Journal the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

VOLUME 9 SPRING 2011

THE FLETC AT 40

Celebrating a multicultural workforce

THE FIREARMS SIMULATION STUDY

Transforming marksmanship training

THE FLETC INTERMODAL TRAINING FACILITY 17 Reality based training complex nears completion 26
Inside this issue

KEN KEENE

Deputy Director

FLETC

It is a great pleasure for me to be asked to comment on this latest edition of 

what has matured into a meaningful, quality publication. As I reviewed the FLETC 

Journal, I was struck by the robust variety and quality of each article. Each law 

enforcement-related contribution is an excellent product that focuses on a distinct 

area of concern to the greater community --- our training partners and customers. 

We often tell our counterparts at the Department of Homeland Security that the 

FLETC has an inexhaustible supply of experts well versed in any law enforcement 

topic, which is brought to the table for discussion. This volume is an absolute 

testament to that expressed position. Likewise, the previous editions of the 

Journal have served to educate the readers on diverse law enforcement issues 

and training advances, as well as, to showcase the expertise of the FLETC and 

Partner Organization staff in this consolidated training environment.

Quite frankly, I read the short piece in this edition on Andy Smotzer with 

particular interest. I was the Assistant Director of Training when the latest 

request to begin publishing what is now known as the FLETC Journal was 

submitted for approval. Honestly, I was skeptical that sufficient material and 

long term commitment could be generated to continue this effort. It is with great 

pride that I report the FLETC Journal’s perseverance and growth to the relevant 

status that it holds today. The Director recently talked in a public forum about 

the “passion” which the work force has demonstrated so often to our visiting 

dignitaries. Generally that passion is a reference to the commitment the work 

force has to the students and to preparing them for their journey and career. 

Clearly, that passion translates to the topical articles that are presented in each 

edition of the FLETC Journal. I commend and compliment the authors and other 

contributors for their continuing efforts, along with the outstanding work of the 

layout and editorial staff that result in the professional publication we enjoy as 

the FLETC Journal. It is a job well done that represents the talent and expertise of 

many of our best and brightest for our most worthy mission --- “Training those who 

protect our Homeland.”

Ken Keene

Ken Keene
CONTENTS

FRONT COVER: A counterterrorism team uses reality based scenario training at the FLETC’s Counterterrorism Operations Training Facility.

The FLETC Journal | Spring 2011

6

Smart Phones: Not Your Father’s Phone

9

Advanced Interrogation Law Enforcement 

Investigators Training Program

12

The Making of a National Park Ranger

21

The FLETC’s 40th Anniversary 

and Nation of Nations Event

26

The FLETC Firearms Simulation Study

33

The FBI Underwater Evidence Program Team 

Undergo FLETC IBOT Training

36

Ruses: Legal and Effective in Law Enforcement

39

Commitment: The NCIS honors FLETC Director

40

The FLETC Hosts the Public Safety 

Leadership Development Consortium

41

The FLETC and INTERPOL Team 

for Technology and Research Exercise

42

The US Capitol Police: An Historical Perspective

43

In the Beginning... 

Journal Founding Member Retires

17 The new FLETC Intermodal Training Facility under construction
4 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

Director

Connie L. Patrick

Editorial Team

Dominick Braccio

Stephen W. Brooks

Preston Farley

Alicia Gregory

Ed McGuire

Bobby Masano

William Norris, Ph.D.

Susan B. Thornton

Darrell Williams

Kelly Yanko

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. The circulation is 4,000 and 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 912.267.2429.

byLines

SMARTPHONES

Vicki Bingham is a Senior Instructor 

for the Technical Operations Division 

in the Digital Forensics Branch at 

the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC), in Glynco, 

GA, where she has been an instructor 

for the FLETC since 2006. She started 

her federal career in Department of 

the Navy at Kings Bay, GA in 1989.

In 2008, Bingham became the 

Program Coordinator for the Computer 

Network Investigations Training 

Program which is the advanced 

course for server and network live 

acquisitions. She is the Assistant 

Program Coordinator in the Mobile 

Device Investigations Program 

(MDIP) which is the introductory cell 

phone acquisition and analysis class. 

Both courses are open to all law 

enforcement officers/agents at both 

the local and federal level. 

