JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

FLETCJ FALL

2009

A GLOBAL ISSUE

INSIDE:

ILEA

FLETC Training Abroad

page 19

Law Enforcement and 

Critical Infrastructure

page 29

Is Too Much Exercise 

Bad For You?

page 35

SUPREME COURT:

Arizona v. Gant Ruling

page 15

09300 91011
VOLUME 7, ISSUE 2

Global 

Issues

In this issue we add an international perspective to the usual mix of 

law enforcement training, tactics, techniques and research covered in 

the Journal. 

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s scope travels well 

beyond the domestic borders of the United States of America, and 

staff and students of Glynco and the field training sites may not 

realize the support FLETC provides internationally.

 In fact the FLETC ranges far afield — into both hemispheres with 

footprints on multiple continents. The FLETC men and women share 

their knowledge, skills and experience with law enforcement officials 

worldwide. This outreach helps to foster international cooperation, 

forge partnerships and promotes the rule of law in ways that 

transcend physical borders and cultural barriers.

While politics may be local; crime, corruption, terrorism and piracy 

well and truly have impacts on a global scale. The FLETC remains in 

the vanguard training those who protect their homelands worldwide.

Mark Fallon

Assistant Director

Training Directorate

FLETC
JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

FLETCJ

Fall 2009

Contents

7 Building Leadership

New leaders wanted! Look into the FLETC’s 

Future Leaders Program.

11 More Than a Boat Ride

Find out the complex methodologies 

involved in Marine Law Enforcement 

Training. 

15 Arizona v. Gant

What implications this U.S. Supreme Court case 

has for law enforcement officers.

19 International Law Enforcement 

Training

What role the FLETC plays in international 

law enforcement cooperation and training 

through its network of academies.

27 Law Enforcement Leadership on 

a Global Scale

How one FLETC institute impacts law 

enforcement leadership internationally.

29 Law Enforcement and 

Critical Infrastructure

Why Key Resource Protection Training is 

critical for the nation’s infrastructure and public

 safety.

35 Too Much Exercise?

How the rare but serious Rhabdomyolsis, or

“crush syndrome” can affect your physical 

training and overall health.

42 Commentary: Let’s Talk?

Why improving oral communication skills

among FLETC’s student population is 

important. 

Photo Credits: Front and back covers, this page, and pages 19-26: Alicia Gregory, public affairs specialist, FLETC. Pages 15 and 17: 

Michael Del’Acqua, senior instructor, Technical Operations Division, FLETC. Front cover: scenic photo of El Savadorian moutains. This 

page: view from a hotel in San Salvador, El Savador. Back cover: the “Big Five” relief sculpture at ILEA Gaborone, Botswana. Originally used only by hunters, the “Big Five” refer to five of Africa’s greatest wild animals—lion, leopard, elephant, buffalo and rhino.
4 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

JOURNAL OF THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

FLETCJ

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Editorial Team

John Besselman

Stephen W. Brooks

Alicia Gregory

Richard Hazzard

William Norris, Ph.D.

Andy Smotzer

Susan B. Thornton

Darrell Williams

Design

Fred Charles

The FLETC Journal is an unofficial law enforcement 

training magazine produced and published by the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. It is 

published and printed through the Media Support 

Division in conjunction with the Government Printing 

Office. Circulation is 4,000 and the FLETC Journal is 

also available electronically by following the links at 

the FLETC website: http://www.fletc.gov.

Views and opinions expressed in this publication are 

those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the 

FLETC training policy or doctrine. 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 editors. No changes to submitted copy 

will be made without the concurrence of the author(s). 

The editors may be contacted at (912) 554-4665.

byLines

Law Enforcement Leadership on a Global Scale

Dominick Braccio is the Chief of the Behavioral Science Division at the 

FLETC which includes the Law Enforcement Leadership Institute (LELI). 

LELI teaches leadership principles and influence in a wide array of programs 

in support of DHS and other law enforcement agencies worldwide. Mr. 

Braccio has authored the DEA International Training Handbook. He 

has taught at the FBI National Academy as an Adjunct Faculty Instructor 

for the University of Virginia, and has also served as a guest instructor at 

The Citadel Military College and Clemson University. He has received 

numerous commendations and awards including the DEA Administrator’s 

Award, and a commendation from the FBI Director. 

Law Enforcement and Critical Infrastructure

Scott Flax is the Senior Instructor over Critical Infrastructure Protection 

(CIP) under the Counterterrorism Divison (CTD) at the FLETC. He is 

part of the Infrastructure Protection Branch and teaches basic and advanced 

classes. As the Senior Instructor, Scott serves as the Program Coordinator 

for the Critical Infrastructure Protection Training Program (CIPTP) and 

the Assistant Program Coordinator for the Critical Infrastructure/Key 

Resource Training Program (CIKRTP). Scott joined the FLETC in 2003, 

after serving 21 years with the U.S. Capitol Police, and is a 1984 graduate 

of the FLETC. Contributing Writer: Kyle Barrington is a program 

coordinator and senior instructor for the FLETC Counterterrorism 

Division.

Global Focus: International Law Enforcement Training

Alicia Gregory is a Public Affairs Specialist at the FLETC. For her article, 

Alicia traveled to Gabarone and San Salvador to provide us with the vibrant 

photography. Alicia arrived at the FLETC in 2005 after 13 years as a public 

affairs specialist with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While with the 

Corps’ Charleston, S.C. District, she served as the District’s public affairs 

officer. Alicia has an extensive background in Army Public Affairs, communication techniques, and media relations. In addition to attending the 

Defense Information School in Fort Meade, MD, she attended Armstrong 

Atlantic State University and South University in Savannah, GA. 

Marine Law Enforcement Training

Billy McLeod is a Senior Law Enforcement Specialist in the Marine 

Training Branch. with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). He oversees all 

aspects of the Boat Operators Anti-Terrorism Training (BOAT) program. 

“

Braccio Flax Gregory
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 5

Contributors

Billy is an accomplished licensed Merchant Mariner Captain. 

As a captain he has commanded vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, 

Caribbean, the Gulf Coast, Intra-Coastal Waterway (ICW), and 

the Lower MS. River, TN. River, Tombigbee and Ohio Rivers. 

As a prior Coast Guardsman, Billy was an enlisted member for 

nearly eight years at a Port Security Unit (PSU). He has also 

served as an adjunct instructor for the United States Merchant 

Marine Academy’s Global Maritime and Transportation School 

(GMATS).

Arizona v. Gant: Implications for Law Enforcement

Jenna Solari joined the FLETC in April 2006 as a Senior 

Instructor in the Legal Division. Prior to coming to FLETC, 

Jenna worked as a Special Agent with the Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service in the Washington, D.C. Field Office. 

Before entering law enforcement, Jenna served a tour in the U.S. 

Navy as a military prosecutor at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, 

FL. Jenna has a BA in psychology and criminal justice from the 

University of Richmond, a JD from the University of Georgia 

School of Law, and served as a law clerk to the Hon. Gerald 

Tjoflat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

Jenna is currently working as a Senior Instructor in the FLETC 

Behavioral Science Division.

Building Leadership: 

The FLETC Future Leaders Program

Jean Strasser joined the FLETC in 2007 as a Human 

Resources Specialist in the Human Capital Operations Division. 

She serves as FLP Program Manager and assists FLETC 

managers and staff with a variety of training and development, 

workforce planning, and strategic human capital needs. During 

her 18 years with the Federal government Jean has served in a 

variety of roles. Prior to arriving at the FLETC she was Senior 

Advisor at the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation 

(1998-2007). She has served with the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management, 1992-1998. Jean holds a B.A. in history from the 

College of St. Elizabeth and a Master of Public Administration 

degree from Seton Hall University. For more information on 

the FLETC Future Leaders Program contact Jean Strasser, FLP 

Program Manager, at (912) 267-3482, jean.strasser@dhs.gov.

Contributing Writers: Michael J. Harris is a graduate of 

the FLETC Futures Leaders Program. He is the Lead Program 

Analyst, Student Services Division, FLETC. Willis Hunter was 

an action learning coach for the FLETC FLP. He is Division 

Chief, Environmental and Safety Division, the FLETC . Dr. 

Ruth S.B. Simmons is a graduate of the new FLETC FLP. 

She is a Management Analyst, Property Management Division, 

FLETC. Patricia E. Solberg is a graduate of the FLETC FLP. 

She is a Contract Specialist, Procurement Field Branch, FLETC.

Too Much Exercise - the “Crush Syndrome”

Larry Thompson has been a Certified Athletic Trainer and 

instructor for health related courses at the FLETC for 25 years. 

For the past 11 years Larry has been a paramedic and emergency 

medical technician instructor at the Coast Georgia Community 

College. He also teaches CPR and Advanced Cardiac Life 

Support for local health care providers. Larry holds and M.S. 

degree from Madison University and B.S. degrees from Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 

Let’s Talk

Andy Smotzer is a regular contributing writer to the Journal, 

and author of numerous articles in several nationally published 

law enforcement magazines. He is a former Secret Service 

Uniformed Division Officer. Currently, 

Andy is a Branch Chief for the Physical 

Techniques Division at FLETC, Glynco.

“

McLeod Solari Strasser

Thompson Smotzer
6 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 7

Building Leadership

“Leaders aren’t 

born, they are 

made.”

—Vince Lombardi

The New FLETC Future Leaders Program 

Jean Strasser

jean.strasser@dhs.gov

Coach Lombardi’s famous quote clearly 

supports that solid effectual leadership 

is critical to an organization’s continued 

success. Recognizing that developing 

leaders is a smart workforce planning 

strategy, in 2008 the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 

implemented a highly competitive and 

challenging one-year leader development 

program for employees just below the 

supervisory 

grades. The 

first-year pilot 

of the FLETC 

Future Leaders 

Program (FLP) 

concluded in March 2009 with fourteen 

FLETC staff members graduating 

from the program. This article describes 

several key principles upon which the 

FLP was designed and developed, 

captures unique insights into what it 

was like to be a participant in the pilot 

program, reflects thoughts on mentoring 

and Action Learning from graduates, 

and captures the impressions of an 

Action Learning Coach.

Coach Lombardi’s quote that leaders can be developed reflects one core 

principle of the FLETC FLP. A second 

principle is that the organization must 

define what it takes to be an effective 

leader within that organization. If leadership matters to 

an organization’s 

performance, 

then the focus 

of leader development should 

be to help current and future leaders 

reach their potential in support of the 

organization’s strategic goals and objectives. The biggest advantage of building 

FLETC leadership talent internally (versus sending individuals to offsite training and development programs) is that 

Future Leaders 

P R O G R A M

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
8 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

What It Takes to Succeed 

in the Future Leaders Program

Dr. Ruth S.B. Simmons

ruth.simmons@dhs.gov

What does it take to have that triumphant victory on the 

day of graduation...to be able to say, “I did it!!!”? What 

comes to mind is the book written by C.S. Lewis entitled, 

“The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”. How does one 

overcome the witch and her forces? Would I really just want 

to enter into the wardrobe and let life take me wherever it 

leads? How do I overcome all the obstacles I might meet 

along the way? In the next few paragraphs I will be speaking about my experience and what I saw from my colleagues 

in the FLETC Future Leaders Program (FLP) Pilot Class of 

2008-2009.

When I applied for the FLP, I envisioned myself as one of 

the graduates of the FLP Pilot Class of 2008-2009. I began 

with the “end in mind” as Dr. Stephen Covey would say. The 

application process itself was not as hard for me as it might 

have been for other folks because I always have my resume 

updated and current. That took some of the “work” out of the 

application process and all I had to do was copy and paste. 

The only sections left for completion were the behavioral 

essay questions in the application form. I took time out for 

reflection to answer the essay questions. I could not have 

submitted my application without the approval of my first and 

second line supervisors. 

The FLP is a journey. It is an adventure much like when you 

“enter the wardrobe”. You have to have the “end in mind” 

and be committed to complete it, no matter what happens. 

There are a bunch of friendly forces around you who are 

willing to catapult you into the next leader level. Various opposing forces will come and test you. What you decide to 

do, how you choose to do it, and which path you choose will 

determine whether you’ll complete the journey.

What does it take to succeed in the FLP? I think it takes a 

steady resolve, a resilience in the face of adversity, patience 

and perseverance, integrity and honesty, an excellent work 

ethic, faith, love and support of family and friends, teamwork 

and collaboration, openness, a teachable spirit, humility, 

vulnerability, compassion, courage, conquering our fears, 

an awesome sense of duty and responsibility, commitment, 

sacrifice, listening more, taking time for exercising reflective 

inquiry, being mentored by coaches, support and guidance 

of Action Learning project sponsors, encouragement from 

co-workers, support from supervisors and upper management, a passion for learning, planning, setting of priorities, 

willingness to change and grow, flexibility, open-mindedness, 

understanding others, and never giving up.

 Since each of us is like a snowflake, with our own unique 

individuality, the percentages of each of these ingredients will 

vary. The Pilot Class of the FLP has successfully graduated 

and our leadership journey has just begun. It is my desire to 

leave a lasting impact and be a successful steward for generations to come by being a true servant leader. 

leadership competencies are developed at multiple levels 

with a focus on the FLETC’s strategic priorities.

