greater, depending upon operational need. 

Some stated use scenarios by a California 

law enforcement agency include tactical 

intelligence gathering in SWAT scenarios, 

crime scene photography, search and rescue 

in rough terrain, and finally, traffic control 

observation. Depending upon need, some 

of the UAVs available today are capable of 

sustained 12 hour flights. One new use for 

camera-toting UAVs is that of mapping. 

One company sells a “swarm” of smaller 

UAVs, which are optimized to go to a 

predefined geographic area, deploy, and 

then create three-dimensional maps of the 

target area including to-scale elevation with 

a precision to five centimeters. These UAVs 

have a 10-mile range. The major advantage 

of UAVs over conventional aircraft is that of 

cost; UAVs are much cheaper to purchase, 

maintain, and actually fly. 

NEFARIOUS USE THAT AFFECTS LAW 

ENFORCEMENT: There have been numerous 

reports in the media over the past few 

years regarding how both ignorance and 

malevolence have revealed the downside to 

UAV deployment. Initial reports were of 

UAVs being operated by people to observe 

others in places that were heretofore 

considered private. Specifically, many people 

have reported being spied upon on while on 

their own property, or in places previously 

considered private, like clothing-optional 

beaches. One United States Senator 

reported that she awoke in her second-floor 

bedroom, looked out her windows, and 

observed a UAV looking in the window at 

her! Another misuse of UAVs has occurred 

in aircraft flight zones. It seems that there 

are weekly reports of near-misses of UAVs 

and aircraft in and around airports. In fact, 

a mid-air strike occurred in April 2016 

UAVs in a public space allows unique capabilities to law enforcement.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 19

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

between a UAV and a British Airways 727, 

which was carrying 132 passengers and five 

crewmembers. Fortunately, the UAV hit the 

nosecone of the aircraft and not an engine 

intake as that would have probably destroyed 

the engine. Another use of the UAV for 

nefarious purposes has been discovered at 

numerous prisons both inside and out of the 

United States. Confederates of prisoners are 

attempting to bring contraband into prisons 

via UAVs. A high profile attempt failed at 

a South Carolina maximum security prison 

when the UAV crashed in the brush just 

outside the walls of the prison. One of the 

operators of the UAV was apprehended near 

the scene, but a second eluded police. The 

current extreme example of UAV's potential 

for abuse was revealed in a recent viral 

video showing an amateur UAV enthusiast 

attaching a running chainsaw to one. He 

then actually cut limbs off of a tree before 

embarking upon decapitating unsuspecting 

snowmen with the airborne chainsaw. And 

then there’s the remotely controlled UAV 

with a pistol attached, which allows the 

operator to get very close to his target and 

then fire the weapon with a high degree 

of accuracy. The potential for this tool to 

be abused is limited only by a criminal’s 

imagination. 

ANTI-UAV TECHNOLOGY: As the public and 

other political entities around the globe 

have deployed UAVs, the need to possess 

counter-UAV capabilities has emerged. 

Some major military arms suppliers have 

begun to market various anti-UAV systems 

with different approaches for different 

goals. Some low-tech solutions have also 

been developed, which are proving very 

effective. The first problem with counterUAV solutions is that of observation and 

discovery. By their very nature UAVs are 

difficult to observe. They are small and 

quiet and can move from hiding place to 

hiding place with a skilled operator, which 

makes detecting them quite a challenge. 

Fortunately, there are solutions already on 

the market. As almost all UAVs contain a 

functional digital camera, there are already 

well established technologies in place that 

can detect these cameras and track them. 

One company sells a solution that looks 

in a 360 degree arc for the UAV camera 

signatures and upon locating one alerts the 

user. It will then track the camera as long 

as it is within the device’s field-of-view. 

Once identification of the UAV occurs, the 

problem of “what next” occurs. A European 

company has created a man-portable device 

Assistant Director Dominick Braccio examines a UAV remote control with 

Instructor Paul Sanchez and Branch Chief John Newman. Below photo: A 

UAV with remote control.
20 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

which allows the operator to lock on to the 

UAV and essentially overpower the UAV 

operator’s controls and force the UAV to land 

where it can then be secured by authorities. 

An American company built a second system, 

which takes a more aggressive stance by 

allowing the user to send a huge blast of 

energy to the UAV thereby “killing” it in 

midair. A Dutch firm developed a decidedly 

low-tech anti-UAV tool, which has adapted 

the ancient art of falconry to teach the raptors 

to identify and attack UAVs! 

As the public continues to embrace UAV 

technology, your agency will be impacted by 

it. For many agencies, the use of UAVs can 

enhance your current work practices, often 

lowering costs. It may also give smaller 

agencies a path to provide previously cost 

prohibitive services like search and rescue. 

Again, as with any tool, the criminal element 

will also adapt to the new technology and 

leverage its use in nefarious schemes. At 

this stage of development and deployment, 

remaining UAV-ignorant is no longer an 

option. Forewarned is forearmed. UAVs are 

both your best friend AND worst enemy.

PRESTON L. FARLEY is a senior instructor for the Cyber Division at FLETC, where he has been 

an instructor since 2004. In 2006, he became the program coordinator for the Seized 

Computer Evidence Recovery Specialist Training Program, which is the introductory digital 

forensic analysis class open to all law enforcement officers/agents at both the local and 

federal level. His law enforcement career includes 20 years as a United States military 

member in both the active duty U.S. Air Force and the active duty U.S. Army culminating in 

nearly a decade of investigative experience with the United States Army Criminal Investigation 

Division Command as a special agent and cyber agent.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 21

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

CONTRIBUTORS:

DAVID BAND

DOUG DRAGOTTA

ED SIZEMORE I

n 2010, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers 

conducted an evaluation of the 

performance of local college students 

and FLETC basic training students, half 

of whom completed firearms training 

using a combination of virtual and live 

fire methodologies (virtual) and half of 

whom received only live fire training 

(traditional). It was found that for 

both local college students enrolled in 

criminal justice and for several classes of 

FLETC trainees, the pistol qualification 

scores were statistically similar regardless 

of the methodology used (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, and Burnett & Erdmier 2011). 

Based on the results of this work, as 

well as similar findings from the Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP, 

Kratzig, Hyde & Parker, 2011), FLETC 

expanded its initial pilot and constructed 

three 24-lane Virtual Firing Ranges at 

its headquarters in Glynco, Georgia. 

A Virtual Firing Range offers a 

number of advantages over live fire 

training. For new shooters, it creates 

a safe, low stress environment to learn 

the basic marksmanship fundamentals, 

such as how to grip and draw, sight 

alignment, trigger control, and range 

safety protocols. Regarding safety, virtual 

training also eliminates the risk of 

accidental discharges for new shooters. 

For instructors, the virtual range allows 

for more effective communication 

because hearing protection is not 

required; offers the ability to work with 

students from all positions, including in 

front of the shooter; and permits more 

time to train because time spent on 

setting up targets, collecting brass, and 

cleaning weapons is not required. From 

Virtual Firearms Ranges
22 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

the institutional perspective, sessions 

used with this technology save money, 

maximize space, and expand student 

throughput. Training in a virtual 

environment also enables students to 

use an unlimited number of virtual 

bullets, thus increasing the capacity to 

dramatically augment student trigger 

pulls. 

In late 2013, an initial class piloted 

the substitution of the live fire training 

with the new virtual firing ranges 

for four two-hour sessions of Basic 

Marksmanship Instruction for a single 

class. In 2014, FLETC integrated this 

methodology into its basic training 

programs – the Criminal Investigator 

Training Program (CITP), the 

Uniformed Police Training Program 

(UPTP), and the Land Management 

Police Training Program (LMTP). 

In 2014 and 2015, FLETC also 

constructed virtual ranges at its 

Artesia, New Mexico, and Charleston, 

South Carolina, locations. Since the 

implementation of virtual firearms 

training, there is now a larger sample 

of qualification data than in previous 

comparisons of these methodologies. 

This article provides a review of the 

qualification data for FLETC law 

enforcement students who completed 

training before and after this change 

in methodology. 

OVERVIEW OF MARKSMANSHIP 

TRAINING AT FLETC

FLETC BASIC MARKSMANSHIP 

INSTRUCTION consists of four twohour sessions on the Virtual Firing 

Ranges. Those who train on the virtual 

firing ranges use firearms that have 

been modified with a laser insert, 

“firing” on simulated live fire ranges 

with images of paper targets projected 

in front of students. The instruction 

with this methodology is intended 

to be similar to the instruction on 

traditional live fire ranges. 

Following this basic exposure 

to marksmanship skills, training 

continues with eight to eleven twohour live fire sessions, depending on 

the training program, that culminate 

with the Semi-Automatic Pistol 

Course (SPC) qualification course of 

fire. 

Left: Student examines 

his score from the 

Virtual Firing Range 

at FLETC Glynco. 

Below, right: Firearms 

Instructor Ed Sizemore 

assists student.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 23

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The SPC consists of 60 rounds 

fired from a variety of positions 

and distances. This is broken down 

into a “front half ” (distances of 3 to 

7 yards) and “back half ” (distances 

from 10 to 25 yards). Students can 

earn a maximum of 5 points for each 

round on target for a total of 150 

points per half, or 300 points in total. 

Rounds on the target silhouette are 

assigned points that range from 5 

points (center target) to one point 

(outer areas of the silhouette), with 

rounds not striking the silhouette 

receiving no points. The majority 

of partner agencies that train at 

FLETC have set a score of 210 

(70%) as the minimum qualification 

score while a few have opted for 240 

(80%).

FINDINGS FROM THE 

INSTITUTIONAL USE OF THE 

VIRTUAL FIRING RANGES

STUDENT POPULATION:

Data from 5,718 students from 159 

classes (76 CITP, 63 UPTP and 

20 LMTP) who underwent SPC 

qualification from Fiscal Year (FY) 

2013 through the second quarter 

of FY 2016 were included in this 

analysis. Of the 5,718 students, 

1,592 received traditional live-fire 

training and 4,126 received the 

blended environment of virtual 

and live fire training. This is a 

much larger sample than previous 

evaluations from FLETC and the 

RCMP (115-256 students). Data 

on these classes were gathered from 

end of class reports. These reports 

include summaries from each class, 

including average qualification 

score, number of students attending 

intermediate sessions, and number 

of students who successfully 

qualified, but do not include each 

students’ raw scores. 