Preston L. Farley is a Senior Instructor 

for the Technical Operations Division 

at the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center, the largest law 

enforcement training organization 

in the United States, where he has 

been an instructor for the FLETC since 

2004. 

In 2006 Farley became the Program 

Coordinator for the Seized Computer 

Evidence Recovery Specialist Training 

Program (SCERS) which is the 

introductory digital forensic analysis 

class open to all law enforcement 

officers/agents at both the local and 

federal level. 

His law enforcement career 

includes 20 years as a United States 

Military member in both the active 

duty Air Force and the active duty 

Army culminating in nine years 

of investigative experience with 

the United States Army Criminal 

Investigation Division Command 

as a Special Agent. Farley has 

served in Germany as a Digital 

Crime Lab Investigator, a General 

Crimes Agent and in the Balkans 

as a War Crimes Investigator. Mr. 

Farley has specialized training in 

Dignitary Protective Services, Child 

Abuse Investigations, Crime Scene 

Processing, Death Investigations and 

Financial Crimes. Farley retired from 

the U.S. Army in June 2004.

ADVANCED INTERROGATION

Thomas R. Masano is a Senior 

Instructor assigned to the Behavioral 

Science Division were he provides 

training and develops curriculum in 

the areas of human communication 

and detecting deception including 

witness, victim, and suspect 

interviewing. He is also the program 

coordinator for the Advanced 

Interviewing for Law Enforcement 

Investigators Training Program.

Masano retired in 2005 as a Special 

Agent with the Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations (OSI). With OSI 

he held assignments at Anderson AFB, 

Guam; Kadena Air base, Okinawa, 

Japan; National Security Agency 

(NSA), Ft Meade, MD; Andrews AFB, 

MD; and the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC). 

“

Farley

Journal The FLETC

 VOLUME 9 ISSUE 1 | SPRING 2011

Bingham Masano
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 5

CONTRIBUTORS

Masano holds a Master of Arts degree 

in Security Management from American 

Military University as well as a Bachelor 

of Science degree in Criminal Justice, 

cum laude, from the University of 

Maryland. He is a Certified Occupational 

Instructor and a Certified Forensic 

Interviewer (CFI). 

MAKING OF A RANGER

Todd A. Clark is a U.S. Park Ranger for 

the National Park Service (NPS) and is 

currently working as a Detailed Instructor 

at FLETC in the Marine Training Branch 

of the Driver and Marine Division. With 

over 29 total years with NPS, 25 years 

of that in Law Enforcement, he started 

as a seasonal ranger at Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument in Arizona. 

Prior to arrival at FLETC, Todd spent 18 

years at Gulf Islands National Seashore 

conducting marine law enforcement 

operations in and around the over 50 

miles of coastline and remote barrier 

islands that extend across the Mississippi 

Gulf Coast.

FLETC INTERMODAL FACILITY

Dierdre Brown has been with the 

government for over eight years and 

works for the Chief Financial Officer 

Directorate. She is currently the project 

manager for the Intermodal Terminal 

Building, an important part of the 

Practical Applications Counterterrorism 

Operations Training Facility initiative. As 

PM, she is responsible for the facilitation 

and implementation of the project plan, 

including the scope, schedule, budget, 

and the project’s performance from start 

to completion. She formerly worked in 

Strategic Planning and Analysis and the 

Counterterrorism Division as a program 

and management analyst and as a project 

manager.

Prior to the government, Dierdre was 

employed by Delta Airlines in Atlanta 

for sixteen years as a Consumer Affairs 

Coordinator and Service Recovery 

Expert. After relocating to Coastal 

Georgia with her family in 1996, she 

worked for the Glynn County School 

System as a Social Worker liaison and 

Counselor for troubled youth. Dierdre 

has a Master’s degree and is a Certified 

Acquisition Professional. She earned 

the distinguished credential of Project 

Manager Professional (PMP) in 2005. 

FBI UEP UNDERGOES FLETC IBOT

Jeff DuPont presently serves as the 

Program Specialist in the Driver and 

Marine Division’s (DMD) Marine Training 

Branch (MTB). Since joining FLETC 

in 2004, Jeff has served as a Driving 

Instructor and as a Senior Instructor in the 

MTB. Jeff has over 15 years of uniformed 

service as a Sheriff’s deputy and as a 

Trooper with the Georgia State Patrol.