The FLP builds on the foundational leadership competencies underlying the Federal government’s Executive 

Core Qualifications (ECQs), but supplements these with 

specific competencies that align with FLETC’s strategic 

business objectives and the skills required to lead effectively within our mission and the unique environment 

in which we function. For example, the FLETC must 

respond quickly as an organization to emerging training 

needs, whether those needs are related to standing up 

new, state of the art training programs; implementing new 

technologies in the classroom or on the range; relocating 

or repurposing training at our various sites; responding to 

unprecedented increases in training requests; integrating 

lessons learned in the field into our training; or building 21st Century state of the art training facilities. Our 

customer-driven environment requires FLETC leaders to 

be able to adapt quickly to changing requirements. Our 

leaders must be able to ask the right questions, explore the 

best options, and decide quickly—all the while managing 

multiple stakeholder interests and achieving the maximum return on financial resources. 

These mission requirements suggest a certain set of key 

competencies, including systems thinking, critical thinking and complex problem solving, strategic thinking and 

strategic planning, collaborating, and working in teams 

across organizational lines. All of these competencies are 

considered fundamental underpinnings of the FLETC 

FLP curriculum. For the FLP to be an effective leader 

development program, it must focus on ensuring that 

participants have the skills necessary to carry out the 

FLETC’s strategic imperatives. Leadership effectiveness 

is achieved through experience, and FLETC’s strategic 

objectives determine which experiences are necessary to 

develop leadership competence.

A third principle of the FLP is that participants must 

have an opportunity to ask, “How am I doing as a leader 

right now?” The FLP provides direct opportunities for 

participants to assess their current skills and to develop 

plans to address their weaknesses and build on their 

strengths. The FLP pilot participants tested a variety of 

self- and 360°-assessment instruments and helped identify 

those instruments that provided the most benefit. The 

next iteration of the program will utilize the most reliable 

and beneficial tools to measure participants’ leadership 

potential and to leverage that potential even further. Most 

importantly, the FLP self assessment process will continue 

to be used as a starting point for formal coaching activi-
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 9

ties. For example, participants may choose to share their 

assessment results with their mentor as a starting point for 

mentoring development. Development will continue to 

be “actualized” through the individual development plan 

(IDP), which is a key tool that is interwoven throughout 

the program. Assessment data provide targeted information to assist the participants in refining their IDPs, and 

aggregate results can help identify developmental needs 

across the entire class.

A fourth principle underlying the FLP is that leader 

development requires more than exposure to classroom 

training and leadership books. It requires a blended approach to learning, an energizing environment and specific activities that engage and enhance participant growth. 

According to some scholars, effective leader development 

programs must accelerate growth so that participants 

have “revolutionary” moments of discovery, realization 

and understanding, and this alone results in significant 

and lasting development. The FLP improves individuals 

by incorporating adult learning principles and the Action 

Learning Model, which involves a group of people working on a real problem and gaining leadership experience 

while doing so. Action Learning provides participants 

an opportunity to actually practice and develop their 

leadership skills and the Action Learning teams, guided 

by executive sponsors and experienced Action Learning 

coaches, work on high-impact projects involving strategic 

issues at the FLETC. They engage in a continuous process 

of learning and reflection, built around asking questions. 

By performing the actions required in a leadership role 

(i.e., working across the enterprise to assess and resolve 

strategic challenges), participants have learning with lasting effect. The Action Learning model is also beneficial to 

the FLETC because participants focus on solving realworld problems of significance to the Center.

To achieve learning within this model, it is essential that 

support and resources be committed and available to ensure the sustainability of the leader development process 

over a period of time. The mentoring component is one 

of the most effective means of promoting and sustaining 

leader development outside the classroom, on both an organizational and an individual level. On an organizational 

level, mentors who are current leaders within the organization help to enhance the development of specific skill 

sets or leadership competencies found to be critical across 

the organization. They also reinforce organizational values, 

esprit de corps and loyalty to the organization. Mentors 

serve as champions who not only support the program, 

but exemplify a personal commitment to engaging and 

Getting the Most From Mentoring

Patricia E. Solberg

pat.solberg@dhs.gov

I

was fortunate to participate in the FLETC Mentoring Program as a component of the Pilot FLETC Future Leaders 

Program (FLP). As part of the FLP, I requested as my mentor a FLETC manager with whom I had worked frequently, 

and whose leadership style, interpersonal skills, and broad 

perspective of FLETC’s mission resonated with me. In addition, I believed that our mutual background in procurement 

would provide common ground in our mentoring relationship. 

I believed that she would provide unique insight that would 

be invaluable in my development as a FLETC Future Leader. 

Selecting your mentor, while important, is not the most critical factor to the success of your mentoring experience; in 

the end, how you cultivate the relationship is the most critical 

success factor. I have provided five tips to assist you in getting the most out of your mentoring relationship:

(1) Be Honest- Although it is important to know your

mentor, it is also important to take the time to allow your mentor to get to know you. By identifying 

what you have in common with your mentor, you will 

strengthen the mentoring bond. Getting to know your 

mentor on a personal, as well as professional, level 

will facilitate two-way communication and increase the 

mentor’s comfort level in providing advice. You must 

understand that the foundation of a good mentoring 

relationship is trust, which is built through honest, 

open communication.

(2) Be Prepared- Know what you want to discuss during

mentoring meetings. By recommending 2 or 3 discussion topics prior to the scheduled meetings you will be 

prepared to initiate the discussion, and your mentor 

will be prepared to provide insight and guidance. Several topics for discussion are:

 a. Discuss what you are both hoping to get out of the

mentoring relationship

 b.Review and confer your 360 degree assessment

results

 c. Relay your current responsibilities as well as profes

sional goals 

 d.Allow your mentor an opportunity to review and

discuss your resume

 e. Look for opportunities to attend meetings and/or

work on projects with your mentor

 f. Communicate your strengths and weaknesses with

your mentor

 g.Verbalize your organizational challenges

 h. Address your career advancement and career

broadening opportunities within the organization

 i. Share what inspires and interests you

 j. Express your current/proposed Individual Develop

ment Plan

continued on next page
10 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

assisting their protégés. Embedding a mentoring component within the leadership development process enables 

participants to expand their network and gather wisdom 

and knowledge that may or may not be readily available 

through other sources.

It is often noted that the most valuable asset of any 

organization is its people. Leader development programs 

can assist high performing individuals in achieving 

higher-level desired outcomes—both individually and 

organizationally. The FLETC FLP and similar programs 

function on the concept that leadership is a learnable skill. 

While difficult, time consuming and sometimes resourceintensive to enact, internal leader development programs 

can yield highly desirable organizational benefits: reinforcement of the organization’s mission and strategic 

objectives; improvement in individual leadership capacity; development of opportunities for innovation and the 

sharing of ideas across organizational lines; and synergies 

around specific organizational challenges and business 

problems.

(3) Be Adaptable- Schedule meetings formally with your

Mentor and if necessary reschedule accordingly. You, 

as the individual being mentored, are responsible for 

initiating and rescheduling the mentoring meetings. 

By scheduling meetings, you will ensure that your 

Mentor has time set aside which is less likely to be 

interrupted. Lastly, respect your mentor’s time. Since 

the best mentors are usually the busiest people—be 

understanding. Building a mentoring relationship takes 

time and does not happen overnight. 

(4) Be Present- You should listen “actively” to the feed

back provided by your mentor. By appreciating the 

fact that your mentor has a different and/or broader 

perspective of the organization, you will gain insight 

through your mentor’s experiences and advice. If feedback provided by your mentor appears critical, do not 

take this personally. It is important that you are receptive to feedback so that your mentor feels comfortable 

providing guidance in the future. 

(5) Be a Mentor! Consider volunteering for a mentoring

position in any organization. Being a mentor can provide great personal satisfaction and act as a channel 

to sharpen your leadership skills. Most importantly, by 

being a mentor, you can help someone excel in their 

career.

The FLP Mentoring Program has enhanced my development as a “FLETC Future Leader” by providing a conduit for 

exposure and dialogue, into the broader picture of FLETC’s 

mission. While it is tempting to be critical of the mentoring 

relationship in hindsight, like all relationships, the mentoring 

relationship requires flexibility and room for growth, change, 

and understanding. 

Read THE POWER OF ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS page 33

Mentor and Protégé: 

A Relationship

By Michael J. Harris

michael.j.harris@dhs.gov

Mentor is defined as “a wise and trusted counselor or teacher”, and 

protégé is defined as “one whose welfare, 

training, or career is promoted by an influential person”. It is impossible to discuss 

“mentorship” without also discussing 

“protégé”.

I was fortunate to be paired as a protégé with my mentor, Mr. Dan Fischer. The 

things that made our partnership work 

included 1) a similarity of backgrounds, 2) 

the experience and wisdom he has gained 

while at the FLETC, 3) his genuine interest 

in my development, and 4) his flexibility. 

Mr. Fischer is the Senior Policy and 

Project Analyst for the Training Innovation 

and Management Directorate. We met on 

a regular basis (every 2 weeks at a minimum), and most of the time, we had no 

specific agenda. This lent itself to being 

able to discuss current matters freely and 

openly without “perceived” preparation. It 

also gave him the opportunity to ask me 

the “Five Whys” – which I think he enjoyed 

just a little too much. Of course, I’m 

joking. The premise of asking “why” five 

times in succession is that it helps one 

dig to the root of a problem rather than 

addressing symptoms. Try it. You may find 

yourself speechless by the fifth “why”. I 

found that it often changed the direction 

of my focus with amazing results.

Our backgrounds are similar, which 

made it easy for me to see Mr. Fischer 

as a “wise and trusted counselor or 

teacher”. Because we both have military 

backgrounds, we are able to relate well 

to one another. I found Dan’s stories of 

his experiences in the civil service and his 

comparison of these experiences to his 

military life to be very familiar with some 

of my current challenges. His counsel in 

meeting these challenges was sometimes 

humorous, sometimes wise, and other 

times sobering. He seemed to have the 

innate ability to know how and when to 

apply appropriate coaching and training 

to each of my situations. Mr. Fischer’s 

genuine interest in my growth, professionally and personally, was evidenced by his 

questioning and participation in my development. He was proactive in reviewing 

my personal assessments. He routinely 

sought to address my weaknesses, and 

helped me learn to play to my strengths. 

He zealously followed my progress and 

my personal participation in my Action 

Learning Project with my team, Team 

“T.R.U.S.T.” When I was “slacking” off, he 

let me know it. When I was “on target” he 

gave words of praise and encouragement. 

Mr. Fischer even went a step further and 

reached out to our whole team to provide 

advice and counsel after a “trial balloon” 

presentation to the FLETC Senior Policy 

and Project Analysts. I cannot express 

enough the impact he had on me AND on 

my team. 

Future Leaders 

P R O G R A M

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 11

Training Methods

More Than Just a Boat Ride

Marine Law Enforcement Training

Billy McLeod

billy.mcleod@dhs.gov

When thinking of spending time on a boat most 

people will relate it to their recreational experiences. However time spent on or around the water is certainly 

different for a profession as a marine law enforcement 

officer. In marine law enforcement training the missions 

and operational requirements continue to evolve, and as we 

move further into the 21st century those changes shape the 

environment that the marine law enforcement officer must 

cope with. Vessels are becoming capable of greater sustained speeds in deteriorating conditions thus requiring the 

vessel operator to process and analyze data, apply knowledge, and respond to the situation at an ever shorter time. 

For the modern marine law enforcement officer to cope 

with the additional stress requires commensurate training.

So what is involved in this commensurate Maritime 

Law Enforcement Training? It consists of a vast array of 

complexities including scientific, theoretical, and ana-
12 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

lytical knowledge bases, as well as physical 

requirements. The operator must be multitalented in areas such as; the ability to speak 

the nautical language, marlinspike, naval 

engineering, naval architecture, maritime 

law, meteorology, oceanography, ability to 

conduct geometric calculations, technical 

prowess with electronics packages and the 

ability to make critical split second decisions 

in adverse conditions. In addition to the 

mental aspects, the operator must be capable 

of physical requirements such as the ability 

to determine closure rate, depth perception, 

color and light recognition, auditory abil-

ity to distinguish sound signals, flexibility, 

strength, and stamina to withstand long 

periods of standing, all while absorbing the 

shock and g-forces associated with various 

sea states. The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center’s Marine Training Branch 

(MTB) accomplishes these tasks by employ-

ing various learning methodologies and 

strategies in the instruction of its maritime 

training programs.

Learning, in the conventional definition, is 

the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, at-

titudes, or values, through study, experience, 

or teaching. To be counted as learning, it has 

to lead to long-term changes in behavior 

potential. In other words, it has to gener-

ate new capacity for alternative behaviors of 

an individual in a given situation in order to 

achieve a goal. Through the years there have 

been numerous studies conducted regard-

ing student learning. Dr. Benjamin Bloom 

defines the Taxonomy of Learning Domains 

into three types. The three types of learning 

include the Cognitive Domain, Affective 

Domain, and the Psychomotor Domain. 

The Cognitive Domain involves knowledge 

and the development of intellectual skills. 

The Cognitive Domain is the core-learning 

domain which includes the recall or recog-

nition of specific facts, procedural patterns, 

and concepts that serve in the development 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 13

of intellectual abilities and skills. The 

other learning domains require at least 

some cognitive component. This is 

where the MTB focuses on the core 

curriculum items that include the 

scientific, theoretical and analytical requirements. It ranges from topics such 

as navigational rules, applying angular 

measurements to determine position, 

calculating the variables of time, speed 

and distance, meteorological capabilities in interpreting barometric pressure, high and low pressure systems 

and their affects on wave engineering. 

It also requires a base knowledge in 

Naval Architecture and Engineering, 

which controls buoyancy and stability, 

advance and transfer handling traits, 

and displacement characteristics.