STUDENT QUALIFICATION SCORES:

Qualification scores were reviewed 

by fiscal year. It was found there was 

an initial decrease in qualification 

scores when the Virtual Firing 

Ranges were implemented in FY 

2014; however, there was a rise in 

these scores in FY 2015 and FY 

2016. In fact, the average qualification 

score was slightly higher for FY 2016 

(virtual/live fire) than for students 

trained with traditional live fire. 

Since raw qualification scores were 

unavailable at the time of this analysis, 

it could not be determined if these 

differences in qualification scores 

were statistically significant. Previous 

work by FLETC and the RCMP 

found that while qualification scores 

were statistically similar, there was a 

trend for slightly lower performance 

using the virtual range (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, Burnett & Erdmier 2011, 

Krätzig, 2011). The current results 

suggest that through refinement of 

the training methodology, higher 

qualification scores may be possible. 

 

STUDENTS SENT 

TO INTERMEDIATE TRAINING: 

One possible explanation for 

higher qualification scores after the 

integration of the Virtual Firing 

Ranges could be contributed to 

instructors providing additional live 

fire training through intermediate 

after-hours sessions in efforts to 
24 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

achieve this performance. The trends for 

assignment of additional training sessions 

were reviewed by fiscal year (see below). 

While there was a peak during the initial 

transition (21%), data for the most recent 

year shows there were actually fewer 

students sent to additional training (12%) 

than when live fire was used. Also, this 

data suggests additional live fire training 

is not required to achieve the same level 

of proficiency when virtual training is 

integrated into firearms instruction. 

STUDENT QUALIFICATION RATE: 

Overall, FLETC’s firearms instructional 

staff and curriculum is extremely effective 

in training students on the fundamentals of 

marksmanship leading to qualification with 

their weapons. Less than 1% of students fail 

to qualify. When this qualification rate was 

assessed for each fiscal year, it was found 

there was actually a higher qualification 

rate for students trained with the virtual 

range in FY 2015 and FY 2016. While the 

qualification rates are objectively higher for 

the more current years, they are essentially 

equal. In fact, a Chi Square analysis, a test 

to see if these results are statically different 

across these years, cannot be performed 

because the number of failures is less than 

5 students for several of these years (there 

must be at least 5 responses per cell to run 

this test). 

OVERALL DATA RESULTS:

Previous evaluations found slightly lower 

but statically equivalent qualification scores 

when using a virtual range (Hawthorne, 

Wollert, Burnett & Erdmier 2011, Krätzig, 

2011). This evaluation found that after 

an initial drop in performance, students 

training in the virtual environment for the 

most recent fiscal year had slightly higher 

qualification scores than traditional Basic 

Marksmanship Instruction training. This 

was the case with fewer students being 

assigned to receive extra intermediate 

training sessions and with a slightly higher 

qualification rate. 

These results using a larger student sample 

than previous work confirm that firearms 

training, in which a virtual environment 

is incorporated, can be equally as effective 

as traditional live fire training. While 

FLETC has not compared the retention 

of marksmanship skills between these 

methodologies, the RCMP has conducted 

this analysis (Krätzig, 2014). Krätzig found 

that there was no statistical difference in 

retention between those trained in a live 

fire or virtual environment in subsequent 

requalification and adding further support 

for the use of this methodology. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 25

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

COST AVOIDANCE:

For fiscal year 2016, FLETC projects a total 

cost avoidance of $338,393.51 in terms of 

supply costs alone (ammunition, targets, 

target backers, weapon cleaning supplies, etc.) 

by using Virtual Firing Ranges. With larger 

student numbers and increases in the cost 

of ammunition, cost avoidance is projected 

to increase every year. When other costs for 

running a live fire range are also considered, 

such as range equipment, maintenance, and 

electricity (running ventilation systems), 

these savings may be even higher. 

LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTATION:

As is common with new technologies 

or methodologies, change was an initial 

challenge. This was observed anecdotally, 

through increased assignments to afterhour training sessions, and overall lower 

qualification scores during the initial 

implementation. 

Determining the right method of training 

with the new equipment and approach was 

demanding for the staff. With over 120 

firearms instructors on staff, there has been 

a continuous process of refinement. Some of 

the initial challenges included familiarizing 

instructors with the advantages of the Virtual 

Firing Ranges, training staff on technical 

aspects of the system, obtaining all of the 

pistol models used by various agencies, and 

standardizing training sessions to best make 

use of this training methodology. 

Training organizations wishing to 

implement virtual firing ranges for their 

agencies should be prepared for some initial 

stumbling blocks. However, after this 

learning curve, students may achieve even 

higher performance than with traditional 

live fire training. 

FIREARMS TRAINING MOVING FORWARD:

A testament to FLETC firearms instructors’ 

experience and capability is that as they 

become more familiar with using the 

simulators, they are developing better 

methods for maximizing their effectiveness. 

As part of the ongoing refinement process, 

FLETC created a new Firearms Technology 

and Innovation Branch to manage and 

maintain a directed focus on the Virtual 

Firing Ranges, as well as other virtual 

simulation initiatives and training such as 

Judgment Pistol Shooting. 

Using simulation to model live fire ranges 

is just the tip of the iceberg for the potential 

of simulation to improve firearms proficiency. 

While most law enforcement officers 

routinely demonstrate their marksmanship 

during range requalification, accuracy during 

gun fights is exceptionally low (15-22%, 

Morrison & Vila, 1998). Simulation offers 

the potential to address the gaps to improve 

real world performance. For instance, 

training can safely be conducted with moving 

and realistic targets, from various shooting 

positions, and with realistic and higher 

stress scenarios that require decision making. 

Unlike live role player scenarios, simulation 

has the ability to accurately track student 

accuracy during more realistic scenarios. 

This exploration of the use of simulation to 

improve reaction times and accuracy during 

more realistic scenarios also extends beyond 

FLETC (Wright, 2013). 

FLETC and its Partner Organizations are 

exploring ideas such as integrating driving 

simulation and use of force simulation, 

conducting evaluations of high definition 

immersive use of force simulators, integrating 

physical conditioning into firearms decision 

making tasks, and potentially integrating 

virtual reality into training. FLETC is 

committed to supporting ideas that will 

make students better prepared to protect our 

homeland, as well as generating cost savings 

for U.S. taxpayers. 
26 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Virtual Firearms Training:

A Cross Organizational Effort

DANIEL BALASH

2016 RECIPIENT OF THE FEDERAL 100 AWARD

Bringing virtual firearms training to the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers (FLETC) was a crossorganizational effort. In addition to the 

transformative efforts of FLETC’s training 

staff, personnel from throughout the 

organization made significant 

contributions in bringing the benefits of this technology to 

FLETC and its students. 

Daniel Balash, Information Technology Project Manager, 

led the integrated project team that developed, procured, 

installed, and tested the Virtual Firing Ranges at FLETC, 

an accomplishment that earned him the prestigious 2016 

Federal 100 Award this past spring. The Fed 100 Awards 

recognize government and industry leaders who have 

gone above and beyond their daily responsibilities and 

have made a difference in the way technology is bought, 

managed, or used.

In his role as Project Manager, Balash was responsible 

for the cradle to grave development and implementation 

of the Virtual Firing Ranges into FLETC training, resulting 

in the revolution of firearms training at FLETC. Besides 

freeing up time on live-fire ranges and increasing students’ 

opportunities to practice, the virtual ranges also cut 

ammunition usage, lower maintenance costs, and have a 

lesser impact on the environment. 

Balash’s team overcame decades of institutional 

cultural bias in favor of students training only with live-fire. 

His passion for technology and belief in this new learning 

methodology enabled him to become a passionate 

advocate for the virtual ranges. Balash conducted group 

and one-on-one capability demonstrations to create a 

trusting partnership between technology and instructional 

delivery. The resultant capability is now a fixture in FLETC’s 

basic training, as students attending FLETC’s three 

flagship basic training program received training on the 

Virtual Firing Ranges as part of their basic marksmanship 

curriculum. Thousands of students have now successfully 

completed basic marksmanship training using virtual 

firing ranges in combination with live fire.

While Balash received the well-deserved Fed 100 

Award, he is quick to acknowledge that integrating virtual 

firearms into FLETC training was a true team effort. FLETC’s 

experience with integrating virtual firearms training 

demonstrates the enormous power of collaboration 

among diverse professionals in using new technology to 

improve how we train law enforcement personnel.

References:

HAWTHORNE, S., Wollert, T., Burnett R. & Erdmier K. 

(2011). Firearms Simulation Study. FLETC Journal. 

Spring 2011. pp. 26-31. 

KRÄTZIG, G. (2011). Pistols Skills Transfer from 

a Synthetic Environment to Real World Setting. 

Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and 

Education Conference. Paper No. 11322.

KRÄTZIG, G., Parker, C., Hyde. M (2014). Pistol Skill 

Acquisition and Retention: A 3-Year Longitudinal 

Study. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and 

Education Conference. Paper No. 14042.

MORRISON G. & Vila B. (1998). Police handgun 

qualification: practical measure or aimless activity? 

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies 

& Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, 1998, pp. 510-533,

WRIGHT, Richard A., (2013) “Effects of Virtual Reality 

on the Cognitive Memory and Handgun Accuracy 

Development of Law Enforcement Neophytes”. 

Graduate Theses and Dissertations.

DAVID BAND has served as an 

engineering research psychologist at the 

FLETC since February of 2011. He is 

currently assigned to the Applied 

Research Branch within FLETC’s Training 

Research and Innovation Directorate. 

Band received his bachelor’s degree in 

Psychobiology from Binghamton 

University and a Master’s of Science in Applied Psychology 

from Clemson University.

DOUG DRAGOTTA is the Chief over the 

Firearms Technology and Innovation 

Branch at the Glynco Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center’s Firearms 

Division. Doug began his law 

enforcement career in 1995 as an 

officer with the Secret Service Uniformed 

Division, where he served in various 

assignments. In 2007 he began his career with the FLETC and 

has served as an Instructor, Senior Instructor, and Branch 

Chief, in multiple training divisions. Doug holds a Bachelor of 

Science degree in Criminal Justice from Troy University. 