The Affective Domain addresses 

attitudes, motivation, valuing what is 

being learned, and ultimately incorporating the values of a discipline 

into a way of life. This should include 

focusing on “real world” problems, 

emphasizing how the material can be 

applied, relating the material to the 

students learning goals or past experiences and encouraging the students 

to be resources to you and others. In 

the highly specialized field of marine 

law enforcement, it is the everyday 

decisions that are crucial to an officer’s 

survival. The many natural dangers 

that exist in the marine environment 

have created a long history of fatalities among professional mariners, and 

an increase of violence against marine 

enforcement officers compounds that 

issue even more. We enforce the importance of reviewing past incidents 

in order to learn from them, but more 

importantly so the training moves 

forward. With courses in marine officer safety and survival (conducted 

in the pool, as well as the river), day 

and night boarding scenarios, and 

navigational exercises using the latest 

electronics and proven paper chart 

computations with a focus on returning home at the end of the watch. 

The Psychomotor Domain focuses 

on performing sequences of motor skill activities to a specified level 

of accuracy, smoothness, rapidity, or 

force. These activities require repetitive hands-on training until the skill 

is learned to the point that it is an 

autonomic reflex and is accomplished 

instinctively. The MTB employs the 

observation-imitation-practice-adaptation strategy.

	 •	 Observation – The trainee

watches the instructor demonstrate the psychomotor skill and 

pays attention to the steps to 

complete the process.

	 •	 Imitation – The trainee follows

directions from the instructor as 
14 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

the trainee performs the task.

	 •	 Practice – The trainee repeats

the steps until all aspects 

become habitual (requiring 

little conscious effort) and the 

trainee can perform the process 

smoothly.

	 •	 Adaptation – The trainee

modifies and adapts the skill to 

meet variables in each new and 

unique situation.

One of our most effective training 

strategies, this repetitive hands-on 

training provides students the opportunity to not only continue working 

on their motor skills of vessel handling 

while underway, and also allows them 

to apply the analytical knowledge acquired during other training strategies. 

This can be one of the more difficult 

skills in that it requires the student to 

feel the effects of wind, current, hull 

dynamics and motion and then react 

with the appropriate counter action.

Other learning strategies used include the application of lecture, lecture 

with questions, lecture-demonstration, 

small group discussion, recitation of 

oral questions by instructor answered 

orally by students, construction of 

vocabulary lists, and vocabulary drills. 

Students are provided with text for 

study and assignments, reading assignments in supplementary books, as well 

as, the use of diagrams, tables, graphs, 

and charts, exhibits and displays. 

Many lectures are enhanced with the 

use of Power Point presentations, photographs, videos, and whiteboards. 

Technology is now bringing to the 

forefront expanded opportunities for 

the use of simulators in training. The 

U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy pilots 

have been using flight simulators for 

decades. Although simulators are not 

new to the training arena, the advancements made with graphics, modeling, and capabilities have expanded 

its uses into driving, marine, and use of 

force operations.

Due to the complexities of the 

wide ranging knowledge required for 

professional marine law enforcement 

vessel operators, numerous training 

methodologies are incorporated into 

our training programs, and the MTB 

has included the use of simulators in 

its training. This new methodology 

allows students to experience decisionmaking opportunities in a controlled 

environment. The student is exposed 

to navigational rules exercises which 

include: meeting, crossing and overtaking situations, vessel lights, sound 

signals, and day shapes recognition 

in various sea conditions, lighting 

conditions and visibility. It allows the 

exploration of a wide range of aids to 

navigation with fully functional lights 

and appliances. The use of simulators 

as a training methodology is not intended to nor will it ever replace hands 

on training underway on actual vessels. 

Instead, it will enhance the material 

presented during lecture and serve to 

bridge the learning process from cognitive to affective and the realization 

in building psychomotor.

The next important step in training 

is measuring the level of success. The 

job is not just to put the information 

out, it is instead necessary to know 

that the information has been received, 

comprehended and retained, and that 

the students are capable of applying 

that knowledge. The MTB accomplishes this through written test and 

practical exercises. Using these two 

measurement tools allows the MTB 

staff to observe that the students can 

respond in written form on analytical 

information, as well as the application 

of that knowledge base in practical 

exercises, which are meant to resemble 

“real world” applications.

Through the use of multiple training methodologies and strategies the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center’s Marine Training Branch continues to move into the 21st century 

providing world class marine law enforcement training while remembering 

the time honored traditions of training 

mariners. Far from a recreational day 

on the water, but it does enable the 

officer to go home to their families at 

the end of the day.

1

Learning Domains or Bloom’s Taxonomy,The 

Three Types of Learning http://www.nwlink.

com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html

FJ
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 15

Supreme Court Ruling

Arizona v. Gant

The implications for law enforcement officers

Jenna Solari

jennifer.solari@dhs.gov

On April 21, 2009, the United States Supreme Court 

decided Arizona v. Gant, in which it defined an officer’s 

authority to conduct a search of the passenger compartment 

of a vehicle after arresting an occupant or a recent occupant. 

The Court ruled that officers may search a vehicle incident to 

arrest only if (1) the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment when the search 

is conducted; or (2) it is reasonable to believe that evidence 

relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle. 

This memorandum discusses the decision and its impact on 

law enforcement practices.
16 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

The Evolution of Searches 

Incident to Arrest

Chimel, Belton, and Thornton. The 

Supreme Court first established the 

search incident to arrest (“SIA”) 

exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in Chimel 

v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969). 

Chimel held that police may, incident 

to arrest, search the area within an arrestee’s “immediate control,” which is 

defined as the area from within which 

the arrestee might gain possession of 

a weapon or destructible evidence. 

The purposes of this exception are to 

protect arresting officers and safeguard 

evidence of the offense that an arrestee might conceal or destroy. In New 

York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), 

the Court was asked to determine 

what part of a vehicle officers may 

search incident to the arrest of one 

of its occupants. The Belton Court 

held that when an SIA of a vehicle is 

justified, the entire passenger compartment and any containers therein 

may be searched. This bright-line rule 

was created to avoid arguments about 

which areas inside a vehicle’s passenger compartment were within an 

occupant’s reach. In Thornton v. U.S.,

541 U.S. 615 (2004), the Court added 

that an SIA of a vehicle may be justified even if an occupant has gotten 

out of the vehicle, closed the door, and 

walked a short distance away before 

being arrested. The question remaining, however, was whether Chimel, 

Belton and Thornton authorized an 

SIA of a vehicle regardless of the arrestee’s ability to access the passenger 

compartment following the arrest. 

Arizona v. Gant presented a perfect 

opportunity for the Court to answer 

that question.

Arizona v. Gant: The Facts and the 

Holding

Shortly after parking and exiting his 

vehicle, Gant was arrested for driving on a suspended license. He was 

handcuffed and locked in a patrol car 

before officers searched the passenger 

compartment of his car and found a 

firearm and cocaine. In his motion 

to suppress the evidence, Gant argued that because it was not possible 

for him to access the vehicle to gain 

control of a weapon or evidence, the 

search of his vehicle was not a reasonable “search incident to arrest.”

The Supreme Court agreed with 

Gant, emphasizing that Chimel v. 

California established the purposes 

and scope of searches incident to 

arrest. Chimel authorizes a search of 

the area from which an arrestee might 

gain control of a weapon or destructible evidence; it does not permit a 

search of areas outside the arrestee’s 

reach. Thus, police are authorized to 

search the passenger compartment 

of a vehicle incident to arrest under 

Chimel only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance 

of the passenger compartment at the 

time of the search. With that said, the 

Court noted, “it will be the rare case 

in which an officer is unable to fully 

effectuate an arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle 

remains.” In such a rare case, however, 

an SIA of the passenger compartment 

would be reasonable under the Fourth 

Amendment.

In a seeming attempt to garner 

Justice Scalia’s deciding vote, the 

majority adopted an additional search 

incident to arrest justification entirely 

apart from Chimel. In U.S. v. Thornton, Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that 

Chimel should not govern searches 

of vehicles incident to arrest because 

“sensible police procedures” will always 

prevent the arrestee from accessing the 

vehicle.2 Instead, Justice Scalia advocated broader search authority, which 

would allow a search of the passenger 

compartment whenever it is “reasonable to believe evidence relevant to 

the crimes of arrest might be found” 

therein. While his opinion did not 

carry the day in Thornton, his search 

justification was adopted as part of 

the holding in Gant. Therefore, in 

addition to searches justified by the 

arrestee’s ability to access the vehicle, 

officers may also search the passenger 

compartment following the arrest of a 

recent occupant when it is reasonable 

to believe that evidence relevant to the 

crime of arrest might be found in the 

vehicle.

Reading Between the Lines: The 

Current State of SIAs

Gant will have an immediate impact 

on the day-to-day operations of law 

enforcement officers in the field. It 

is important to ascertain the effect 

of the Court’s opinion not only on 

vehicle searches, but other searches 

incident to arrest, as well. Unfortunately, the Court left many questions 

unanswered. Although Gant does not 

provide explicit guidance on some of 

the issues below, this article makes an 

attempt to bring current practice in 

line with the Court’s expressed understanding of Chimel, Belton, and Thornton. Of course, officers should always 

consult their agency legal advisors to 

determine how they are to apply the 

law of their jurisdiction in accordance 

with agency policy.

Searches of the Arrestee’s Person: 

No Change

“When an arrest is made, it is 

reasonable for the arresting officer to 

search the person arrested in order to 

remove any weapons that the latter 

might seek to use in order to resist 

arrest or effect his escape. . . . In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the 

arresting officer to search for and seize 

any evidence on the arrestee’s person 

in order to prevent its concealment or 

destruction.”3 “Authority to search 

the arrestee’s own person is beyond 

question,”4 and this authority does 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 17

not require the officer to articulate any 

likelihood that weapons or evidence 

would be found on the arrestee.5 A 

custodial arrest supported by probable 

cause is sufficient justification.6

Searches of Containers Located 

on the Arrestee’s Person: No 

Change

Containers on an arrestee’s person, 

such as a wallet7 or a cigarette pack8, 

are within the arrestee’s “immediate control” for purposes of a search 

incident to arrest and may be opened 

and examined.9 Belton rejected the 

argument that the officer’s seizure of 

an item removes it from the arrestee’s 

immediate control and negates the 

justification to search it: “[U]nder this 

fallacious theory no search or seizure 

incident to a lawful custodial arrest 

would ever be valid; by seizing an 

article even on the arrestee’s person, 

an officer may be said to have reduced 

that article to his ‘exclusive control.’”10

Searches of the “Lunging Area” 

or “Wingspan” Following a NonVehicular Arrest: Justified If 

Arrestee Could Access the Area at 

the Time of the Search

For many years there has been 

inconsistency among federal and state 

jurisdictions regarding searches of 

a subject’s “lunging area” following 

a custodial arrest. In most jurisdictions, arresting officers have been 

permitted to search the place of arrest 

and containers therein even after the 

arrestee has been secured or removed 

from the area, so long as the area was 

within the arrestee’s control at the time 

of the arrest.

11 The minority approach, 

however, requires some showing that 

the area to be searched was accessible 

to the arrestee at the time of the search.

12

Furthermore, those minority jurisdictions require that “in determining if an 

object is ‘conceivably accessible to the 

arrestee,’ we are to assume that ‘he was 

neither an acrobat [nor] a Houdini.’”13

The Gant Court did not specifically address non-vehicular SIAs. The 

majority, however, in its examination 

of Chimel, reiterated that the scope of 

the SIA exception is limited to serving 

the purposes of “protecting arresting 

officers and safeguarding any evidence 

of the offense of arrest that an arrestee 

might conceal or destroy.”14 Therefore, “[i]f there is no possibility that 

an arrestee could reach into the area 

that law enforcement officers seek 

to search, both justifications for the 

search-incident-to-arrest exception are 

absent and the rule does not apply.”15 

This language appears to strongly 

favor the minority “Houdini” analysis, 

which considers accessibility at the 

time of the search.
18 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

While the dissent attempts to 

restrict this interpretation of Chimel

to arrests of “vehicle occupants and 

recent occupants,”16 that does not 

seem to have been the majority’s 

intent. The Gant Court addressed the 

meaning and scope of Chimel before 

undertaking any analysis of its application to vehicular searches. And 

rather than restricting its application, 

the Court reminded us that Chimel

“continues to define the boundaries 

of the [SIA] exception.”17 Thus, one 

can make a persuasive argument that 

all searches incident to arrest under 

Chimel - whether of persons, places, 

or things - are reasonable only when 

circumstances give rise to a possibility 

that the arrestee might gain access to a 

weapon, evidence, or means of escape 

from the place to be searched.

Although it is unclear whether 

lower federal courts will begin to apply the law in this manner, officers in 

the field should expect the courts to 

begin scrutinizing their searches of an 

arrestee’s non-vehicular lunging area 

incident to arrest. To prepare for such 

an inquiry, officers should focus on 

articulating the reasonableness of any 

such search based on the following 

facts and circumstances:

(1) Distance: The distance 

between the arrestee and 

the place to be searched;18

(2) Restraints: Whether the 

arrestee was handcuffed or 

otherwise restrained, what 

kind of restraints were 

used, and whether the 

arrestee was handcuffed in 

the front or back; 19

(3) Display of guns or other 

weapons by officers:

Whether the police had 

weapons drawn or pointed 

at the arrestee or other 

suspects;20

(4) Positioning: Whether the 

police were positioned so 

as to block the arrestee, 

suspects, and bystanders 

from the area to be 

searched;

(5) Access: The ease of 

access to the area or 

container itself, to include 

whether a container is 

open or closed, locked or 

unlocked;

(6) Numbers: The number 

of officers present versus 

the number of arrestees, 

suspects, or bystanders;

(7) Arrestee’s conduct:

Attempts made by the 

suspect before, during, or 

after the arrest to access 

the area to be searched.21

(8) Reasonable change in 

circumstances: Do police 

need to move the arrestee 

away from a dangerous 

environment into 

another private area,22

or can police articulate 

a legitimate need to 

retrieve something such 

as the arrestee’s shoes or 

clothing?23

Searches of a Vehicle Following 

Arrest of an Occupant or Recent 

Occupant: Two Potential 

Justifications

Arrestee could access the vehicle. 

Gant held that police may search a 

vehicle incident to arrest when the 

arrestee – an occupant or recent occupant of the vehicle - is unsecured 

and within reaching distance of the 

passenger compartment at the time 

of the search. The Court noted that 

“it will be the rare case in which an 

officer is unable to fully effectuate an 

arrest so that a real possibility of access to the arrestee’s vehicle remains.” 

In such a rare case, however, an SIA of 

the passenger compartment would be 

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Since this search is justified by 

Chimel, officers may search for weapons, any evidence of any crime, and 

means of escape.

Offense-related evidence might be in 

the vehicle. Even if the arrestee can 

no longer access the vehicle’s passenger compartment, the Court held that 

an SIA will also be permitted “when 

it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be 

found in the vehicle.” In many cases, 

such as arrests for traffic violations or 

outstanding arrest warrants, there will 

be no reasonable basis to believe that 

the vehicle contains relevant evidence 

of the crime. In other cases, however, 

such as arrests for possession of controlled substances, the basis of the arrest will supply an acceptable rationale 

for searching the arrestee’s passenger 

compartment and any containers 

inside. In a case where the search is 

justified by the possibility of locating 

offense-related evidence in the vehicle, 

officers are limited to searching only 

those places in the passenger compartment where the offense-related 

evidence might be located.

How to define the “reasonable to 

believe” standard? Is it the same as 

probable cause, or is it something less? 

One must compare the search incident 

to arrest exception in Gant to another 

firmly established search warrant exception to find the most likely answer.

In U.S. v. Carroll, the Supreme 

Court established the mobile conveyance exception to the Fourth Amendment search warrant requirement.24 

Under this exception, an officer may 

search a readily mobile conveyance 

without a warrant upon probable 

cause that it contains evidence or contraband. Once this standard is met, 

the officer may search any area of the 

vehicle – to include the trunk compartment – if that area may contain

See ARIZONA VS GANT page 39
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 19

Global Focus

International Law Enforcement Training

Alicia Gregory

alicia.gregory@dhs.gov

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly 

at its 50th Anniversary on October 22, 1995, thenPresident Clinton called for the establishment of a network 

of International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEAs) 

throughout the world to combat international drug 

trafficking, criminality, and terrorism through strengthened 

international cooperation.

Now, years later, the United States and participating 

nations have moved ahead with the establishment of 

ILEAs to serve four regions: Europe, Africa, South 

America and Asia. The first International Law 

Enforcement Academy (ILEA) opened in Budapest in 

1995. Additional ILEAs were established in Bangkok 

in 1999, Gaborone in 2001 and San Salvador in 2005. 

An advanced training ILEA was established in Roswell, 

NM, in 2001 and a Regional Training Center conducting 

primarily specialized programs began operations in Lima 

in 2005.

The Departments of State, Justice and Treasury 

established the ILEA Policy Board and it is comprised of 

senior representatives from their respective organizations. 

The Department of Homeland Security is now a member 

From left: former ILEA Botswana Director Stan Moran, former FLETC Associate Director for Washington Operations John Dooher, FLETC Director Connie Patrick, Senior Assistant Commissioner 

of the Botswanan Police James Duha, and FLETC Chief of Staff Jane Titus at ILEA Botswana.
20 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

and also has a senior representative on the Policy Board. 

The Policy Board’s primary goal is to monitor and provide 

guidance and oversight for the ILEA training program 

to ensure that it is consistent with foreign policy and 

law enforcement goals. Policy Board members are also 

responsible for approving and appointing the ILEA 

Directors and Deputy Directors.

Functional level oversight of the ILEAs is provided 

by the ILEA Interagency Steering Group. This group is 

composed of representatives from agencies under each of 

the Departments that comprise the Policy Board as well as 

representatives from sub-agencies and other organizations 

that provide expertise and assistance to the ILEAs. The 

Policy Board meets bi-monthly and is chaired by officers 

from the State Department’s Bureau of International 

Narcotic and Law Enforcement (INL).

The ILEA Directors report to the Policy Board through 

the Steering Group. The Deputy Directors report to and 

receive guidance from their respective Directors and the 

Steering Group. Advice and support for the ILEAs are 

also encouraged from the Chiefs of Mission at the U.S. 

Embassies in the host countries. The Director and Deputy 

are charged with keeping the Chief of Mission fully 

informed of all activities and operations of the ILEA in 

accordance with NSDD 38 requirements.

The Department of State funds most of the training at 

the ILEA through the Bureau for International Narcotics 

and Law Enforcement (INL). Some specialized courses 

are funded by other United States Government (USG) 

agencies and/or foreign governments.

The ILEAs have no resident faculty and only a small 

administrative staff comprised of one U.S. Director, one or 

two U.S. Deputy Directors, and host country nationals. The 

host country nationals may be civilians employed directly 

by the ILEA or members of the host government seconded 

to the ILEA. The U.S. Director and Deputy Director(s) of 

the ILEAs are members of the Embassy Country Team 

and receive personnel and logistical support from the 

Embassy. In addition to US law enforcement instructors, 

Australia, Hungary, Thailand, Botswana, Japan, Hong 

Kong, Holland, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, 

Canada, Russia, INTERPOL and the Council of Europe 

have also provided instructors.

The mission of the ILEAs is to support emerging 

democracies, help protect U.S. interests through 

international cooperation and to promote social, political 

and economic stability by combating crime. To achieve 

these goals, ILEA provides high-quality training and 

technical assistance, supports institution building 

and enforcement capability and fosters relationships 

of American law enforcement agencies with their 

counterparts in each region. The ILEA program also 

encourages strong partnerships among regional countries, 

to enable these countries to address common problems 

associated with criminal activity.

The ILEAs serve a broad range of foreign policy and 

law enforcement purposes for the United States and 

for the world. In addition to helping protect American 

citizens and businesses through strengthened international 

cooperation against crime, the ILEAs’ mission is to 

buttress democratic governance through the rule of law; 

enhance the functioning of free markets through improved 

legislation and law enforcement; and increase social, 

political, and economic stability by combating narcotics 

trafficking and crime.

The ILEA concept and philosophy creates a united 

ILEA Botswana campus courtyard
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 21

effort by all of the participants — government agencies 

and ministries, trainers, managers, and students alike — to 

achieve the common foreign policy goal of international 

law enforcement. The ILEAs utilize an ideal blend of 

professionals to strengthen the rule of law, human dignity, 

personal safety and global security now and in the future.

For more information about the ILEAs, visit the 

FLETC website at www.fletc.gov. 

ILEA Gaborone

The Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center became involved in international 

training with the opening of the first International Law Enforcement Academy 

(ILEA) in Budapest, Hungary, in 1995. 

The FLETC was more than happy to assist 

when the decision to establish an ILEA in 

southern Africa was made in 1998. 

The ILEA Policy Board proposed creation of an ILEA 

that would focus on enhancing the effectiveness of regional 

cooperation against the principal transnational criminal 

trends in Africa - illicit drug trafficking, financial crimes, 

terrorism and alien smuggling. Although several countries 

were considered, Botswana was chosen as the site for ILEA 

Africa. The government of the United States and the 

government of Botswana entered into negotiations in 1999 

to establish an ILEA in Gaborone. FLETC is assigned 

managerial oversight of the ILEA. 

The mission of the ILEA is to provide training for 

middle managers in the criminal justice fields. Initially, the 

staff trained students from 12 Southern African Development Community (SADC) member countries. Currently, 

29 sub-Saharan countries participate in the ILEA’s programs. 

ILEA Gaborone is headed by a program director and 

two deputy program directors who are appointed and 

funded by the United States, and a managing director and 

deputy managing director who are appointed and funded 

by the Government of Botswana.

James Duha was the most recent managing director of 

the ILEA. The Senior Assistant Commissioner of the 

Botswanan Police has been involved with the ILEA since 

2002. Through his work with the ILEA, Botswana has increased its sphere of influence within Africa. The Botswanan Managing Director is half of the ILEA’s leadership, 

while the other half is maintained by the U.S. appointees.

Currently, Stan Moran is the program director of ILEA 

Gaborone. He accepted the position in 2006, replacing 

Seymour Jones, who currently serves as the Deputy Assistant Director for FLETC’s State and Local Training. The 

Georgia native brings not only his 30-years of law enforcement experience to the post, but also his extensive experience in the training arena to this operation. 

“I held 10 different positions at FLETC, and I was able 

to discover a great deal from each assignment,” explained 

Moran. “That experience gave me confidence when I accepted the position here, but I have learned 

so much from being the Director of ILEA 

Gaborone.” 

Part of this learning included Moran 

immersing himself in the culture of the 

African people. He explained it was his 

professional relationships with the representatives of the many countries and his counterparts in the 

Embassy, along with his personal relationships within the 

community and as a church member, which have earned 

ILEA Botswana campus
22 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

him the respect of these people.

“I realized that the culture here is different than in the 

United States,” said Moran. “Things take time, and there 

are many political considerations. I had to learn to be 

more patient and earn the respect and trust of my counterparts.” 

The challenge of working in the international setting 

is building and maintaining not only the relationships 

between the ILEA and the African countries, but also 

between the countries themselves. The students come from 

high-ranking positions within their country’s law enforcement community. Obtaining the certificate from the 

ILEA is prized by attendees, so the classes stay filled.

The core curriculum of ILEA Gaborone operates using 

the same model as the other ILEAs, providing courses on 

a wide range of law enforcement skills -- counter-terrorism, forensics, basic case management, fighting organized 

crime, supervisory police training, police strategy, narcotics 

identification and evidence handling, customs interdiction, 

document fraud, illegal immigration and public corruption, among others. Currently, ILEA Gaborone conducts 

four six-week Law Enforcement Executive Development 

(LEED) programs per year and approximately fifteen 

specialized courses – lasting one to two weeks – in a variety

The ILEAs serve a broad range of foreign policy and law enforcement purposes
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 23

of criminal justice topics. Participants are nominated by all 

eligible African countries. The most recent LEED program included students from Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, 

and Swaziland. 

The courses are taught by a variety of U.S. Federal law 

enforcement agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

and the international law enforcement community. The 

instructors and class coordinators build a bond with the 

students that transcends the six-week training period. The 

relationships built throughout the program encourage 

continuing associations of trust and mutual respect. The 

ILEA maintains an ever expanding of alumni and engages 

in several activities to ensure that alumni obtain the maximum benefit from their training.

The academy is approximately 25 miles south of the city 

of Gaborone on the grounds of the Botswana National 

Police College. In addition to administrative offices, there 

are several classrooms, a computer lab, and office space for 

instructors. Dormitory and recreation facilities are also on 

the site for course participants. Although the state-of-theart campus did not open until 2003, the academy offered 

courses using local conference facilities while under construction. Proposed projects include an explosives range 

and dining facility. 

Scenic view of El Savadorian mountains
24 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

 “For eight years, ILEA Gaborone has provided a nexus 

between comprehensive training and operational excellence. This academy is dedicated to ensuring cross border 

information sharing and operational collaboration among 

law enforcement organizations of Sub-Saharan Africa,” 

said FLETC Director Connie Patrick. “At its core, ILEA 

Gaborone has been, and is, an example to the world how 

partnerships can work to make a difference in the fight 

against transnational crime and terrorism.”

ILEA San Salvador

For decades, law enforcement professionals have been 

fighting a war against the Latin American drug cartels, 

whose leaders have left crime and violence in their wake. 

The International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) San 

Salvador is a partner in this fight through providing quality 

training to the law enforcement communities in Mexico, 

Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. 

Among the many different programs, the ILEA addresses 

the problems of narcotics and organized crime in this vital 

region of the world, as well as other law and democracy 

issues.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) has management oversight of the ILEA San 

Salvador. The ILEA operates jointly with leadership and 

staff from both the Salvadoran Ministry of Government 

and the U.S. Government. 

The ILEA Director, Javier Jaquez, has a long history 

with this academy in San Salvador. Prior to his selection 

as the Director, he served as the ILEA’s deputy direcPrograms range from Anti-Gangs Training to Trafficking in Persons

Training at ILEA San Salvador
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 25

tor. Although Jaquez is an active special agent for the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), he works for 

the FLETC through a memorandum of understanding 

between the two federal agencies. This cooperative spirit 

is what the ILEA mission is built upon. 

DHS and the Departments of Justice, State, and Treasury established the academies on a regional basis across 

the world. In May of 1997, former President Clinton 

along with the presidents of the Dominican Republic and 

five Central American countries agreed on establishing an 

International Law Enforcement Academy for all of Latin 

America and the Caribbean. The ILEA San Salvador was 

officially established when U.S. Ambassador Douglas Barclay and Salvadoran Minister of Justice and Security Rene 

Figueroa ratified a bilateral agreement in November 2006.

“The first class was actually taught before the official 

ILEA establishment,” said Jaquez. “The regional law enforcement community was very interested in attending the 

training we had to offer.”