ED SIZEMORE, M.A., M.S., CPP, Is a lead 

instructor in the FLETC’s Firearms 

Division at Glynco, Georgia, where he 

has served for 18 years. With graduate 

degrees in security management and 

counseling as well as postgraduate work 

in homeland security, he has served in 

both Firearms Division and as a senior 

instructor in the former FLETC Management Institute. A retired 

Coast Guard officer and a former special agent of the Coast 

Guard Investigative Service, Sizemore is a true believer in 

providing quality professional law enforcement training to all 

of FLETC’s students. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 27

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY PRESTON FARLEY AND TRACY GATWOOD

A convicted criminal, while serving time for his crimes, was suspected of continuing to run 

his criminal enterprise while in prison through the use of contraband cell phones. During 

the execution of a search warrant of his jail cell, the suspect, knowing his phone would 

be seized and potentially examined for incriminating evidence, broke the phone in half before 

officers could seize it. The phone was taken to a local cellular provider for assistance in recovering its 

contents, but company representatives stated they could not assist. A few years ago, this would have 

been the end of the story and the latest criminal misdeeds of this prisoner would be lost; however, 

this is no longer the case. A duo of related investigative tools has been developed and mastered by 

many law enforcement agencies over the past few years which allows them to potentially recover 

data from heavily damaged smart phones. 

JTAG AND 

CHIP-OFF

two words you must know

to solve modern crimes

Student using JCSTP-issued 

tools to review in-class 

soldering techniques.
28 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

The first tool is JTAG, which is an 

acronym for the Joint Test Action Group, 

an electronics industry association formed 

to develop a method of verifying designs 

and testing printed circuit boards after 

they are manufactured. This is done 

by embedding each circuit board with 

hardware and software, which allows 

them to be checked for errors prior to 

being assembled into their final form, like 

a smartphone or GPS device. Access to 

the software is accomplished via on-chip 

test access ports (TAPs). These TAPs are 

various sizes, and locations depend upon 

the manufacturer’s design. As a wonderful 

side effect, the JTAG system allows a 

trained investigator to solder wires to the 

TAPs, connect these wires to a harness, 

and the harness to a computer running 

a dedicated program that then “reads” 

all of the data from the storage chips 

on the circuit board. In plain terms, the 

investigator can obtain a physical image 

of the memory chips which can then be 

analyzed using traditional digital forensic 

techniques. This would include potential 

recovery of texts, emails, pictures, call 

records, and social media artifacts, both 

current and deleted.

Unfortunately, the physical destruction 

of a cell phone (as in the case above) renders 

JTAG moot as the system requires the 

circuit board to be intact and functional. 

This is where another new technology, 

Chip-off, comes into play. Chip-off is a 

term that literally means what is says, to 

remove a computer memory chip off of the 

circuit board. When JTAG is no longer 

an option, Chip-off becomes an option 

of last resort. Instead of using the circuit 

board of the device under investigation 

to power and obtain data from computer 

chips, the investigator removes the chip 

from the circuit board. 

Removal of the chip is accomplished 

using specialized hardware that applies 

very high heat to both the top and bottom 

of the chip simultaneously to loosen the 

solder and epoxy, which holds the chip 

in place. Once removed, the chip must 

generally be cleaned and then placed in 

a die or adapter connected to a computer 

Above photo: Example of student's first soldering attempt using JTAG. 

Right photo: How to identify relevant memory chips for chipoff analysis.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 29

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

running specialized software to obtain a 

RAW or physical image of the memory 

contained within the chip. This image 

is then analyzed as outlined above using 

traditional digital forensic techniques. 

This description of the chip-off process 

is very simplistic as the actual process of 

safely removing the chip requires a number 

of safety procedures and specialized 

training and equipment to successfully 

and safely accomplish removal. For 

instance, a typical smartphone may 

contain six or more chips. These chips 

are cryptically numbered and must be 

identified to ensure the correct memory 

chip is removed. Once identified, the 

correct die must be located so that reading 

of the chip may be accomplished. Once 

that task is completed, the actual removal 

of the chip must occur. This is the most 

delicate step as too little heat and too 

much leverage on the chip to attempt to 

remove it could literally break the chip 

in two. Conversely, too much heat can 

bake the chip rendering it unusable and 

unreadable. The line between these two 

extremes is very limited and expertise 

in this endeavor can only come from 

experience removing numerous chips in a 

trial-and-error methodology. Fortunately, 

FLETC now has such a program for 

all law enforcement officers to become 

proficient at this relatively new forensic 

technique. It’s called the JTAG Chip-Off 

for Smartphones Training Program.

Digital forensic investigators 

representing state, local, regional, 

tribal, military, and federal civilian law 

enforcement agencies graduated from the 

pilot JTAG Chip-Off training program 

in the Spring of 2016. The two-week 

course of instruction was expansive and 

intense with topics ranging from safety 

concerns due to the extreme temperatures 

involved in the chip-off process to special 

air-handling concerns due to heating the 

Top photo: Student reviewing soldering job. Bottom photo: Review of student soldering 

practice board using equipment issued in JCSTP.
30 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

TRACY GATWOOD is a senior instructor for the Cyber Division at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers (FLETC). He has been a full-time instructor since 2015 and became the program 

coordinator for the JTAG Chip-off for Smartphones Training Program (JCSTP) in 2015. This is the 

advanced mobile forensics class for all law enforcement agencies both federal and state offered 

by the FLETC. His law enforcement career includes 29 years in the Metropolitan Nashville Police 

Department. He spent several years in the Criminal Investigation Surveillance Unit, both as a 

detective and supervisor. During his service with the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department, 

he also oversaw the Cyber and Mobile Device investigations unit.

epoxy and solder on the computer boards to 

remove the chips to a basic understanding of 

Python coding to obtain passwords of interest 

from the RAW images obtained from the 

smartphones themselves. The course was the 

first one ever coordinated by new FLETC 

instructor Tracy Gatwood, who has vast 

experience in both traditional digital forensics 

and mobile device forensics, which he honed 

after successfully graduating from FLETC’s 

own Seized Computer Evidence Recovery 

Specialist Training Program in 2006. He was 

assisted by another FLETC new instructor, 

Teri Hamel, who recently left the field as a 

Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 

Homeland Security Investigations special 

agent.

 The outcome of the prisoner/criminal 

who destroyed his cell phone in hopes of 

destroying evidence was not a good one. 

With the aid of advanced investigative skills 

provided by FLETC, one of the recent 

graduates of the JTAG Chip-Off training 

program was able read all of the active files 

on the cellphone he thought he destroyed. 

The data recovered revealed there were many 

files that most people consider “deleted.” The 

effect of the course on the investigation was 

incredible. Not only was evidence of the 

primary suspect’s involvement with a murderfor-hire plot confirmed, but three additional 

previously unknown co-conspirators were 

also implicated. The case was blown wide 

open and was able to be moved from a local 

level of prosecution to the federal level. 

For more information on future JTAG 

Chip-Off for Smartphone Training Programs 

at FLETC, or other FLETC training 

programs, contact the author at preston.

farley@dhs.gov or visit https://www.fletc.

gov/training-catalog
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 31

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

BY LAUREN WARE

The New

Smoking Gun 

of Technology 

in Training

In the digital age, software now provides 

the smoking gun link between training 

and technology

The “smoking gun” analogy is often used to 

describe the indisputable physical evidence 

that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the 

guilt of the accused. The fact that it is deliberately 

referred to as the “smoking” gun and not just a “gun” 

illustrates a critical but often overlooked element 

of physical evidence: context. The value of physical 

evidence to any criminal investigation is to a large 

extent contingent upon its context. The fact that item 

of evidence “A” exists isn’t necessarily significant; 

instead, it is the fact that item of evidence “A” was 

recovered from a particular location, at a particular 

time, and in a particular context. In the case of the 

smoking gun, the gun was not necessarily valuable 

until it could be described as having been recently 

fired (hence the smoke). That additional detail is 

responsible for adding tremendous evidentiary value 

to an otherwise circumstantial object. 

For this reason, crime scene investigation is a long 

and laborious process. Crime scene investigators 

might spend eight to 10 hours at a crime scene, but 

this is not because the evidence is so difficult to find. 

Instead, the majority of that time is spent preserving 

that most valuable of physical evidence traits: 

context. Crime scene investigators meticulously 

document scenes through written notes, sketches, 
32 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

diagrams, photographs, video recordings, and recently 

even three-dimensional laser scanners. In essence, 

this documentation forever bonds the “smoke” to 

the “gun.” While the requirement to preserve the 

contextual elements of evidence at crime scenes 

will likely never change, the manner in which it is 

collected and recorded is absolutely evolving with 

new technologies. 

AN ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE COLLECTION MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM

Most federal investigative organizations transitioned 

to electronic investigative databases long ago, and to 

date, countless case file systems have been created, 

improved, and become linked to still other databases, 

making instantaneous information sharing and report 

generation possible. Up until recently, though, hardcopy crime scene documentation had to be manually 

input into these systems. Evidence tags and forms 

handwritten at the scene had to be transcribed into 

investigative databases sometimes in the middle of 

the night following hours of crime scene processing. 

Hand-drawn sketches and measurements had to 

be transferred into computer assisted diagramming 

software in order to produce a professional product 

worthy of presentation at trial. The process of 

transitioning crime scene information to an electronic 

database was not only time-consuming, but also 

created an opportunity for transcription errors. In the 

unforgiving field of forensic evidence, one misplaced 

digit can cost an item of evidence its admissibility 

in court. Additionally, missed steps are often not 

identified until this mountain of information is being 

transferred to the database; at that point, it is no 

longer an option to go back to the scene and take 

that last measurement, or capture that one overlooked 

photograph. 

In 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

developed a software application known as the 

Evidence Collection Management (ECM) System. 

This application was designed for use by crime scene 

investigators to document the investigative work done 

at FBI crime scenes by organizing into a workflow 

the products from all the common roles involved in 

the processing of the scene. For the first time ever, 

a crime scene diagram could be linked with digital 

photographs, electronic evidence tags, and the written 

documentation associated with each item of evidence. 

Not only was time and energy saved by documenting 

these features electronically the first time, but also 

the software allowed investigators to observe the 

totality of their evidence’s documentation in one, 

consolidated application. This made understanding 

and analysis of the crime scene much more readily 

accessible. 