The ILEA offers two types of courses: the law enforcement management development program and specialized 

programs. The academy holds an average of 20 training 

programs a year, ranging from Anti-Gangs Training to 

Trafficking in Persons, for mid-level managers in police 

departments, prosecutors, court judges, and other officials 

who work in the field of criminal justice. The ILEA has 

conducted 11 six-week core programs and 34 specialized 

programs in the region thus far. Participants share their 

experiences and develop joint strategies and initiatives that 

will have a real impact on important regional criminal jusTraining Specialist Chuck Fiese has coordinated several programs at the ILEAs, including the programs at ILEA San Salvador.
26 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

tice problems. The most recent program graduated 30 law 

enforcement professionals from Guatemala, the Dominican 

Republic, and El Salvador, but since its official inception in 

November 2006, ILEA San Salvador attendees have come 

from 29 different countries throughout the western hemisphere. 

Instructors are chosen among several U.S. federal agencies including the Secret Service, Customs and Border 

Protection, DEA, ATF, and the State Department among 

others who are experts in their fields. A number of law 

enforcement agencies within the participating nations also 

provide instructors. 

Currently, ILEA San Salvador operates from two government-run (National Academy for Security Police) facilities. 

The facilities are located in Comalapa – near the international airport – and Santa Tecla, a small community in the

outskirts of San Salvador. Renovations have been completed in these temporary locations to conduct the various 

training initiatives until a permanent facility is built. The 

Government of El Salvador has designated a twelve-acre 

plot of land near the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to erect a 

new building to serve as the permanent site of the ILEA. 

Preliminary design work for a new building is in progress 

and the construction project is expected to be completed –

funding permitting - in about two to three years.

“Soon a facility will stand here, serving as the new ILEA 

venue for criminal justice training in this region,” said 

FLETC Director Connie Patrick, during the ceremony 

officially announcing the construction project. “This facility 

is where future law enforcement and criminal justice professionals from multiple countries will learn together and 

forge relationships that will last throughout their careers. 

The ILEA San Salvador facility will beckon other countries 

to come and join together in the fight against transnational 

crime and terrorism.” 

According to Jaquez, the networking that occurs during 

the training is as important as the training itself. “More 

international investigations have succeeded due to the relationships established at initiatives like this,” said the ILEA 

Director.

“Among other law enforcement issues, the ILEA San 

Salvador is training law enforcement professionals from the 

many Latin American countries combating the drug cartels 

which are supplying the drugs moving across our nation’s 

southwest border,” said FLETC Director Connie Patrick. 

“The drug cartels have formed formidable alliances within 

their own countries and between countries and nations in 

their region, and our training provides the tools to the law 

enforcement professionals in these front-line countries to 

form their own alliances to combat the criminal activity.”

FJ

FLETC Director Connie 

Patrick stands with Delmer 

Edmundo Rodriguez Cruz, 

El Salvador Viceminister of 

Public Security and Justice; 

Dominican Republic Ambassador Roberto Victoria, and 

an ILEA student from the 

Dominican Republic during 

the ILEA LEMDP-11 graduation ceremony, March 6.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 27

Global Focus

Law Enforcement Leadership 

on a Global Scale

Dominick Braccio

dominick.braccio@dhs.gov

The Law Enforcement Leadership Institute (LELI), 

a training entity of the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC), functions in primary support 

of the Department of Homeland Security Strategic Goal 

#2 “....coordinate training and education across multiple 

levels both national and international....”. LELI also 

supports the DHS mission by ensuring that the future 

successes of the Partner Organizations are optimized by 

the lessons learned at the FLETC.

How is this achieved? While the primary mission of 

the FLETC is to provide basic law enforcement training, LELI increases leadership impact and influence by 

facilitating an understanding of human behavior that 

brings out the best in every level of law enforcement. This 

understanding of behavioral science is behind the tangible actions that improve individual skills and habits as a 

leader. It also provides the tools necessary to create high 

morale and achieve extraordinary results.1 

 Just as the demand for basic training at the FLETC 

has increased, LELI has also been inundated with 

requests for leadership training both domestically and 

abroad. LELI has responded by entering into some new 

partnerships with other law enforcement organizations 

and providing a Train the Trainer Leadership course 

which has become a centerpiece method to facilitate this 

increased demand. 

However, developing additional law enforcement leaders as trainers is not simply a service that assists other law 

enforcement departments. It is also a force multiplier for 

the FLETC and the Partner Organizations. Also, since 

these leaders come from Federal, state, local, tribal, and 

international law enforcement agencies, they bring to the 

LELI a wealth of law enforcement experience that expands our own paradigms and provides additional filters 

so that the LELI can better understand law enforcement 

leadership on an even greater scale. In law enforcement 

as in life, everything depends on the lenses through 

which we view the world. By developing new partnerships and putting on new lenses, we can see things that 

would otherwise be invisible.2

 

In addition, these new leadership instructors have 

provided LELI current successful law enforcement case 
28 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

studies that will be used to augment 

the next generation of LELI training 

currently under development. 

Who are some of the new partners 

for the Law Enforcement Leadership 

Institute? LELI has been working 

jointly with the Office of State and 

Local Training and the International 

Training and Technical Assistance 

Division to identify every possible opportunity to implement training and 

force multiplier strategies to combat 

crime and terrorism on a global scale. 

 Domestically, the Jacksonville 

Sheriff ’s Office ( JSO) has partnered 

with LELI to develop their own 

leadership training modeled after 

LELI for their command staff as well 

as their rank and file. In fact, JSO 

now has a cadre of instructors who 

have been certified to teach leadership 

programs developed by LELI. JSO is 

using their newly certified instructors 

to integrate leadership training into 

their own Academy where they 

will not only share these values and 

behaviors with the staff of the JSO, 

but also to reach state and local leaders 

from throughout Florida. Combining 

an understanding of the science 

of human behavior with real-life 

command experience, JSO leaders will 

also share their expertise and be used 

to team teach certain leadership topics 

with LELI’s experienced instructors 

when appropriate at the FLETC. 

 Internationally, LELI has 

supported law enforcement leadership 

development around the world. 

Several times a year, the LELI 

provides various types of leadership 

instruction at the International Law 

Enforcement Academies (ILEA’s) 

in Budapest, Gaborone, and San 

Salvador. New supervisors from more 

than seventy-five countries participate 

and receive training at these ILEA’s. 

In fact, much of what DHS does 

to protect the United States begins 

overseas and requires us to develop 

close partnerships with our foreign 

counterparts and to establish cooperative activities with our allies. FLETC’s 

international engagement with our 

law enforcement partners for training 

such as this provides capacity building 

as a means to address many security 

issues before they threaten the U.S. 

Training is a cost effective and lasting force multiplier for U.S. efforts 

in combating crime and terrorism. 

Whether we are interdicting arms or 

drug shipments, breaking up a human 

trafficking operation, or penetrating 

and dismantling a terrorist cell, it all 

comes about in today’s global crime 

environment through international 

cooperation. This puts FLETC’s 

training activities both at home and 

abroad on the frontline of our nation’s 

security. 

 

The international reach of LELI has now extended beyond the 

ILEA’s. For example, LELI provided 

leadership training to the United 

Nations components located in 

The Hague, targeting the security 

forces for The International Crime 

Commission and Criminal Court; 

The Nuclear, Chemical and Biological 

Weapons Court, and The War Crimes 

Tribunal. The decisions and actions 

of this international body of law is of 

great importance to global security, 

and it was an honor for the FLETC 

to provide this leadership training 

to their security forces. Clearly, 

this benefited the Department and 

provides a return on investment for 

Homeland Security. 

 The reputation of the FLETC 

leadership training programs 

continues to spread internationally. 

Recently, Romanian law enforcement 

executives and the American 

Embassy in Bucharest requested 

FLETC to train the entire country’s 

law enforcement leadership staff. 

Obviously, due to other priorities 

and operational needs of the FLETC 

it would be impossible for LELI to 

dedicate enough time to provide 

training to that many foreign 

officials. Instead, what LELI did was 

to provide its Leadership Train the 

Trainer course to those selected by 

the American Embassy as the best 

Romanian leaders who possessed 

potential leadership teaching skills.

 The ILEA in Budapest hosted 

this event and for the first time in 

their 14-year history. Two specialized 

leadership train-the-trainer courses 

were conducted in Budapest for 

participants from Romania and 

Hungary. According to ILEA 

Budapest Director Penny Hoback, 

ILEA training has both immediate 

and long term positive effects. 

Understandably, those trained at the 

ILEA become better investigators 

when exposed to modern law 

enforcement practices. The goodwill 

and camaraderie developed as a result 

of this training also yields better 

connectivity between countries 

and enhanced cooperation against 

international crime organizations. 

Finally, those trained at the ILEA 

continue to move into the higher 

ranks of their respective countries, 

including some at the policy making 

and ministerial level which ensures 

global partnerships for the future. 

These are tremendous benefits then to 

the FLETC and more importantly to 

its Partner Organizations, especially 

those with foreign offices or working 

international investigations.

 Some of the core leadership 

tools utilized by LELI in this 

newly developed Leadership 

Train the Trainer program are the 

demonstration and teaching of 

“Observable Behavior” as exhibited 

in the DISC model, and “Paradigms,” 

otherwise known as values. The 

behavioral insight provided by the 

DISC measurement tool identifies 

four basic behavioral categories: 

Dominance, Influencing, Steadiness 

and Compliance. Participants of 

this DISC training have learned that 

See LEADERSHIP page 38
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 29

Resource Protection

Law Enforcement and Critical Infrastructure

Scott Flax

scott.flax@dhs.gov

Critical infrastructure protection has become a phrase 

that is very familiar across law enforcement in recent years; however, less than a decade ago it was a foreign 

language for many public safety agencies. Since 9/11 our 

country has undergone a dramatic realignment of priorities 

and concerns to the protection of our communities and our 

nation as a whole. In 2003, the Department of Homeland 

Security was established and with it was born a new set of 

requirements and priorities. One major one was the protection of critical infrastructure. Still today, six years after the 

founding of Homeland Security, many law enforcement 

agencies are trying to establish and align their assets and 

resources to accomplish this important mission. Federal, 

State and Local law enforcement are battling with how to 

protect something that they do not own. An additional 

difficulty is that the facility may be essential to their public 

safety mission, their community, or the nation, yet they 

have no direct control of its operation and protection. Law 

enforcement personnel are often left with more questions 

than answers such as: Who is responsible for protecting 

critical infrastructure facilities? How do we develop partnerships with private sector owners and operators for the 

protection of the facilities? And where do we turn to train 

our officers to accomplish this new and evolving mission?

When it comes to critical infrastructure key resource (CI/

KR) protection, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 
30 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

HSPD-7 clearly defines the overall 

mission and areas of responsibility for 

Federal Executive agencies, but it is 

merely an outline for the overall mission plan. The purpose of the directive 

is “to establish a national policy for 

Federal departments and agencies to 

identify and prioritize United States 

critical infrastructure and key resources and to protect them from terrorist 

attacks”.1 It also outlines the roles 

and responsibilities for the Federal 

Sector-Specific Agencies (SSAs), as 

well as other departments, agencies, 

and offices. 

 The Secretary of Homeland Security recognized “that each infrastructure sector possesses its own unique 

characteristics and operating models”,2 

therefore they would be best suited to 

identify what areas need protection. 

This seems like a simple task doesn’t 

it? Each Sector can take care of their 

areas of responsibility, right?

HSPD-7 clearly defines who is responsible, but how they are to protect 

it is a totally different issue. Sectors 

have direction and the federal agencies have direction, but where is the 

guidance for the state and local law 

enforcement? At a majority of the 

critical infrastructure facilities around 

the country, state and local law enforcement will be the first responders 

to the scene.

Often there can be a disconnect or a 

gap between the Federal agencies, the 

state and local law enforcement, and 

the private sector owner and operators.

Sectors and agencies need to grasp the 

complexities involved in the cross sector interdependencies and dependencies. Sectors cannot operate independently of each other. They have to rely 

on each other and take a pro-active 

posture in order to make the protection of the infrastructure critical to our 

nation to make it safer, more redundant, and more resilient.

Sectors put together Sector Specific 

Plans (SSPs) as guidelines to assist 

sectors in forging a path or partnership between agencies, state, local, 

and private sector entities. Agencies 

therefore set forth policies based on 

HSPD-7 and endeavor to secure the 

assets under their jurisdiction. These 

partnerships are the cornerstones of a 

good CI/KR program.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 31

LAW ENFORCEMENT 

RESPONSIBILITY

On the regional level, local law enforcement has the responsibility of 

protecting or augmenting the protection of the infrastructure within their 

jurisdiction. Traditionally they are the 

first responders to all kinds of situations, to include parking violations, 

lost children, vehicle accidents, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters. 

Therefore, law enforcement must be 

well versed in preparedness, response, 

mitigation, and recovery. First responders are our first line of defense. 

They are the ones who are the boots 

on the ground. Law enforcement 

is responsible for understanding a 

diverse amount of information. Not 

only understanding the information they receive, but disseminating 

the proper information to the proper 

recipients. 

This can be challenging, because 

there may be a powerful cultural disincentive to sharing information. This 

has gradually changed over the years 

and has increased as we have made 

efforts to share information between 

entities. Information is not concentrated on just one sector, but it may 

cross some or all of the sectors. Law 

enforcement is not only responsible 

for the Emergency Services sector, 

but they cross over, respond to, and/

or need to have an understanding of 

all 17 soon to be 18 sectors (Critical 

Manufacturing sector), depending on 

what sectors they have within their 

jurisdiction.

Having an understanding of CI/KR 

protection can assist law enforcement 

in ensuring better communication, 

teamwork, utilization of resources 

during a crisis incident, awareness 

training for employees, and information sharing between stakeholders 

within a CI/KR community. Better 

communication between law enforcement and private sector stakeholders 

will leverage the objectives set forth in 

the National Incident Management 

System (NIMS) and the National 

Response Framework (NRF). Communication is the key that will open 

the doors to many opportunities. 