Through their partnerships with the FBI, the 

Department of Defense (DoD) Biometrics Program 

Managers identified a common use for the software, 

and following some modifications to bring the software 

in line with DoD requirements, they brought on-line 

their own version of the evidence collection system, 

which the DoD refers to as ECMX. This software 

provides prompts for specific descriptions, drop-down 

menus for required information, and link capabilities 

between the scene sketch, photographs, and evidence 

descriptions. There is also an output Word document 

that serves as a crime scene investigative report 

including evidence custody documents, receipts for 

items seized, and photography-logs. This software has 

the capability to operate on a standalone computer 

or on a network. The DoD intends to place ECMX 

on a mobile platform that operates on networked 

computers. Eventually, users will be able to connect 

to an internet hotspot and communicate between 

ECMX applications through a secure DoD server. This 

will allow for better on-scene management and near 

real time oversight by the crime scene lead. Because 

the software allows multiple agents performing 

various roles at a crime scene to simultaneously input 

data into a single report, missed steps can be more 

easily identified, and important relationships within 

the crime scene can be detected at an earlier time by 

managers or analysts in an entirely different location. 

The implications of this software would be exciting to 

any crime scene investigator; for that reason, FLETC’s 

Military Criminal Investigative Organizations 

FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, A CRIME SCENE DIAGRAM COULD BE LINKED WITH 

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS, ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE TAGS, AND THE WRITTEN 

DOCUMENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ITEM OF EVIDENCE.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 33

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

(MCIO) partners were eager to implement this 

software in their training programs. Their first stop 

was FLETC’s Crime Scene Investigator Training 

Program. 

THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR 

TRAINING PROGRAM 

In January of 2014, the Forensics and Biometrics 

program managers from the Air Force Office 

of Special Investigations, the Army Criminal 

Investigation Command, and the Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service decided to overhaul the 

specialized training provided to select agents 

destined to serve as Forensic Science technicians 

and consultants for their agencies. Prior to this 

date, each of the three MCIOs sent their forensic 

agent selectees to nine different specialized training 

programs to obtain the advanced skills necessary to 

serve as forensic subject-matter-experts. This was an 

expensive and time-intensive process to certify their 

experts, taking sometimes two years to complete all 

the required training. Additionally, because each 

of the three agencies obtained their training from 

different entities, there was variation in their agents’ 

methods and techniques. The MCIOs concluded, 

then, that a standardized, consolidated, and joint 

forensic technical school would be both a practical 

and economic solution to produce the forensic 

science experts critical to the success of their criminal 

investigative mission. 

Over the course of 2014, the Biometrics program 

Screen shots of ECMX software organizing the many components 

of crime scene processing procedures taught in the Crime Scene 

Investigators Training Program.
34 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

managers visited not only FLETC, but also numerous 

training academies to compare facilities, existing 

curriculum, the credentials of the instructional cadre, 

and importantly, the institutions’ ability to respond 

swiftly and agilely to new training requests. The MCIO 

representatives unanimously selected FLETC’s 

Forensics and Special Investigative Skills Branch to 

build this unprecedented training program, and in 

September of 2015, FLETC piloted the first iteration 

of the Crime Scene Investigator Training Program. 

This seven-week advanced forensic training program 

has set the standard for how federal law enforcement 

employs forensics at crime scenes and has effectively 

equipped the MCIOs’ forensic science agents with the 

specialization and knowledge to consult on and lead 

the processing of the military’s most complex crime 

scenes. As such, these leaders in their field need to be 

among the first in their agencies to learn and master 

new technologies, like the ECMX software. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECMX

The great utility of the ECMX software is its ability 

to receive, organize, and relate information as it is 

immediately collected from a crime scene. It was 

therefore imperative that the students be able to 

undock their networked computers and take them 

into crime scene exercises at various training venues on 

FLETC. In anticipation of this training requirement, 

the forensics instructors acquired training network 

tablets for student use in the program, and executed 

several iterations of the training programs to ensure 

instructor proficiency with this learning tool. All the 

planning and advance troubleshooting paid off, as 

the ECMX software was successfully implemented 

in the Crime Scene Investigator Training Program 

in May of 2016. The instructional cadre of the 

training program embedded the software into their 

presentations, and used it as a framework to instruct 

students on the required crime scene documentation. 

Over the course of seven weeks, students process 12 

crime scenes and utilize the ECMX software to track 

and catalogue their efforts. At the conclusion of the 

program, students receive a subpoena notifying them 

they will testify to a particular item of evidence they 

identified, processed, and collected at one of these 12 

crime scenes. The ECMX software is used to generate 

a crime scene report that prosecuting and defense 

attorney role players use to question the students 

about their methods of collecting a particular item of 

evidence. Now, as students are learning the forensic 

techniques taught by FLETC, they simultaneously 

develop a proficiency documenting those techniques 

in the software they will encounter in the field. In this 

way, the cradle to grave application of this software 

envisioned for use in real world cases is successfully 

mirrored in its cradle to grave application throughout 

the training. 

TECHNOLOGY IMPROVING PARTNERSHIPS . . . AND 

PARTNERSHIPS IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY

Among the many benefits of sharing technology 

from the field with those administering training is 

the mutual strengthening of both the training and 

technology products. The training improves because 

the students are able to use tools that reflect those 

which are actually used in the field, making the 

training environment more realistic and consequently 

more relevant. The technology also improves because, 

unlike the real world where mistakes can cost law 

enforcement a successful prosecution, instructors 

and students can test the technology in a “safe” 

environment. In training, risks can be taken, limits 

can be pushed, and “what if ” scenarios are actually 

encouraged. FLETC has done precisely that with its 

implementation of ECMX; after just one iteration, 

instructors have provided invaluable feedback on what 

worked, what did not, and suggestions on how the 

technology can be changed to avoid issues in the field. 

It has also revolutionized advanced forensics training 

by putting the most cutting-edge technological 

developments in the hands of the FLETC student. 

Indeed, one could cite FLETC’s implementation of 

the DoD’s ECMX software as the “smoking gun” 

of a successful partnership between technology and 

training. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 35

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The Virtual 

Law Enforcement 

Classroom

BY DIANA FLEMING

AFOSI INSTRUCTOR

Twenty years ago, the term “Virtual 

Classroom” may very well have 

evoked images of a hypothetical 

alternate reality, or perhaps an exaggeration 

of the extent to which technology would 

envelop normal everyday lives. Today, 

however, virtual classrooms are at the very 

least a reality and most likely a necessity. 

Indeed, long established traditional colleges 

and universities are increasingly emphasizing 

in their advertisements the availability of 

online degree programs, blended learning 

environments, and distance education 

opportunities. This is due not only to the 

fact that technological advancements make 

distance learning possible, but also because 

the target student audience seeking higher 

education demand it; these students have 

grown up with these technologies and are 

used to absorbing information through 

these modalities, they are proficient with 

the technology, and they require it to 

accommodate their busy lifestyles. Of course, 

institutions of higher learning benefit from 

these endeavors as well. The virtual classroom 

offers the benefits of scheduling flexibility, 

an inexpensive physical infrastructure and 

training platform, and a much wider reach 

than the traditional classroom. It may come 

as no surprise that these features make it 

attractive not only for higher education 

institutions, but for law enforcement 

training and education as well.

Opponents of law enforcement 

training evolving into the virtual learning 

environment would argue that the practical 

Instructional Preparation for the Virtual Classroom: U.S. 

AFOSI and On-line Instructor Diana Fleming, recording 

audio for lesson presentations for students enrolled in 

AFOSI’s Basic Extension Program.
36 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

aspects of policing simply cannot be taught 

effectively in an online environment. There 

is indeed merit to this argument, as not all 

components of law enforcement training are 

suitable for distance learning. Physical techniques 

and tactics, firearms, and operational skills, all 

require some in-person instruction, performance, 

and evaluation. There are, however, other facets of 

law enforcement education that are appropriate 

for the distance learning environment. In order 

for this environment to be used appropriately, a 

normal Instructional Systems Design process 

must be followed, during which the learning 

objective is identified, the required level of 

proficiency determined, and then, only then, the 

most appropriate method of delivery selected. In 

fact, accomplished properly, the virtual classroom 

becomes just one more option for consideration 

next to lecture halls, mat rooms, and firearms 

ranges. 

In 2011, the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (OSI) recognized a gap in training 

between the agency’s basic and advanced skill 

training and requirements, which was not 

consistently addressed for every agent in on-thejob training. Following graduation, agents spend 

a year on “probation” during which they apply the 

skills they learn at FLETC in the context of a 

real world operational environment. This on-thejob-training varied according to the agent’s duty 

station, the nuances of their particular mission 

and jurisdiction, and the unpredictability of both 

frequency and type of case work. The U.S. Air Force 

Special Investigations Academy staff realized that 

in order to deliver a more standardized training 

program to a student audience that was literally 

scattered across the globe, they would have to 

utilize a virtual classroom. Thus was born the 

Basic Extension Program (BEP), a first of its 

kind, online training program offered to OSI 

students beginning in 2012. As the staff who 

stood up the program can attest, the virtual law 

enforcement classroom did offer many benefits, 

but also presented some unique challenges. 

INITIAL CHALLENGES

Like any good training program, the inception 

of the BEP followed the ADDIE-R process. 

The ADDIE model is the generic process 

traditionally used by instructional designers 

and training developers. The five phases—

Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, 

Evaluation and Revision — represent a dynamic, 

flexible guideline for building effective training. 

The OSI Academy staff analyzed the training 

gap, designed a program solution, developed 

curriculum, implemented the program, evaluated 

student performance, and revised the training 

based on feedback. The developmental stage 

was the most challenging, as curriculum had to 

be developed for four distinct blocks, and this 

curriculum needed to be engaging in a virtual 

environment, and include student activities, 

labs, and final examinations. Initially, the BEP 

required students to complete each distinct block 

in a certain sequence, with specific start and end 

dates, regardless of their duty station. First was 

recruitment of sources, then interviewing, and so 

on. Assignments involved a variety of activities, 

to include readings, meetings with entities, and 

review of case studies. All assignments and final 

examinations followed an essay format. One BEP 

instructor, Special Agent Hillary Zuege shared 

that one of the challenges was the “inherent stress 

upon the instructors to provide a great level of 

detail to an open-ended question. The desire to 

encompass all possible options made the feedback 

very lengthy.” 

THE DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE WAS THE MOST CHALLENGING, 

AS CURRICULUM HAD TO BE DEVELOPED FOR FOUR DISTINCT 

BLOCKS, AND THIS CURRICULUM NEEDED TO BE ENGAGING IN 

A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT, AND INCLUDE STUDENT ACTIVITIES, 

LABS, AND FINAL EXAMINATIONS. 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 37

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

In order to gauge the efficacy of the BEP, OSI 

Academy staff collected student and supervisor 

surveys from customers using this training in 

the field. This feedback proved invaluable, as 

it illustrated a strong need for an even more 

flexible learning environment. Responsive to 

this feedback, the staff revised the program 

to allow probationary agents to enroll in and 

accomplish any of the four blocks, and in any 

order they chose. They also were allowed to 

enroll in multiple courses at the same time. This 

enhanced not only the flexibility, but the buy-in 

from the customer as these changes empowered 

the students to schedule more optimal times to 

take a class and still balance work requirements 

and life obligations. As Zuege shared, before 

these changes were made “students were unable 

to engage as much as they wanted in the course 

material due to the effort required for the essaystyle questions. Students were already trying to 

balance between work and home obligations, 

and BEP took up any time they had left. Several 

students stated the material was very interesting, 

but they weren’t able to read all of it or apply 

critical thinking because of time constraints.” 

OSI Academy staff expects that their revisions 

to the program will help alleviate this challenge 

and enable their students to engage more fully 

in the online learning process.

Results

Level II feedback on the BEP has produced 

some surprising and unexpected results. The 

staff at the academy suspected that their use 

of the virtual classroom would achieve greater 

reach and save their command money in the 

long run, but they never expected students 

to enjoy the training to the extent they did. 

Student feedback overwhelmingly valued 

the in-depth, personalized interaction with 

instructors on their assignments. The reason 

this may be surprising is that many perceive 

the online learning environment as impersonal, 

and cite the lack of face to face exchange as a 

shortcoming of that medium. However, one of 

the by-products of using an essay-style design 

of labs and examinations is the requirement 

to interact and communicate on an individual 

level. With more individual effort on the part of 

the student, the instructor is compelled to give each 

individual student personal attention and feedback 

on their submitted product, something that cannot 

always happen in a classroom environment. While 

several challenges remain concerning the logistics 

of supporting an online learning platform and 

continuing to design engaging curriculum, the 

OSI Academy has in a very short amount of time 

created subject matter experts in this arena. In fact, 

the BEP is so successful, it is the first and only 

online program pursuing Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Accreditation at this time. 

Virtual classrooms have indeed become a part 

the norm when it comes to education. The virtual 

classroom is not only here to stay, but is an expectation 

in the current age of global connectedness. Law 

enforcement should not shy away, but should 

embrace the virtual classroom for the benefits it 

can offer and capitalize on a platform that certainly 

allows for flexibility, lower training costs, and much 

wider audience reach. 

SPECIAL AGENT DIANA M. FLEMING is 

assigned as an instructor in the Advanced 

Training Division, United States Air Force 

Special Investigations Academy (USAFSIA), 

Federal Law Enforcement Center (FLETC), 

Glynco, Georgia. In this position, she is 

responsible for instructing all forensics 

topics in four AFOSI basic and advanced 

in-residence courses to over four hundred and twenty 

students.

Fleming is the director for the online criminal investigation 

skills block of the basic extension program, which reaches 

two hundred probationary agents annually. She is responsible 

for designing curriculum and training agents to use all newly 

procured forensics equipment for Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI). Fleming interfaces with the AFOSI 

liaison at the United States Army Criminal Investigations 

Laboratory in Forest Park, Georgia, on training and research 

needs. She also oversees USAFSIA’s execution of strategic 

engagements with international partner agencies. 

Fleming informally mentors and encourages families, 

whose children are medically fragile, similar to her daughter, 

on the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition proving practical 

guidance and hope.
38 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

BY ALICIA GREGORY

SENIOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS SPECIALIST

PHOTOS BY HEATHER SANTOS

Most instructors strive to get into the mind of the 

student. Knowing what a student sees or feels 

during a practical exercise can allow for more 

specific and precise training and improved results, which is 

beneficial for both the instructor and the student. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers is 

testing a new technology that can enhance the way 

firearms instructors teach. Rather than relying solely on 

direct observation of the shooter to diagnose a student’s 

challenges in firing a weapon, instructors will have access 

to real-time sensor and video data that will allow them 

to more quickly pinpoint the issues and save valuable 

instructor and student time. 

New Technology 

and its Potential to Enhance Training

Top photo: A technician points out statistical information based 

on the MAT-MP testing. Above: A FLETC firearms instructor fires 

a weapon equipped with monitoring technology.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 39

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems 

Division (NAWCTSD) developed a weapon-mounted 

sensor package that is capable of recording and 

analyzing shooter data, such as trigger pressure, trigger 

pull, cant angle, buttstock pressure, and steadiness. The 

instructor can also observe the student/shooter’s point 

of view through a high-definition camera attached to 

the sighting system. The data and video are captured 

and transmitted in real time to the instructor’s tablet 

or laptop computer and can be viewed live or played 

back later for evaluating marksmanship fundamentals.

Originally sponsored by the Navy’s Office of Naval 

Research, the Modular Advanced Technologies 

Marksmanship Proficiency (MAT-MP) prototype 

is currently designed for use with rifles such as the 

M16/M4 platform. According to Tyson Griffin, 

Head of the NAWCTD’s Advanced Modeling and 

Simulation Branch, the technology could be adapted 

for law enforcement training. 

“The ultimate vision for law enforcement is an 

application for handguns,” explained Griffin. “This 

will take additional engineering work in order to 

miniaturize components and instrumentation for a 

sidearm. That is the long-range vision . . . it would 

not only benefit FLETC, but also state and local law 

enforcement training academies.”

Griffin’s teams have partnered with FLETC on 

transferring and adapting Department of Defense 

technologies to law enforcement while working on 

FLETC’s After-Action Review system; the Advanced 

Use of Force Training System at sites in Glynco, 

Georgia, and Artesia, New Mexico; courtroom 

upgrades in Glynco, Artesia, and Charleston, South 

Carolina; and the Scenario Planning and Effects 

Control System at Glynco. 

The potential application of MAT-MP for law 

enforcement was identified by Mr. Don Lapham, 

Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 

Defense and America’s Security Affairs, whose job it 

is to find Department of Defense technologies with 

the potential to benefit first responders. 

 “The MAT-MP Project was first demonstrated 

to FLETC at the Interservice/Industry Training, 

Simulation and Education Conference in December 

2014,” said Dee Marshall, former program manager 

for FLETC’s cooperative research and development The results from the MAT-MP firearms 

test are show to a FLETC instructor.

Rocco Portoghese, senior reseach and development engineer, NAWCTSD 

Orlando Rapid Design and Fabrication Lab, explains how the MAT-MP 

prototype works to FLETC staff.

Portoghese and FLETC FAD instructors identify and discuss 

improvement modifications for the MAT-MP. Photo by Doug 

Dragotta, FLETC.
40 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

agreement program. Marshall worked closely 

with the NAWCTD engineers on a variety of 

projects during her tenure with the FLETC. 

According to Marshall, several representatives 

from FLETC, including FLETC Firearms 

Division Chief Scott Donovan, attended the 

conference where they were able to see the 

demonstrations and had an opportunity to talk 

directly with the engineers and Lapham on 

site. “MAT-MP was immediately endorsed as 

a potential technology that could significantly 

assist firearms instructors. A subsequent visit 

to Orlando involving firearms staff members 

confirmed our interest and the potential value of 

this technology.” 

FLETC Firearms Branch Chief and former 

FLETC representative at Team Orlando, Doug 

Dragotta, facilitated the relationship between the 

FLETC instructors and NAWCTD engineers 

to determine if this technology could work in 

practice.

The first test and evaluation was conducted in 

May 2015 using live fire in one of the FLETC 

ranges in Glynco, Georgia. “The overall objective 

for the initial testing was to evaluate whether 

this technology would be applicable and effective 

for use in our basic and advanced rifle training 

programs,” explained Dragotta. The team also 

set out to define specific requirements for any 

customization needed to the current prototype.

Several instructors participated in the process, 

providing subject matter expertise and feedback 

to the engineers and ultimately determining 

the sensor package could be used to assist with 

diagnosing student marksmanship deficiencies 

when using a rifle. The team of instructors would 

also like to see this technology adapted to a 

pistol where marksmanship deficiencies are more 

prevalent. 

According to Rocco Portoghese, NAWCTSD’s 

MAT-MP lead engineer, “The interest level and 

engagement of instructors was outstanding. 

They weren’t just observing, they were asking 

questions to figure out how to make the best use 

of the technology. This is invaluable to the creation 

of new technologies.” “In terms of the power of 

the government conducting this development, 

while for-profit companies have to ask themselves 

‘what can I sell?’ here NAWCTSD and FLETC 

can specifically concentrate on what we can do for 

instructors and students,” Griffin has noted. And it’s 

not just NAWCTD giving technology to FLETC – 

each organization leverages each other’s knowledge, 

skills, and abilities; NAWCTSD takes successes with 

FLETC and passes them onto the Fleet.

Portoghese recalled the same kind of engagement 

with previous projects with FLETC. “We’ve always 

had a high level of cooperation with the FLETC 

training community. The instructors and the Partner 

Organizations recognize that if they put the time in 

evaluating and helping to define technologies, it will 

give FLETC a better capability to train.”

“The interactive relationship with FLETC 

instructors has made us better,” added Griffin. 

He went on to discuss the importance of the 

technologists working with the instructional design 

specialists, research psychologists, and instructors 

to really explore how technology can help training. 

“From a partnership perspective, this will lead to a 

better product.” 

With promising results from initial testing, the 

team is looking forward to continuing with the 

development of the MAT-MP and integrating the 

technology into firearms training.

ALICIA GREGORY is a senior public affairs 

specialist in the FLETC Protocol and 

Communications Office. She arrived at 

FLETC in 2005, after serving as the Public 

Affairs Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in Charleston, South Carolina. 

Gregory has more than 25 years working 

in the public affairs field and has an 

extensive background in internal communications, community 

relations, and media relations. She is a graduate of the 

Defense Information School in Fort Meade, Maryland. 

Gregory earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from 

South University.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 41

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Enrico Fermi at the 

original blackboard.

Drawing on the Blackboard:

Reimagining a Technology

BY MARY ANNE LESIAK
42 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Organizations bring on new technologies 

to advance strategies or solve problems 

that are generally well defined and 

articulated as part of the adoption process. In 

these lean economic times, neither public nor 

private organizations expend scarce resources 

without a clear understanding of exactly what they 

are getting and the benefits to the organization. 