These are opportunities to train 

and practice skills in multiple venues 

in which you will one day respond. 

Utilizing partnerships within your 

community can increase your coverage 

ten to one hundred fold by awareness 

training and buy-in from your CI/KR 

community. Law enforcement must 

take a pro-active posture in addressing 

CI/KR protection. 

You cannot just wait until a natural 

disaster, a terrorist attack, or a critical incident happens to start planning. You must have plans in place 

so that when it does happen you will 

be ready. The plans must be written, 

tested (through tabletop exercises and 

then actual scenario based exercises), 

and trained so it is not just some nice 

looking book sitting on someone’s 

shelf that no-one has read. It must be 

read, tested, and trained to be retained 

and become second nature.

BRIDGING THE GAP

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) serves as an 

interagency law enforcement training 

organization for more than 88 Federal 

agencies. The Center also provides 

services to State, Local, Tribal, and International law enforcement agencies. 

The FLETC offers many courses 

covering a wide variety of basic and 

advanced law enforcement topics.

In the area of CI/KR, the FLETC 

offers two courses that aid in bridging 

the gap between law enforcement and 

CI/KR protection. The main objective 

and goal in creating these courses was 

to standardize and set baseline training within the realm of the CI/KR 

world. 

Standardized, baseline training is 

what is needed across the board so 

that everyone is on the same page 

and speaking the same language. The 

Mission

CIKRTP Program

To establish a reference point and standard of 

performance for federal employees by 

providing common references, processes and 

tools to facilitate consistency within the federal 

community charged with CI/KR protection.

Source: CIKRPQTP CDC Notes & Overview, Nov 6-9, 2006; pg 1, para 5
32 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

FLETC is filling the gap and meeting that vital need. Most CI/KR 

programs offer portions of CI/KR 

training such as vulnerability assessment methodologies or CI/KR laws. 

The FLETC has the only standardized CI/KR program based upon the 

National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan (NIPP), offering a complete 

overview of CI/KR protection from 

the national level down to the State 

and Local levels.

With this in mind, the FLETC 

offers courses for the federal, state, 

local, tribal, territorial, and international agencies with CI/KR protection responsibilities and private sector 

owners and operators of CI/KR. The 

Critical Infrastructure Protection 

Training Program (CIPTP) is a oneweek manager’s level course, and the 

Critical Infrastructure Key Resource 

Training Program (CIKRTP) is a two 

week practitioner’s level course.

CIPTP

This course, which is intended for the 

CI/KR manager, assists the students 

in understanding how infrastructure 

impacts their mission and the importance of building resiliency and redundancy into their security plan. The 

goal of the course is to equip them to 

better understand how to protect the 

infrastructure critical to their mission. 

The CIPTP course will enhance their 

current CI/KR program or can facilitate the creation of a new one. 

 The CIPTP course covers the guiding documents set forth by our national policy, the commonalities found 

in vulnerability assessment methodologies, physical and computer security, 

interdependencies and dependencies, 

and the importance of partnership 

models and information sharing.

CIKRTP

This course is intended for CI/

KR practitioners and those that are 

fully immersed in CI/KR duties. It 

is designed to establish a reference 

point and standard of performance for 

federal employees by providing common references, processes, and tools 

to facilitate consistency within the 

federal community charged with CI/

KR protection. 

The target audience for this course 

is the security specialists, program 

managers, inspectors, investigators, 

and officers charged with the National 

Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) 

implementation, compliance, and 

information sharing.

In accordance with HSPD-7 

paragraph 14, the Secretary of Homeland Security will establish uniform 

policies, approaches, guidelines, and 

methodologies for integrating Federal infrastructure protection and 

risk management activities within 

and across sectors along with metrics 

and criteria for related programs and 

activities. 

This course will walk the student 

step-by-step through the NIPP’s Risk 

Management framework (RMF); 

define consequence, vulnerability, and 

threat; and discuss the importance 

of each. It will also look at different 

assessment methodologies, review 

the laws and policies that guide CI/

KR policy, discuss the Sector Specific 

Plans (SSPs) interdependencies and 

dependencies, and the importance of 

partnership models and information 

sharing. This course includes a written 

test and a practical exercise reiterating 

the principles that were taught during 

the course of the program. 

More information about these 

courses, contact:

Scott Flax, senior instructor/program 

coordinator: scott.flax@dhs.gov

Kyle Barrington, program coordinator/

senior instructor: kyle.barrington@dhs.

gov

1

Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-7. (18). December 17, 2003. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-5.html

2

Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-7. (18). December 17, 2003. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031217-5.html

FJ
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 33

Glenn C. Martin

glenn.c.martin@dhs.gov

The Power of Asking Good Questions

When trying to solve a problem, a typical strategy is to 

put together a group to identify 

the nature of the problem and 

suggest possible solutions. The 

makeup of the group and the approach the group takes to resolve 

the problem can have a dramatic 

effect on the outcome. The Action 

Learning component of the Pilot 

FLETC Future Leaders Program 

incorporated teams composed 

of diverse members, from different divisions and directorates, 

and with different viewpoints. The 

integral component of the Action 

Learning process and the key to 

the success of this approach was 

to develop the ability of the group 

to ask good questions.

Learning to ask good questions enhanced and advanced our 

knowledge and provided us with 

possible solutions to problems 

and an opportunity to learn. In 

Action Learning, our group’s goal 

was to ask good or even “great 

questions”. This was difficult at 

first, almost counter intuitive, 

since most of us relied on statements as our approach to problem 

solving. We learned that asking 

a good question creates an opportunity for reflection and with 

reflection comes an opportunity 

to observe, analyze and challenge 

basic assumptions. Most importantly, we discovered that asking 

good reflective questions can lead 

a group into a dialogue rather than 

into a debate. These dialogues 

created a greater understanding between the group members, 

led to increased learning through 

inquiry and generated more possible solutions for the problems 

we were attempting to solve.

The use of reflective questioning is essential in training and can 

easily be applied to other contexts. Programmed knowledge 

does not necessarily lead to the 

ability to solve a problem. By asking a question; reflective, probing, 

clarifying, analytical or explorative, 

you are forced to construct new 

knowledge and develop strategic 

actions and potential paths which 

can lead to a successful resolution.

Future Leaders 

P R O G R A M

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

read COACHES PERSPECTIVE

next page

FLP

continued from page 33
34 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

Willis C. Hunter

willis.hunter@dhs.gov

Action Learning From a Coach’s Perspective

Action Learning functions much like the use of the 

Socratic method in law school. In law school, the 

professor uses questions to guide students in identifying 

the best answer to a legal problem. In Action Learning, the 

coach and fellow team members use questions to not only 

find the best solution to a problem, but also help the individual team members become more self aware and more 

effective as leaders in an organization.

Another benefit of Action Learning is that it is a tremendous tool for neutralizing the “meeting bully.” The 

meeting bully is that person who attends a meeting and 

has all the answers and forces their solution on the team. 

The bully may be more senior to others in the session and/

or more verbally developed so that they either intimidate 

or force their solution on the rest of the group through 

the use of statements. Since Action Learning only allows 

the use of statements in response to a question, the bully 

is not able to dominate the team as they can in a typical 

meeting environment. 

The ability to neutralize the meeting bully and enable all team members to gain greater self awareness and 

knowledge about the organization makes Action Learning 

an effective process that leaders can utilize throughout 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. It is a great 

alternative to the normal problem solving process and 

in fact has already been used in the Environmental and 

Safety Division to help identify the best way to implement 

recycling at the Glynco campus. In a very informal survey 

of the group that worked on the recycling problem, the 

participants uniformly praised the different way of running 

a meeting and solving a problem. FJ

Future Leaders 

P R O G R A M

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Action Learning

Coach’s Question Guide

August 2008

Future Leaders

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

P R O G R A M



FLP

continued from page 33
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 35

Health Watch

Too much exercise?

Larry Thompson

larry.thompson@dhs.gov

RHAB•DO•MY•OL•Y•SIS

Rhabdomyolysis is a serious and 

potentially life threatening illness caused 

by severe damage to skeletal muscle. 

Acute Exertional Rhabdomyolysis 

(AER) is triggered by intense exercise 

and has raised concern among physical 

trainers in the military, public safety, 

law enforcement, and other arenas 

where strenuous physical training is 

common. Fortunately, AER is rarely 

observed in comparison to other training 

injuries; however, athletes, instructors, 

and trainers need to be familiar with 

its signs and symptoms in order to take 

appropriate action. When detected 

early, prompt treatment greatly increases 

the likelihood of a favorable outcome. 

Awareness of the contributing factors 

provide the greatest protection by 

reducing or eliminating them.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Signs and symptoms of rhabdomyolysis 

were first noted in the 1940s and was 

then termed “crush syndrome” (2). Until 

1960, AER was believed to be a rare 

phenomenon as only 36 cases had been 

reported in the first half of the century. 

Another report in 1960 cited 60 marine 

recruits who sought medical attention 

for signs and symptoms of AER. More 

attention was given to this syndrome in 

1971 when 40 men in the Marine Corps 

were hospitalized for severe muscle pain, 

swelling, and weakness. Since then, 

Acute Exertional 

Rhabdomyolysis 

in the Training 

Environment
36 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

numerous cases of AER have been 

reported in association with physical 

training programs (3). Today, 26,000 

cases of rhabdomyolysis from all 

causes are reported annually and most 

cases of AER involve military recruits, 

law enforcement trainees, and fire 

department trainees6. 

UNDERSTANDING AER

As stated earlier, rhabdomyolysis 

results from several different causes. 

AER is believed to occur when the 

energy demand of a physical activity 

greatly exceeds the muscle(s) ability 

to produce energy necessary to 

meet those demands (1). Regardless 

of the cause, when skeletal muscle 

is damaged, its cellular contents 

spill into the blood stream. These 

substances include creatine kinase, 

(a muscle enzyme abbreviated 

either CK or CPK), myoglobin (a 

muscle protein), and the electrolytes 

potassium, calcium, and phosphorus. 

Complications can result from 

electrolyte imbalances such as cardiac 

dysrhythmias (irregular heartbeats) 

and even cardiac arrest. High levels 

of circulating myoglobin provide an 

additional risk and if not detected and 

treated early will affect the kidneys 

by blocking the filtering structures 

(renal tubules). The blockage causes 

tubular necrosis and ultimately acute 

renal failure which is often fatal (1). 

An intense exercise session is often 

accompanied by dehydration which 

magnifies the problem due to a low 

circulating volume that helps flush 

out the myoglobin from the kidneys. 

Other complications that may occur 

are swelling of large muscle groups 

that can result in compartment 

syndromes leading to neurovascular 

(nerves and blood vessels) 

compression, and Disseminated 

Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) 

where blood begins to coagulate (clot) 

throughout the body6.

PREDISPOSING FACTORS

Physical trainers need to be very 

familiar with the various factors that 

may predispose someone to AER. 

It can actually affect people of any 

race, age, or fitness level (that means 

physical training instructors can also 

be at risk!), however, certain traits and/

or circumstances increase ones risk of 

this life threatening syndrome. AER 

can occur in any situation that requires 

extreme physical labor, especially when 

there has been an abrupt increase in 

exercise or physical intensity relative 

to present conditioning. It has been 

reported in long-distance runners, 

weight lifters, football players, 

and as previously mentioned, law 

enforcement trainees and military 

recruits. Poorly conditioned “weekend 

warriors” may be at an increased risk, 

although studies are lacking. Other 

risk factors include high temperature 

and humidity levels, and inadequate 

fluid intake. Certain medical 

conditions increase the risk of AER, 

such as Sickle Cell Anemia, Muscular 

Dystrophy, and McArdles Disease. 

Physical trainers also need to identify 

those who have a history of heat 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 37

illness (especially heat exhaustion 

and heat stroke), recent viral illness, 

and those taking over the counter 

medications for colds, and prescription 

blood pressure medications3,5.

SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS

The hallmark features of AER are 

severe muscle pain, tenderness and 

swelling, and dark (tea colored) urine 

in someone who reports a recent bout 

of exercise. Symptoms usually develop 

within 24-48 hours (5). Other features 

include bruising, weakness, fever, 

nausea, vomiting, confusion, agitation, 

and anuria (absence of urine) 

(6). Anyone exhibiting these signs 

and symptoms should be referred 

to a medical facility immediately. 

Laboratory testing for CK is the 

most reliable indicator for diagnosing 

rhabdomyolysis (5). Labs will also test 

for the presence of myoglobin in the 

urine. AER should be distinguished 

from delayed-onset muscle soreness 

(DOMS), which is not serious. It is 

thought that DOMS is the result of 

microscopic tearing of muscle fibers 

resulting in soreness and stiffness 

in the exercised muscle group or 

groups. DOMS is a normal response 

to beginning an exercise program, 

changing activities, or increasing 

intensity of an activity. It is generally 

worse in the first two days following 

the activity and subsides over the next 

few days. Over time this adaptation 

leads to greater muscle strength and 

endurance and the same activity will 

no longer result in soreness4,5.

TREATMENT AND PREVENTION

Treatment at the physical trainer 

or instructor level is limited to 

identifying a possible case of AER 

and rapidly referring them to 

definitive health care. This may involve 

activating EMS or transporting 

them to a health care facility. In 

the meantime, remove them from a 

heated environment if possible and 

initiate cooling measures. Hydration 

with cool water can be attempted 

if the subject is not nauseated (heat 

illnesses are often present with AER). 