During the adoption process, teams craft 

functional and technical requirement documents 

that spell out exactly what the technology needs 

to do, how it will operate, and what other systems 

it will communicate with. Products that provide 

the best match to these requirements within the 

allowable budget are selected and away we go – 

off to implementation!

Occasionally, entrepreneurial problem solvers 

see new technologies adopted and figure out 

how to use them in unexpected and enterprising 

ways. One such example is the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Centers’ Investigative 

Skills Branch Chief Bill Newbauer, who 

recognized that technology supporting FLETC’s 

Online Campus could update and improve 

FLETC basic training program delivery.

Newbauer leads FLETC’s Continuous Case 

Investigation training program – or CCI – which 

provides newly hired criminal investigators with 

an introduction to the criminal investigative 

process and the skills necessary to prepare and 

present a case to an Assistant United States 

Attorney as part of the Criminal Investigator 

Training Program. Through the 12-week CCI, 

students learn how to initiate criminal cases, 

the methods of conducting investigations, 

procedures for maintaining case files, and 

the finalization and judicial processing of 

cases. While CCI includes direct classroom 

instruction, the bulk of the learning takes place 

as the students work in teams running their own 

ongoing scenario-based cases. 

Mimicking a real case, the ongoing training 

case requires finding, developing, organizing, and 

maintaining various pieces of documentation, 

information and evidence. These could include 

maps, forensic reports, photographs, interview 

memoranda, phone bills, credit card receipts, or 

numerous other types of documents depending 

on the case. As student teams develop their cases, 

they maintain their case files in traditional file 

folders. At the conclusion of the investigation, 

students have a large binder full of documentary 

evidence that must be re-created into a second 

binder and turned over to the defense attorney 

Senior Instructor Craig Cupp demonstrates the latest techniques in trace evidence location, recovery, and analysis.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 43

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Senior Instructor Scott Wright debriefs students 

following the execution of a search warrant. 

for discovery during the mock trial. 

Newbauer identified two major inefficiencies 

with the status quo. The daily production of paper 

documents to support scenarios – generally on 

a single, overworked, shared copier – required 

hours of instructor preparation time. “I couldn’t 

bear watching them stand over the machine and 

spend hours making copies,” said Newbauer. “It 

was just a terrible waste of time.” 

Additionally, many partner organizations for 

whom the students would eventually work cases 

had digitized their case management systems, 

making the paper system obsolete “We want to 

give our students the best training available. We 

were giving them the very best knowledge and 

skills, but in this one instance, our tool was out 

of date,” stated Newbauer.

In support of FLETC's “paperless initiative,” 

Newbauer began a search for a digital solution to 

replace the multiple volumes of paper produced 

during the ongoing criminal investigation. 

Eventually, Newbauer teamed up with FLETC’s 

Instructor and Online Training Division. 

FLETC’s Online Campus Team selected 

Blackboard® as its learning management system 

for its distance training and learning delivery 

capability. The primary function of the learning 

management system is to manage all facets of the 

online training process, including registration, 

program administration and delivery, instructor 

communication, trainee evaluation, and transcript 

management for an audience that may never step 

foot on a traditional FLETC training campus. 

After a little background research into 

Blackboard and a few discussions with Instructor 

and Online Training Division Deputy Chief Joe 

Augeri, Newbauer believed that Blackboard 

could serve as a permanent online repository 

for all the materials and artifacts necessary 

for the CCI training program and the case 

management files for the ongoing cases. In 

addition to eliminating the frustrations, cost, 

and environmental impact of producing and 

managing paper, Blackboard would also give 

instructors and students collaboration and 

communication tools that could enhance 

learning and feedback around the investigative 

process. By integrating Blackboard, CCI would 

become FLETC’s first hybrid learning program, 

enhancing traditional classroom instruction with 

newer online instruction, activities and resources. 

Many obstacles were identified. Students 

and instructors would need tablets and Wi-Fi 

to access the system around the clock. Would 

FLETC have the data infrastructure to support 

this program? How do we grant internal 

students access to an online system built for 

external students? How would students get IT 

support from a system that closes its help desk 

at 5:00 p.m.? Contributors across the FLETC 

enterprise, with the support of Director Patrick 

and the FLETC Executive Team, continue to 

collaborate to solve these and a myriad of other 

challenges. 

Augeri and his team managed the Blackboard 

CCI implementation. “We’ve been using 

Blackboard to work with the online students for a 

while now,” said Augeri. “It is exciting to leverage 

the learning management system and wireless 

tools/technology to deliver realistic training that 

is indexed to the needs and requirements of the 

field.” 

Preparing traditional classroom instructors to 

maximize the impact of training using this new 

multi-modality platform is of critical importance. 
44 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

“People sometimes think training is training. 

Training and education online is different and 

requires additional skillsets. Students are generally 

familiar with this sort of technology before they get 

here. We need to make sure the instructors have 

equal or better familiarity,” added Instructor and 

Online Training Division Senior Instructor Bobby 

McGettrick. In response to this challenge, the 

Instructor and Online Training Division created a 

series of web-based training modules constructed 

for someone completely unfamiliar with Blackboard. 

They cover everything from basic uploading lessons, 

to computations, to receiving survey results. 

Newbauer realizes the project is moving forward; 

however, he initially underestimated its complexity. 

“It was easy to get started because I could see the 

vision. I could see how much better it could be for 

students and instructors, and I knew Blackboard 

could do it. What I didn’t see was all the other 

progress – big and small – that have to occur in 

order to fully realize that vision. I’m so grateful 

for the expertise and teamwork from Joe Augeri, 

Bobby McGettrick, Pam Potaczek and Scott 

Wright, and our team of dedicated Continuous 

Case Investigation Coordinators. They are really 

working to make our vision a reality.” 

The use of Blackboard to support the CCI 

program goes beyond the intention of the system’s 

original adopters, thereby extending its use in a way 

that better serves the entire enterprise, creating 

additional beneficiaries and leveraging its initial 

expenditure. When considering technology to solve 

an existing problem, it may make sense to reinvent 

something that exists within the organization rather 

than look outside. 

Senior Instructor Greg King educates law enforcement students in the use of internet tools to optimize their investigations.

MARY ANNE LESIAK is a program analyst in the Regional and International 

Training Directorate. Prior to joining FLETC in 2014, Mary Anne served in 

several roles at Apple Tree Institute for Education Innovation, including Chief 

of Staff, Chief of Strategic Initiatives and Director of Education. At Apple Tree 

Institute, a non-profit located in Washington, DC, she led the development, 

implementation and dissemination of research-based curricula, teacher 

training and evaluation tools designed to improve teaching and learning in 

under-resourced schools. Mary Anne has also served as an Educational Website Coordinator at 

the US Mint, a Program Analyst at the US Department of Education, and a teacher in the District 

of Columbia Public Schools. She earned a Master in Teaching from American University and a 

Bachelor of Arts in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland, College Park..
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 45

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

We are fortunate to live in such an 

exciting time in the world! The 

Digital Revolution has led to 

unprecedented access to information and 

an incredible number of innovations. Smart 

phones, body worn cameras, unmanned 

aerial systems and all the other incredible 

technology highlighted in this edition of 

the FLETC Journal are great examples of 

how these new technologies are leading to 

amazing innovations in law enforcement 

and education. While all this technology 

can provide new and exciting solutions to a 

wide range of training challenges, the human 

element remains the most critical piece of any 

potential new innovation. Having an actual 

person in the loop to determine how and 

why this technology will be used is a critical 

step. Connecting the right people to the 

right technology at the right time is a major 

factor in determining if a new technological 

advancement will succeed or fail.

The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Centers and the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) Science and 

Technology Directorate (S&T) recently 

took a significant step forward to ensure 

the right people are part of the training 

innovation process by embedding an S&T 

employee at the FLETC-Glynco campus 

as part of the PIONEER program. The 

PIONEER – Partnering for Innovation and 

Operational Needs through Embedding 

for Effective Relationships – program 

was started in 2015 with the objective of 

bettering the understanding of the research 

and development process and gaining 

insights into components’ operational needs, 

capability gaps, and working environment. 

PIONEER embeds S&T members 

into the DHS components’ environments, 

enabling access to current-state awareness 

of the components’ most critical needs, and 

concurrently embeds DHS component 

personnel into the S&T research, 

development, test, and evaluation processes. 

Embedding component personnel into S&T 

will ensure a better understanding of what it 

takes to bring a potential technology from 

an idea to an operational product, as well as 

the importance of having a clear notion of 

operational requirements before S&T starts 

developing a technology.

Jim Grove was recently selected to be 

the first PIONEER liaison assigned to the 

FLETC and is embedded with the Training 

DHS Science & Technology Directorate partner with 

the FLETC Training Innovation Division

BY SHAWN BELTRAMO

Working Together to PIONEER the 

Future of Law Enforcement Training
46 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Innovation Division at FLETC-Glynco. The Training 

Innovation Division and S&T have a longstanding 

relationship of collaboration. Having an S&T liaison 

embedded at FLETC creates valuable opportunities to 

strengthen this relationship and leverage the capabilities 

of each organization. “S&T’s expanded relationship with 

FLETC instructors and subject matter experts provides 

a great opportunity for our program managers to further 

develop operational requirements, test new technologies 

and applications, and make final adjustments before 

deploying them in an operational environment,” said 

Grove.

S&T has access to a wide range of technical experts and 

resources to design and develop new innovations, while 

FLETC has many of the top experts in the law enforcement 

training field. By linking these subject matter experts 

with the technical experts, we greatly increase the overall 

quality of the innovations for both agencies. Additionally, 

by having access to the state-of-the-art training venues at 

FLETC, the program managers at S&T are able to test 

the newest technologies in realistic scenarios and compile 

critical feedback on their utility and performance. 

“I am excited about this detail because it provides 

a window into how technology development impacts 

both training and doctrine and where new or enhanced 

technologies may increase student learning and skill 

proficiency,” Grove said. “It also provides an opportunity 

to look beyond the DHS components to identify crosscutting requirements, collaborate on emerging S&T 

projects, and work with the private sector to facilitate 

the development of innovative tools, technologies, and 

products.”

Through the partnership, FLETC instructors and 

students are able to get a first look at some of the newest 

technology coming into the field and have an opportunity 

to provide their input toward the design and future 

implementation of these technologies. These combined 

efforts are helping to bring the latest technologies to the 

future of law enforcement training.

SHAWN BELTRAMO serves as the division 

chief for the Training Innovation Division 

for the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Centers. He provides guidance and 

oversight to division’s three branches; the 

Applied Research branch, the Outreach & 

Exploration branch and the Evaluation and 

Analysis branch. The Training Innovation 

Division’s primary mission is to research, identify, channel, 

and validate new instructional methods and technologies into 

the curricula. Prior to this assignment, Beltramo served as a 

supervisory special agent with the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations where he performed and oversaw a wide range 

of felony criminal investigations and counter-intelligence 

matters. He served over 22 years with the United States Air 

Force and performed duties in numerous stateside locations 

and eight foreign countries. These duties included working as 

a patrolman, dispatcher, investigator, recruiter and special 

agent. Beltramo received his bachelor’s degree in Criminal 

Justice Administration from Columbia Southern University 

and his master’s degree in Criminal Justice from American 

Military University.

Jim Grove, DHS Science and 

Technology Directorate liaison, 

demonstrates a virtual reality 

headset to a staff member in 

the FLETC Future Concepts 

Rooms.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 47

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Vehicle Embedded Forensics

BY PRESTON FARLEY

The call came in at 11:30 p.m.* A silent alarm 

had been triggered at a local electronics 

store. Patrol officers were dispatched 

immediately to the scene and arrived approximately 

12 minutes later. The store had a broken glass door 

but no one was visible in the building. Smashed 

store displays littered the scene and high-end 

electronics were missing from many of them. It 

was the same “Modus Operandi” as other recent 

breaking and entering crimes recently investigated 

in the area. This time, however, a break in the case 

originated from a bystander, who provided police 

with a vehicle description and license plate number. 

Through diligent police work, a search warrant 

was issued for the vehicle owner’s residence and 

vehicle. Unfortunately, no physical evidence of 

the crime was discovered at the home or in the 

vehicle; however, digital evidence recovered from 

the vehicle itself told a very interesting story.

Vehicle embedded forensics is a relatively new 

discipline driven by the automobile industry’s 

introduction of electronic circuitry into our nation’s 

vehicles. Much of the early investigative work in 

this field came from traffic accident analysts who 

learned you could obtain the state of various vehicle 

systems at the time of impact such as accelerator 

position, brake pedal position, speed, steering 

wheel direction, etc., from the “little black box” in 

most vehicles. While those items are still available 

in today’s vehicle computers, there is a vastly larger 

Laptop is connected to vehicle infotainment system to obtain digital evidence.
48 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

dataset to pull from to generate leads or 

provide hard evidence in an investigation not 

necessarily related to an automobile accident. 

In 1996 the OBD-II (Onboard Diagnostics 

2) specification was made mandatory for all 

cars manufactured to be sold in the United 

States. This system was originally designed 

to provide vehicle repair technicians with selfdiagnostic and reporting of problems with 

the vehicle. This system has been improved 

over its life and many capabilities have been 

added over the years that are not specifically 

related to vehicle maintenance. Some of the 

more well-known capabilities include Global 

Positioning Systems (GPS), Entertainment 

Systems, and Telecommunications via syncing 

with user smartphones. Some less wellknown capabilities include monitoring vehicle 

idle times, speed, engine Revolutions Per 

Minute, fuel efficiency, and fuel levels. Some 

vehicle manufacturers also include things such 

as door lock status, when each door is opened 

and closed, and even mobile Wi-Fi hotspots, 

which may contain records of smartphones or 

computers that have been attached to it in the 

past, including the time/date and geographic 

location. 

In the past five years, there has been a lot 

of research done on the embedded vehicle 

computer systems with an eye toward how law 

enforcement could leverage this information 

for criminal investigative purposes. Only 

a handful of companies currently provide 

support for this function; however, when 

this information is used, it can make a case. 

A major problem is that there is no industry 

standard for what information may be 

available via the embedded computer systems, 

nor is there a standard format for presentation 

of the information to law enforcement. This 

is in stark contrast to the Communications 

Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which 

mandates that telecommunication companies 

must provide law enforcement with a 

standardized way to conduct telephone and 

internet intercepts. A second major hurdle 

is that simply accessing the information 

requires, in many cases, disassembling 

the vehicle to gain physical access to the 

electronic components. This necessitates that 

the investigators have prior training in the 

safe removal of vehicle components; know 

where the vehicle computer components are 

located, as each manufacturer places them 

in different places throughout the vehicle; 

and have the correct physical adapters and 

software to obtain and interpret the requisite 

information from each of these proprietary 

vehicle computer systems.

In addition to the artifacts already listed, 

there are many more potential evidentiary 

items that may be available to law enforcement. 

For instance, with some vehicles the owner 

can download their contacts into the vehicle’s 

computer system. When calls are made or 

received, the vehicle will archive these call 

records. When texts are received, the vehicle 

will display the sender and the text itself, which 

is also retained in the vehicle’s computer. GPS 

Photo of an actual "little black box".
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 49

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

positions can be retained for very long periods 

of time indicating where and when a vehicle 

was at a specific geographic area. This list of 

artifacts is sure to grow as our smart phones 

become more capable, and these capabilities 

will spill over in the vehicle arena.

 Armed with a forensic analysis report of 

the suspect’s vehicle, investigators sat down 

with the suspect and began questioning his 

actions on the night of the aforementioned 

burglary. The suspect admitted to driving 

in the area and stopping “to think” when the 

witness reported his vehicle, but admitted 

nothing further. Investigators then revealed 

that they had obtained a detailed report from 

his vehicle’s computer system. This report 

contained information that on the evening 

of the burglary, his vehicle stopped at the 

reported location and began idling at 11:28 

p.m. Approximately 15 seconds later the 

front and rear passenger doors as well as the 

driver’s side passenger door opened and closed 

within two seconds of each other. At 11:33 

p.m., the trunk opened and the same three 

doors opened and closed, and immediately 

following the vehicle departed the scene. 

During that time, four texts were sent and 

received by another individual whose cell 

phone records indicated that he was in the 

exact same geographic area. Presented with 

this information, the suspect admitted his 

responsibility in the criminal act and revealed 

the names of the three accomplices, who then 

revealed the location of the remainder of the 

stolen goods that ended this quartet’s criminal 

activity spree. 

 Currently, obtaining vehicle-based digital 

forensic training is still primarily in the 

purview of the civilian sector. As awareness of 

the capabilities of this new line of investigative 

activity develop, I would expect to see a request 

for law enforcement-centric agencies to take 

a larger role in this type of investigation; 

particularly when self-driving cars become the 

norm. Of course if you conduct an internet 

search today for “hack a moving car,” you’ll 

find plenty of examples of the “next thing” 

in vehicle forensics. If someone hacks the 

vehicle’s guidance computer and causes a death 

or serious bodily injury today, who would you 

call to conduct that forensic examination? 

*This report is based upon a composite of multiple 

reported crimes and is not necessarily intended to 

depict any specific persons or events.

Photo of an aftermarket car data recorder.

The inside view of the "black box".
50 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

Body Cameras in E

BY TIM MILLER

S

o far the debates about body cameras in 

cases of alleged excessive force have been 

about whether they get to the truth about 

what really happened. One argument is that the 

recording can refresh an officer’s memory. Another 

is that the officer will simply shape his or her 

testimony around the recording. Enter the Fourth 

Amendment’s reasonable officer standard. It 

considers the totality of the facts and circumstances 

from the perspective of a reasonable officer (which is 

obviously the reviewing court, reviewing everything 

through a hypothetical eye). But since the focus 

is on what a reasonable officer could believe, what 

really happened is not determinative. Here is how 

this came up: 

Dispatch told me there was an officer down. 

When I arrived on scene a crowd of people ran by 

pointing wildly to where they had been. I walked 

on, looking for the injured officer and saw someone 

in a blue uniform lying on the ground. The officer 

appeared to be unconscious or worse. A man with a 

pistol in his hand was standing over the officer. He 

shouted and waived the gun around. I yelled, “Drop 

the gun!” but he continued to shout and point the 

gun - - first at the officer on the ground and then at 

me. I shot him. 

That was only a scenario on a use of force simulator; 

but the instructor’s feedback raised questions about 

how a court would consider the events, had they 

been real. 

• INSTRUCTOR: What did you hear when the

 crowd ran by?

• MILLER: Nothing, really. 

• INSTRUCTOR: You didn’t hear the woman yell, 

 “He’s got a gun?”

• MILLER: No; I certainly didn’t hear that. 

• INSTRUCTOR: Ok; let’s review. (Like a body

camera, the instructor re-played the crowd 

running past me. Sure enough, a woman in the 

crowd shouted, “He’s got a gun!”)

• MILLER: I still don’t remember; but no matter. 

I saw a gun and I shot to stop the threat posed by 

the man holding it. (I quoted the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. An officer is 

not required to wait for an armed and dangerous 

felon to draw a bead on him, especially after 

orders to drop the gun have gone unheeded. )

• INSTRUCTOR: That wasn’t a gun. (And sure

 enough, the re-play showed the man holding a 

 hammer.) 

• MILLER: Oh... 

The Police Executive Research Forum reported 

that reviewing body camera footage may help get 

to the truth of what really happened. The review 

may jog the officer’s memory. (But not in my case. I 

reviewed the tape and I still cannot recall a warning 

about a gun. And I still picture the man holding 
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 51

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Excessive Force Cases

a pistol instead of a hammer.) Other executives 

believe that the truth – and the officer’s credibility 

– are better served if an officer is not permitted 

to review footage of an incident prior to making 

a statement. One said, “In terms of the officer’s 

statement, what matters is the officer’s perspective 

at the time of the event, not what is in the video.” 

(Personally, I would love to be judged from my 

own perspective, but the plaintiff ’s attorney might 

object.) 

Then comes the Supreme Court’s analysis in 

Graham v. Connor, the seminal case for judging 

police officers accused of using excessive force to 

seize someone under the Fourth Amendment. 

The Court’s instructions were to consider “... the 

totality of the facts and circumstances ...” (not 

what I can remember) and to consider everything 

“from the perspective of a reasonable officer on 

the scene ...” (obviously not my own). Whether 

I can recall the statement about a gun should be 

no more determinative than ... well, my personal 

motive for shooting the man. If motive was 

determinative, the fate of two officers – using the 

same force, and under the same circumstances 

– would depend on who had the better motive. 