Intravenous (IV) hydration should be 

initiated as early as possible by health 

care professionals. Initially, normal 

saline should be given at a rate of 1.5 

liters per hour6. Physical training 

instructors and enthusiasts should use 

the following guidelines for preventing 

AER:

1 Advising trainees to stay hydrated. 

This can be accomplished by 

drinking water steadily throughout the day and by increasing 

fruits and vegetables in the diet.

2 During physical exertion, have

trainees drink water on a schedule, 

not by thirst. Never deny a trainee 

water if they request it.

3 Conditioning training must be

conducted in a progressive manner! Gradually increasing the 

workload over a period of time 

is essential. Weights targeting 

the core (large) muscle groups 

should be limited to no more than 

3 sets of 8-12 repetitions. Avoid 

workouts that push the trainee to 

exhaustion. Exhaustive workouts 

are a definite risk factor for AER 

(eg. hundreds of exercises such as 

push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, etc.).

4 Identify trainees who are sick

or taking any over-the-counter 

cold medications or prescription 

blood pressure medication. If they 

are running a fever, they should 

not be exercising in the heat. Advise anyone who is taking medications to increase their fluid intake.

5 Strongly discourage trainees from

using stimulants and creatine 

supplements. 

6 Alcohol should be avoided on

days prior to workouts. 

7 Remember, workouts are for

conditioning, not “breaking”, 

“weeding out”, or punishing 

trainees. 

8 Always err on the side of cau

tion – refer all heat related illnesses or suspected AER (severe 

soreness in large muscle groups) 

to a health care facility (7). 

AER is but one illness that can strike 

any participant in a physical training 

environment. Physical trainers (and 

novice exercisers) need to be educated 

about this situation, and other related 

life-threatening conditions (e.g. 

heat illnesses). Individuals must 

be able to recognize the signs and 

symptoms, render prompt first aid, 

and immediately make arrangements 

for definitive health care. The most 

effective exercise program is one 

that is both safe and conducive to 

preventing injuries and illnesses. 

Adequate hydration and gradual 

increases in frequency, intensity, and 

duration must be fundamental to any 

physical training program. It is also 

this author’s opinion/suggestion for 

law enforcement training academies 

to be very clear when informing 

applicants of what to expect in their 

training program. Applicants should 

be strongly encouraged to begin an 

exercise program months before 

arriving at their training institution. 

1

Brown, Thomas D, DO, Exertional Rhabdomyolysis – Early Recognition Is The Key; The 

Physician and Sportsmedicine, Vol. 32, no. 4, 

April 2004.

2

Crush Syndrome, Wikipedia, The Free 

Encyclopedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

crush_syndrome.

3

Line, Robert L, George Rust; Acute Exertional 

Rhabdomyolysis; American Family Physician, 

August 1995. http:/findarticles.com/p/articles/

mi_m3225/is_n2_v52/ai_17281983.

4

Quinn, Elizabeth; Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness; Reviewed by Rich Fogores, M.D.; About.

com: Sportsmedicine; sportsmedicine.about.

com/cs/injuries/a/aa010600.htm.

5

Rentz, Stan, Pharm D; Exertional Rhabdomyolysis; posted 5/6/2007, http:/www.athleteinme.

com.

6

Sauret, John M. M.D., George Marinides, M.D.; 

Rhabdomyolysis; American Family Physician; 

Vol. 65/ no. 5, March 2002.

7

Silva, Joe; Senior Instructor, Physical Techniques Division (PTD), Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Exertional Rhabdomyolysis (Rhabdo).

FJ
38 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

this tool is a universal language of 

observable behavior that helps them 

better know themselves, enhance 

communication, enhance their 

knowledge of others basic needs, and 

provide their followers with a working 

climate for motivation. 

 What is a paradigm, and why does 

LELI talk about paradigms? As social 

scientists explain, this term is used 

to describe the set of experiences, 

beliefs and values that affect the way 

an individual perceives reality and 

responds to that perception.3 Too 

many leaders expect people to adapt to 

them, however how people respond is 

often a result of the filter or paradigm 

that has influenced their lives and how 

they perceive things. It’s not until 

we realize that the power of a leader 

resides in the follower, and to be most 

effective, leaders must instead focus 

on the behavior of those followers. 

Leadership then is not just about 

personality or the bottom line. It’s 

about how people react to what we do 

and say.4

 Understanding behavior and 

paradigms is paramount to effective 

leadership. The effect of globalization 

and its impact on law enforcement is 

an important consideration for LELI. 

Interacting with our international 

brother and sister officers have 

confirmed that we have so much in 

common. We all face human behavior 

issues, we share responsibility for 

protecting citizen’s rights, and we hold 

positions of public trust. 

As LELI shared the FLETC guiding principles of American law enforcement leadership: Responsibility, 

Vision, Understanding, and Ethics, it 

was learned however that the leadership behaviors of some of our international partners had been very different. 

Leaders are often hindered in bringing out the best in people because 

they do not understand that that they 

can only bring out the best in others 

through a personal effort of their own. 

People cannot perform at their best in 

an environment of pressure and fear of 

failure.5

 During the recent ILEA leadership 

course, an interpreter for the 

Romanian National Police captured 

it best when she said to the LELI 

staff on behalf of the class of foreign 

officers, “We want you to know what 

a gift the FLETC has given our 

country. Our law enforcement has 

been molded and formed by over fifty 

years of communism. We only know 

of leadership through dictatorship 

and ruling solely as an authoritarian. 

We had no other way at looking at 

our jobs, or the people we supervise 

and serve. This training will make 

such a difference for the future law 

enforcement leadership of our country. 

We want to advance in the world and 

now we know what is best for us to 

do to lead our people. Thank you so 

much.” 

 

Understanding the changingdynamics in law enforcement 

both within and beyond our own 

organization, especially in today’s 

interconnected world is essential to 

effective leadership. This shared vision 

of leadership with other leadership 

trainers demonstrates a similar picture 

and clear path of commitment to one 

another to achieve excellence. In the 

Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge observed 

that team learning allows the group to 

discover insights not attainable by the 

individual.6

 Another area of impact for LELI 

is to come full circle and participate in 

FLETC basic training programs. Just 

as foreign law enforcement officials 

who had operated under dictatorships 

now better understand behavior, values 

and principles, it remains important 

that FLETC graduates understand 

that every officer is a leader and a 

leader always represents hope and a 

quality of life for the communities we 

serve here in our homeland. With 

that leadership comes responsibility. 

LELI instills in new students an 

understanding that regardless of 

the badge that each new graduate 

receives, that they also understand 

that the badge is just a symbol of 

authority to enforce laws. It is the 

person behind the badge that must 

exercise sound judgment as to how 

the laws are used. FLETC graduates 

will make a difference and gain a 

high public trust when they exhibit 

high moral character and follow the 

core leadership principles of service, 

justice and fundamental fairness. It 

will be their integrity, principles and 

character that are their foundation 

and real armor that ensures justice for 

our country.7

 The Law Enforcement Leadership 

Institute is the FLETC’s doorway 

to leadership excellence. LELI 

continues to move forward with 

the responsibility to grow talent 

and help create the world’s best law 

enforcement leaders for the partner 

organizations and the FLETC staff. 

To do that, leaders will be instilled 

with a better understanding of human 

behavior to recognize that they can 

only bring out the best in others 

through a personal effort of their own. 

Leaders who look inward for the 

explanation of follower behavior will 

gain a much greater appreciation for 

the actions of their followers. 

1

Daniels, A. Bringing out the Best in People

(New York, McGraw- Hill, 2000)

2

Palmer, P. The Courage to Teach (San Francisco, Josey-Bass, 1998)

3

Leading Law Enforcement in the 21st Century.

(Glynco, GA., LELI Training Program, 2008)

4

Daniels, A., Daniels, J., Measure of a Leader,

(Atlanta, Performance Management Publications, 2005):131

5

Ibid

6

Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline – The Art and 

Practice of the Learning Organization, (New 

York, Doubleday, 1990)

7

Nila, M., Covey, S.R., The Nobility of Policing,

(Salt Lake City, Franklin Covey, 2008) 

Leadership

continued from page 28

FJ
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 39

the object(s) of the search. The rule 

in a Gant search incident to arrest, 

however, first requires a lawful custodial arrest of an occupant or recent 

occupant of a vehicle. A search of 

the passenger compartment incident to 

arrest is then justified by a reasonable 

belief that evidence of the crime of 

arrest might be in the car.25

If Gant’s “reasonable to believe” 

standard is equal to probable cause, 

then the Court has created an M.C. 

Escher-like puzzle.26 An officer who 

has made a custodial arrest and has a 

reasonable belief (equated to probable 

cause) that evidence of the crime of 

arrest might be in the car could search 

only the passenger compartment. An 

officer who has made no arrest, but 

has probable cause to believe that 

evidence of any crime is in the car, 

could search the entire vehicle. In 

other words, the officer who meets 

the higher standard (custodial arrest + 

probable cause for particular evidence) 

gets to search less, but the officer who 

meets the lesser standard (probable 

cause for any evidence) can search 

more. At best, the Court would have 

created a new search warrant exception that is instantly swallowed by 

another that has existed for almost 85 

years.

The better explanation is that reasonable means... reasonable. There 

is no need to equate “reasonable to 

believe” to a percentage or particular 

level of probability; in fact, the Supreme Court has stated that “the test 

of reasonableness under the Fourth 

Amendment is not capable of precise 

definition or mechanical application.”27 Rather, as in issues regarding 

an officer’s use of force, the proper 

application of the reasonableness 

standard “requires careful attention to 

the facts and circumstances of each 

particular case” and “must be judged 

from the perspective of a reasonable 

officer on the scene.”28 The ultimate 

question should be whether another 

reasonable officer, if confronted with 

the same facts and circumstances, 

could believe that evidence of the arrestee’s crime might be found in the 

vehicle the arrestee recently occupied. 

Facts and circumstances leading to 

such a reasonable belief will include 

information about the offense and the 

offender, the age of the information, 

the nature of the crime at issue, the 

behavior of the arrestee before, during, 

and after the arrest, ownership and 

control of the vehicle, and results of 

questioning arrestees and occupants.

Is the “offense-related evidence” justification limited to vehicular SIAs? The 

short answer is: yes. Gant explicitly 

states that the offense-related evidence 

justification for an SIA is based upon 

“circumstances unique to the automobile context.”29 The Court did not 

expound upon why it believed vehicles 

to be special in this context, but Justice Scalia’s concurrence in Thornton

– from which the language was taken

– reminds us that motor vehicles are “a

category of ‘effects’ which give rise to 

a reduced expectation of privacy and 

heightened law enforcement needs.”30 

Therefore, it appears as though officers 

may not justify a search of an arrestee’s 

non-vehicular lunging area based upon 

a reasonable belief that evidence of his 

crime might be found therein. Rather, 

they will have to articulate reason to 

believe that the arrestee could access 

the area at the time of the search.

Other Vehicle Search 

Exceptions Remain 

Available

If an officer cannot justify a search 

of a vehicle incident to arrest under 

Gant, or is uncertain whether an SIA 

is warranted, other established exceptions to the search warrant requirement remain available to safeguard 

evidence and protect the safety of 

officers.

(1) If an officer has a 

reasonable suspicion that 

a passenger or recent 

occupant of a vehicle 

– whether arrested or

not – is dangerous and

may gain access to a 

weapon, he may frisk the 

passenger compartment 

for weapons.31 (This 

exception is known as a 

Terry frisk of the vehicle.)

(2) If the officer has probable 

cause that the vehicle 

contains evidence of 

criminal activity, the 

officer may conduct 

a thorough search of 

any area of the vehicle 

in which the evidence 

might be found.32

(This exception is the 

aforementioned “mobile 

conveyance exception” or 

the Carroll Doctrine.)

(3) If an officer conducting 

an arrest reasonably 

suspects that a dangerous 

person is hiding in a 

nearby vehicle, he may 

conduct a protective 

sweep of the vehicle by 

looking in places where 

such a person might be 

concealed.33

(4) Consent will always 

allow an officer to 

search, as long as it is 

given voluntarily by one 

with actual or apparent 

authority to give it, and 

the officer stays within the 

boundaries of the consent 

given.34

(5) Although not permitted 

for use as a criminal 

search tool, an officer

Arizona v. Gant

continued from page 18
40 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

who effects a lawful impound of a vehicle 

may inventory its contents in accordance with 

standardized agency policy. If the inventory is 

performed lawfully, any evidence or contraband 

identified during the process may be seized and 

used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, and 

may provide justification for another warrant 

exception.35

Given the Gant Court’s failure to define its “reasonable to 

believe” standard, one cannot be certain how lower courts 

will apply that portion of the decision. For that reason, 

officers may be well advised to consider the applicability of 

the other, well-established vehicle search exceptions before 

relying on an SIA.

1

556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120. The text of the opinion is 

available at http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZS.html.

2

Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 626-27 (2004) (Scalia, J., 

concurring in judgment).

3

Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762-63 (1969); see also United States 

v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir. 2004) (“[I]f an officer has arrested an 

individual, the officer may search the individual’s person incident to arrest 

and may reach into his pockets”). 

4

Thornton, 541 U.S. at 626 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

5

United States v. Pratt, 355 F.3d 1119, 1121 (8th Cir. 2004), citing United 

States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235-36 (1973) (“[O]fficers need not 

have any reason to think the individual is armed or that evidence of the 

crime will be found on his person. It is the fact of arrest that enables 

the officer to conduct a search, not a particularized suspicion as to the 

suspect’s dangerousness”).