If memory was determinative, their fate would 

depend on who had the better memory. The 

Graham analysis does not look into the subjective 

hearts and minds of the officers. It is an objective 

test that looks at everything through the lens of a 

reasonable officer. 

The saying goes that hindsight is always 20/20, 

but after-the-fact assessments like “You should 

have ...” or “I would have ...” are forbidden. 

(Incidentally, they are also generally made after 

getting to the truth about what really happened.) 

There are no perfect answers under an objective 

test and looking for one goes against the grain 

of the Graham analysis. The camera stopped, 

so to speak, after I pulled the trigger. Now the 

reasonable officer looks backwards. 

Hindsight is a rule of relevance, and while the 

Court does not give specific instructions about 

what is relevant and what is hindsight, in an 

analysis where the operative word has always been 

reasonableness, a fact should be relevant if it was 

reasonably known at the time. Stated differently: 

Looking backwards, could a reasonable officer in 

the shoes of the real one have seen or heard that 

fact, or at least believed it to be true? If a fact 

was reasonably known (or reasonably believed 

to be true based on other facts) it should be 

considered. Obviously, if the woman came up to 

me after the shooting and said “I thought he had 

a gun” her statement would be after-the-fact – 

gained in hindsight – and not relevant. But her 

warning was as clear as a bell on the replay. I 

did not hear her; but a reasonable officer could 

have. Her statement was reasonably known. The 

question now: Based on everything else that 

was reasonably known, could a reasonable officer 

believe that the man was holding a gun? If so, 
52 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

the fact that it turned out to be a hammer should be 

hindsight. 

Not hearing the woman’s warning about a gun was 

probably due to a natural human reaction to stress 

that causes the sense of hearing to diminish. Stress, 

fatigue, and exertion – conditions well known to law 

enforcement officers – can greatly affect memory. In 

a survey of officers involved in shootings, 84 percent 

reported not hearing even the loudest of sounds. “If 

it hadn’t been for the recoil, I wouldn’t have known 

my gun was working,” an officer reported. The 

same study reported that 79 percent of the officers 

experienced tunnel vision and almost half could not 

recall significant details about what they did. 

Another study found inconsistencies between 

written use of force reports and body camera 

recordings. Eleven officers were asked to react to 

certain use of force scenarios, report what they saw, 

and then compare their written report to the footage 

on their body cameras. Every officer failed to report 

other potential weapons in the scenario, including 

a gun plainly visible on a table. Eight of the eleven 

officers failed to report a third person in the room. 

Two did not report uses of force.

There is probably nothing more subjective than 

memory, and memory is probably most vulnerable 

during a tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving 

situation where an officer is trying to defend himself 

or others from a significant threat. Body cameras 

are just another piece of technology that gets some 

of the facts before the court. They are no different 

than the hundreds of millions of smart phones that 

make every citizen a reporter – and neither friend nor 

foe to anyone. They simply record facts. Officers can 

certainly add to the facts. Force science experts may 

add more by explaining why an officer did not hear 

something, or saw something that was not there. But 

in the end, the court through the reasonable officer 

decides if the plaintiff established that the force was 

constitutionally excessive.

Officers are more likely to be truthful if they are told 

the truth about how they are judged. And the truth is 

that the recording in an officer’s brain will most likely 

be different than the electronic copy. Me? I thought 

the man was holding a gun. I would also like my 

attorney to argue that the woman’s statement about 

a gun makes my belief more objectively reasonable, 

whether I heard it or not. Still, the reasonable officer 

may find both of us incredible (in a bad way). Then 

forget the gun. Could a reasonable officer believe that 

the man posed a significant threat while swinging 

the hammer? Sometimes what actually happened is 

reasonable. 

1Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) citing 

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968). 2“Officer down” is an alert that a police officer has been killed 

or wounded. 

3Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181, 185 (11th Cir. 1997).

4See Miller Lindsay, and Jessica Toliver. Police Executive 

Research Forum (PERF). 2014. Implementing a Body-Worn 

Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned, 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

6An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment 

violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will 

an officer’s good intentions make an unreasonable use of 

force constitutional. Graham, 490 U.S. at 397. The Court has 

repeatedly rejected attempts to bring the officer’s subjective 

beliefs into a Fourth Amendment analysis. See also Brendlin 

v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 260 (2007). The Court has stated 

that probable cause to arrest depends on the facts known to 

the officer. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152 (2004). 

But there is a world of difference between the test for an arrest 

and objectively reasonable force to effect one. The officer has 

time to make a calculated decision before taking someone 

into custody. Graham at 397 (officers often have to make split 

second decisions about force). 

7Artwoh, A. Perceptual and Memory Distortion during OfficerInvolved Shootings. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 71, 2002.

8Dawes, Heegard, Brave, Paetow, Weston, and Ho. Body-Worn 

Cameras Improve Law Enforcement Officer Report Writing 

Accuracy. Journal of Law Enforcement. 2015. 

TIM MILLER is the subject matter expert 

for Use of Force for the FLETC Legal 

Division. Miller joined the U.S. Marine 

Corps in 1984, after taking the Illinois 

state bar exam. He served as a prosecutor, 

defense counsel, military judge, and staff 

judge advocate. Miller received a Bachelor 

of Science Degree and Juris Doctorate 

from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois. He 

received his Master of Laws from the Army Judge Advocate 

General’s School in Charlottesville, Virginia.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 53

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

The question of whether law enforcement 

officers should wear body worn cameras 

in the course of their duties has sparked 

impassioned dialogue regarding issues of privacy, 

government overreach, civil rights, officer safety, and 

economic resources. As government officials and 

American citizens debate the merit and feasibility 

of implementing body worn camera systems on our 

uniformed officers, FLETC is actively monitoring 

the implications of such a policy change on how 

we execute our training mission. 

The staff of the Outreach and Exploration Branch 

of the FLETC Training Innovation Division have 

been out ahead of this emerging development, and 

are already coming up with strategies for FLETC 

to consider as it seeks to prepare students to do 

their jobs utilizing this new piece of technology. 

At this stage, each option identified brings with 

it a litany of questions that must be addressed. For 

instance, can we achieve our training objectives 

by simply adding a block of instruction on the 

realities of body worn cameras? Would one 

scenario requiring the student to actually wear 

the camera suffice? What value could be gained 

by having students wear the cameras at all times 

during training? Much like we require students to 

wear a duty belt with an inert red gun to become 

accustomed to ever-present responsibility of a 

loaded firearm, would we not achieve a similar 

effect by strapping a recording device to the front 

of student uniforms? Does it matter whether 

the devices are “in role” or not? If their value 

is contingent upon actively recording video, is 

FLETC equipped with the capacity to store and 

analyze this footage? Is FLETC prepared to 

address the privacy implications of employees who 

are inevitably inadvertently recorded as the student 

navigates the FLETC campus? These are just 

some of the many questions FLETC is wrestling 

with as it anticipates implementation of this new 

technology. 

Rather than just see another training 

requirement, FLETC is viewing body worn 

cameras as a training enhancement opportunity. If 

FLETC is eventually tasked with training students 

to comfortably operate with the body worn camera 

device, could not this new piece of technology be 

leveraged simultaneously to improve our training 

product? FLETC has long embraced the studentcentered feedback model, and has utilized after 

action review videos to help demonstrate training 

concepts to students. Many times, during a scenario 

debrief, the student must acknowledge the disparity 

between what they perceived their actions to be 

and what their actions were in reality. Nothing is 

more effective than letting the student self-assess 

and learn from his or her own observations of his 

or her own conduct. 

Recordings captured on body worn camera 

devices could potentially offer an up-close and 

personal view of student performance that would 

aid in feedback and evaluation. It may further 

reinforce concepts taught by the Behavioral 

Science Division concerning the impact of 

stress and the narrowing or exclusion of sensory 

information during a law enforcement encounter. 

Just as described in the previous article by Tim 

Miller, it is very eye-opening for a student to hear 

something on a recording that they didn’t hear 

during the real-time scenario. 

While it is unclear how long the debate over law 

enforcement’s use of body worn cameras will go 

on, FLETC will continue to track the storms of 

change, and prepare to answer that call with fast, 

focused, and flexible training.

How might Body Worn Cameras 

Affect Training on FLETC....? 

BY LAUREN WARE
54 FLETC J FALL-WINTER 2016 VOLUME 16

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY, SIMULATION and operations

THAILAND

HUNGARY

BOTSWANA

EL SALVADOR

NEW MEXICO

CALIFORNIA

GEORGIA

SOUTH CAROLINA

MARYLAND

FAST FACTS

FLETC Domestic Training Sites:

• Artesia, New Mexico 

• Charleston, South Carolina 

• Cheltenham, Maryland 

• Glynco, Georgia 

• LA Port, California

Export Locations:

State and Local Law Enforcement

• Nationwide

International Law Enforcement Academies:

Academic, Operational and Program Support

• Bangkok, Thailand 

• Budapest, Hungary 

• Gaborone, Botswana 

• San Salvador, El Salvador

• Roswell, New Mexico 

International Training and Capacity Building Programs:

• Delivered Worldwide

Consolidation: Consolidation of law enforcement training 

permits the Federal Government to emphasize training 

excellence and cost-effectiveness. Professional instruction 

and practical application provide students with the skills and 

knowledge to meet the demanding challenges of a federal law 

enforcement career. They not only learn the responsibilities of 

a law enforcement officer, but through interaction with students 

from many other agencies, also become acquainted with the 

missions and duties of their colleagues. This interaction 

provides the foundation for a more cooperative federal law 

enforcement effort. 

Integrated Instructional Staff: FLETC has assembled the finest 

professionals to serve on its faculty and staff. Approximately 

50 percent of the instructors are permanent FLETC employees. 

The remaining instructional staff are federal officers and 

investigators on assignment from their parent organizations or 

recently retired from the field. The mix provides a balance of 

instructional experience and fresh insight.
 WWW.FLETC.GOV 55

IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING

Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers

U. S. Department of Homeland Security

1131 Chapel Crossing Road

Glynco, Georgia 31524

www.fletc.gov

A Historical Perspective

U.S. Immigration Service Border Patrol inspectors, Camp Chigas, El Paso, 

TX in 1927.

Today U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents employ off-road vehicles 

and helicopters.

Customs inspectors at the Detriot-Windsor Ferry station in 1898. U.S. Customs Rainbow Bridge Port of Entry, Buffalo, NY. Photos courtesy: 

U.S Customs & Border Protection.