6

New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), citing United States v. 

Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235 (1973). 

7

United States v. Passaro, 624 F.2d 938, 943-44 (9th Cir. 1980) (search 

incident to arrest doctrine allows search of arrestee’s wallet).

8

United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).

9

“Robinson stands for the proposition that, after a proper custodial arrest 

has been made, it is unnecessary to obtain a warrant to search the 

arrestee’s person and clothing because it is the arrest that constitutes 

the significant intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; the search of the 

person is incidental and does not require additional justification. See 

Robinson, 414 U.S. at 235. However, ‘unlike searches of the person, 

searches of possessions within an arrestee’s immediate control cannot 

be justified by any reduced expectations of privacy caused by the 

arrest’” but must be based upon the “exigencies of the situation.” United 

States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561, 1578 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal citations 

omitted).

10Belton, 453 U.S. at 462, n.5.

11Much of the case law authorizing this practice has applied Belton to 

non-vehicular arrests in an attempt to create a bright-line rule for law 

enforcement. See, e.g. United States v. Palumbo, 735 F.2d 1095, 1096-

97 (8th Cir. 1984)(explaining, in a non-vehicular search context, that the 

Belton rule “defines the area generally which may be searched, and 

is not constrained because the arrestee is unlikely at the time of the 

arrest to actually reach into that area.”); United States v. Queen, 847 

F.2d 346, 352-54 (7th Cir. 1988) (citing numerous cases in upholding a 

search incident to an arrest where the arrestee was handcuffed behind 

his back inside of a residence, but failing to distinguish vehicular and 

non-vehicular cases under Belton); United States v. Silva, 745 F.2d 840 

(4th Cir. 1984) (applying Belton in a non-vehicular case to uphold the 

seizure of a zippered bag although the arrestee -- who was handcuffed 

behind his back -- was sitting on a bed in a motel room surrounded 

by armed FBI agents). Belton, however, is useful only to define that 

portion of a vehicle that may be searched when an SIA is justified, and 

is probably not generalizable to a non-vehicular context. See United 

States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251, 269 (3rd Cir. 2002), citing Belton, 453 U.S. 

at 460 n.3 (“In a further attempt to clarify that it was only applying the 

rule of Chimel to the unique circumstances of a post-arrest warrantless 

search of an automobile, the Court stated, ‘our holding today does no 

more than determine the meaning of Chimel’s principles in this particular 

and problematic context. It in no way alters the fundamental principles 

established in the Chimel case regarding the basic scope of searches 

incident to lawful custodial arrest.’”). 

12See, e.g., United States v. Myers, 308 F.3d 251, 267 (3d Cir. 2002) 

(finding that an arrestee who was handcuffed behind his back while lying 

face down on the floor and “covered” by two armed police officers while 

another officer searched his bag would have had to possess superhuman 

qualities to access to the bag at the time of the search).

13Myers, 308 F.3d at 267 (3d Cir. 2002), citing United States v. AbdulSaboor, 85 F.3d 664, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

14Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *11.

15Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *12.

16Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *54 (“The first part of the Court’s new twopart rule -- which permits an arresting officer to search the area within an 

arrestee’s reach at the time of the search -- applies, at least for now, only 

to vehicle occupants and recent occupants, but there is no logical reason 

why the same rule should not apply to all arrestees.”)

17Id., 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *11.

18Compare United States v. Morgan, 936 F.2d 1561, 1579 (10th Cir. 1991) 

(invalidating a search of a suspect’s bag following his arrest where the bag 

was never closer than ten to fifteen feet behind the suspect during his 

arrest, it was not seized until he was handcuffed to a nearby fence, and it 

was not searched until several hours later at the police station) with State 

v. Galpin, 80 P.3d 1207 (Mont. 2003) (defendant’s coat and duffel bag 4-6 

feet from him at time of arrest lawfully searched incident to defendant’s 

arrest notwithstanding fact he was “handcuffed and placed on his knees,” 

as that placed him “in even closer proximity to his coat and duffel bag” 

and “a man leaning his body and reaching, even with his hands in cuffs, 

could potentially reach the articles within that range”).

19See, e.g. United States v. Jones, 475 F.2d 723 (5th Cir. 1973) (“The record 

is unclear whether [the defendant’s] hands were cuffed in front or behind 

his back and does not reveal the defendant’s location in relation to the 

suitcase that the time of the search. Both of these facts are relevant to 

a determination of access to weapons or destructible evidence. . . in the 

Chimel analysis.”) One might argue there is a possibility that officers 

might “leave[] a suspect unrestrained nearby just to manufacture authority 

to search.” Thornton, 541 U.S. at 627 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in 

judgment). Justice Scalia anticipated this argument, however, and has 

opined that neglecting sensible police procedures solely to justify a search 

might render the search itself unreasonable. Id.

20See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1207 (9th Cir. Cal. 

1984) (en banc) (“The critical inquiry, then, is whether the search that 

produced [the defendant’s] pistol was properly limited to the area within 

FJ
 

FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009 41

his immediate control at the time of his arrest. The number of persons 

being arrest[ed], the number of officers present, their physical positioning 

with regard to the arrestee and the place searched, the display of guns 

by the officers and, of course, the distance between the arrestee and the 

place searched are all factors to be weighed by the court.”) 

21Compare United States v. Abdul-Saboor, 85 F.3d 664, 670 (D.C. Cir. 

1996) (area was within arrestee’s immediate control because although 

arrestee was handcuffed, arrestee attempted to retrieve a loaded shotgun 

after police entered his room, and he specifically requested entry to the 

area to be searched); with United States v. Lyons, 227 U.S. App. D.C. 284, 

706 F.2d 321, 300-31 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (search incident to arrest not justified 

where arrestee was handcuffed, the closet that was searched was several 

yards away, six police officers were in the room with arrestee, no weapons 

had yet been uncovered, and arrestee had collapsed and been revived 

before the search began). See also United States v. Mitchell, 64 F.3d 1105, 

1110 (7th Cir. 1995) (Suspect’s handcuffing did not destroy the officer’s 

justification for searching the briefcase, where the officer had observed 

the suspect about to throw the briefcase out the window immediately 

before arresting him, had arrested the suspect after seeing a gun in his 

waistband, and had reason to fear that a confederate might come through 

the door at any moment and either grab for the briefcase or create an 

opportunity for the suspect to grab for the briefcase, and the briefcase 

had been in the suspect’s control when he was arrested and was lying 

near him when the officer picked it up.)

22See, e.g., United States v. Roper, 681 F.2d 1354, 1358-1359 (11th Cir. 

1982) (“The obvious peril created by attempting to arrest a suspected drug 

dealer in a hallway where other arrests are taking place while bystanders 

looked on sufficiently established exigent circumstances to justify returning 

[the arrestee] to his room. In this situation, the officers were authorized to 

search the area within his control for weapons and evidence.”)

23“The rule of Chimel does not permit the arresting officers to lead the 

accused from place to place and use his presence in each location to justify 

a search incident to arrest.” United States v. Whitten, 706 F.2d 1000, 1016 

(9th Cir. 1983). Where it is necessary to move an arrestee into another room 

in the house from where the arrest occurred to obtain clothing, however, 

a law enforcement officer will be justified in accompanying the arrestee. 

If the officer observes evidence in plain view, it may be seized. This is so 

even if the decision to move the arrestee was made by a law enforcement 

officer rather than the arrestee. See, e.g. United States v. DiStefano, 555 

F.2d 1094, 1101 (2nd Cir. 1977); United States v. Titus, 445 F.2d 577, 579 

(2nd Cir. 1971) (holding officers were justified in accompanying arrestee 

into home based upon duty to clothe the arrestee or permit arrestee to do 

so). Thus, an object not in the arrestee’s control at the moment of arrest 

may later come into his control. See, e.g. United States v. Ricks, 817 F.2d 

692 (11th Cir. 1987) (arrestee asked for his jacket, which was hanging in 

closet, so search of jacket pockets incident to arrest proper).

24Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925); see also Fernandez v. 

United States, 321 F.2d 283, 286-287 (9th Cir. 1963) (“It is well-settled that 

a valid search of a vehicle moving on a public highway may be had without 

a warrant, if probable cause for the search exists, i.e., facts sufficient to 

warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense is being 

committed”) (citations omitted); United States v. Patterson, 140 F.3d 767, 

773 (8th Cir), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 907 (1998)(A warrantless search of 

a vehicle is permissible where law enforcement officers have “probable 

cause to believe that contraband or evidence of criminal activity [will] be 

found”).

25Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *20 (In some cases, 

“the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger 

compartment of an arrestee’s vehicles and any containers therein.”) 

(emphasis added.)

26M.C. Escher is famous for his “impossible structure” illustrations, in 

which the viewer cannot tell where one aspect of the drawing ends and 

another begins.

27Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989), citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 

U.S. 520, 559 (1979).

28Id. at 396.

29Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), 2009 U.S. LEXIS 3120 at *6; see also id. 

at *20 (“Although it does not follow from Chimel, we also conclude that 

circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a 

lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime 

of arrest might be found in the vehicle”) (internal quotations omitted).

30Thornton, 541 U.S. at 641 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).

31Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).

32Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).

33A protective sweep is lawful where there are “articulable facts which, 

taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant 

a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors 

an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.” Maryland v. 

Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 334 (1990); and cf. United States v. Jones, 471 F.3d 

868 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding protective sweep of vehicle parked on public 

street during execution of search warrant at adjacent residence based 

upon officers’ reasonable belief that vehicle could contain person who 

posed a danger to officers at the scene).

34Both “the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require that a consent not 

be coerced, by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or covert force.” 

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 228 (1973). “A third party’s 

consent to search is valid if that person has either the ‘actual authority’ or 

the ‘apparent authority’ to consent to a search of that property.” United 

States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215, 1221 (10th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).

35See, e.g. Michigan v. Thomas, 458 U.S. 259, 261-62 (1982) (per curiam) 

(an inventory of the car’s glove compartment revealed marijuana, which 

provided probable cause for a more comprehensive, warrantless search. 

“[W]hen police officers have probable cause to believe there is contraband 

inside an automobile that has been stopped on the road, the officers 

may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle, even after it has been 

impounded and is in police custody”).
42 FLETC JOURNAL | FALL 2009

Commentary

Let’s Talk

Andy Smotzer

andy.smotzer@dhs.gov

I

n March of 2009 the Criminal 

Investigator Training Program 

(CITP) Curriculum Review 

Conference (CRC) was held. I 

attended the conference and was 

very impressed with the process and 

how productive the meetings went. 

A major component leading up to 

the conference was having working 

groups meet and exchange information between the Partner Organizations (POs) and the training divisions. 

What I found very interesting at the 

beginning of the workshops was how 

concerned the POs were in regards to 

the poor communication skills (meaning face-to-face communication) of 

their new recruits. The POs felt that 

these new employees needed additional instruction in this area and that the 

Behavioral Science Division (BSD) 

needed to provide a means to improve 

these soft skills before their students 

graduated. 

The decision-makers, meaning 

representatives from the POs, and 

the representatives from the training 

divisions are mostly from the baby 

boomer generation with a few members from the X generation. However 

our student population is mostly from 

the X generation, meaning those who 

have grown up using computers, cell 

phones 

and putting the art of text 

messaging to use. This means our 

students have little practice talking to 

another person face-to-face. These 

weak skills really show up during the 

students’ interviewing laboratories and 

practical exercises. This made a lot of 

sense to me because of my experiences 

with family and being around young 

people.

To reinforce the views of the POs 

and my own personal opinion concerning this subject area, here’s a few 

examples. This morning I had coffee 

with a friend of mine, and we were 

discussing this very subject. He told 

me that last month his teenage son 

had 15,000 text messages on his cell 

phone. Now perhaps in the near 

future this young man may become 

a second generation of his family to 

pursue the law enforcement profession. If he does, he probably will fall 

into the same category of our present 

students. Meaning he hasn’t developed the skills of talking to someone 

face-to-face, which is critical in our 

line of work.

Here are some other examples. I 

was with my wife and 19-year-old 

daughter driving to Tampa to see our 

son (her brother) and family when 

I noticed no one was talking. When 

I looked, I noticed both of them were 

texting. Yes, maybe I’m that boring 

but when I was growing up we talked 

to one another. In January my wife 

and I went to the Glynn Academy 

Beauty Pageant and when I looked 

over to my right I observed two teenage girls sitting next to me texting. I 

will say this; they were very good. I 

was impressed! I don’t want to bore 

my readers with other examples 

because you have your own stories to 

tell, but how do we turn this thing 

around? Maybe when our students 

come to train, we don’t allow them to 

bring their phones to class. Instead, 

they must leave their phones in their 

room. Or develop more interactive 

exercises so they get to practice or do 

what my coffee buddy said to his kids 

when they were out to eat, “Put those 

phones away, and ‘Let’s talk.’” FJ
Picture This

Shovel Ready Project

In the late 18th Century construction began on a canal connecting Darien to Brunswick, GA. Its financial backers 

and builders envisioned the canal as a superhighway of its time. The canal would speed the delivery of lumber, 

cotton and rice from the Altamaha River system to the port of Brunswick. Unfortunately, in the early 1800s the 

project went bust. Then in the 1820s financing was found and construction resumed. But within a decade the 

locomotive became the perferred engine of commerce and railroads supplanted canals as the new superhighway. 

Today, sections of the canal are still visible. (Photo: Fred Charles, fred.charles@dhs.gov)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

U. S. Department of Homeland Security

1131 Chapel Crossing Road

Glynco, Georgia 31524

www.fletc.gov

We train those who protect our homeland

ILEA Botswana, Africa