Jeff is a veteran of the U.S. Navy and 

also holds a U.S. Coast Guard Merchant 

Mariner’s Master’s license. He has a 

bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice 

and is currently enrolled in the Master’s 

program at Troy University.

LEGALBRIEFS: RUSES

Poppi Ritacco joined the FLETC Legal 

Division as a Senior Instructor in June 

2009. She instructs in FLETC’s basic and 

“

Brogan

advanced programs.

Ritacco graduated from Harvard Law 

School in 2002, and worked in the Boston 

office of Goodwin Proctor as a Litigation 

Associate. From 2003 to 2007, as an 

Assistant District Attorney in Massachusetts. 

As an Assistant District Attorney, in addition 

to actively prosecuting both felony and 

misdemeanor cases, she supervised adult and 

juvenile courts, and participated in the Gang 

Unit and the Project Safe Neighborhoods 

initiative. From 2007 to 2009, Ms. Ritacco 

worked as an Assistant Attorney General in 

Washington D.C. As an Assistant Attorney 

General, she served as the DUI Prosecutor 

and was promoted to the position of Traffic 

Safety Resource Prosecutor for which she 

handled sensitive and serious DUI cases, 

trained police and prosecutors, and helped to 

develop detection and prevention programs 

and to draft legislation. 

Ritacco graduated from Carleton College 

in 1999 with a B.A. in Philosophy and a 

Certificate in French. She is a member of the 

Massachusetts and Washington D.C. bars. 

AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: THE USCP

Glenn Brogan is a Lieutenant with the 

United States Capitol Police (USCP) and he 

is currently the Agency Representative to 

the FLETC, Glynco, Ga. Prior to his current 

assignment, Lt. Brogan was a detailed 

instructor to the FLETC’s Physical Techniques 

Division from 2002-2007. 

 Prior to his assignment to FLETC in 2002, 

Brogan was assigned to the USCP’s Uniformed 

Services Bureau where he worked on the 

Patrol, Senate, House and Capitol Divisions. 

Lt. Brogan holds a Bachelor’s Degree from the 

University of Maryland in Criminal Justice. 

Clark Brown DuPont
6 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

SMART PHONES:

NOT YOUR FATHER’S TELEPHONE

VICKI BINGHAM & PRESTON L. FARLEY

Senior Instructors, Technical Operations

Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876. Motorola demonstrated the first cellular phone in 1973 

which weighed nearly four and a half pounds. In the year 1990, 12.4 million people worldwide had cellular 

subscriptions. By the end of 2009, only 20 years later, the number of mobile cellular subscriptions worldwide 

reached approximately 4.6 billion. In the United States today there are approximately 235 million cellular 

phone accounts. With a population of just over 300 million, and discounting those who are too young or incarcerated, 

it’s safe to say that “almost everyone” has a cell phone. Never in the history of technology has a single device so quickly 

become embedded into the fabric of society. This article will explore the explosive growth of this technology and its impact 

upon society and law enforcement’s role in cell phone technology.

The original cell phone, like the original telephone was designed to do one thing: allow two-way communication 

between two phones, albeit wirelessly in the case of the cell phone. Once the problems of size and battery life were 

negated, the move to create additional features for the cell phone took the forefront. Simple texting started the trend 

which then moved to in-phone cameras and morphed into what we today call the smart phone. Smart phones allow the 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 7

user of these devices to accomplish 

nearly any task which a standard 

personal computer can perform. 

Smart phones are equipped with 

web browsers allowing full surfing 

on the internet. Some cell phones 

are equipped with Microsoft Office 

applications allowing viewing and 

editing of files. With the advent 

of 3G (third generation) and 4G 

cellular networks, real-time video 

teleconferencing has arrived. Video 

streaming has been around for a few 

years now as well. Both web based 

and application based e-mail are 

accessible by today’s smart phones. 

Using Bluetooth technology, a cell 

phone user can interact with an 

external keyboard, mouse, printer, 

etc., just as a larger personal 

computer does. In fact, with limited 

exception, the modern smart phone 

is just a microcomputer with cellular, 

satellite and/or Wi-Fi network 

access. It is also much cheaper than 

a traditional PC. This has made 

its popularity soar, not just in the 

United States, but around the globe. 

During a recent interview Bill Gates, 

founder of Microsoft, stated that the 

future of computers lay in hand-held 

devices.

On another front, many 

Americans have terminated their 

landlines entirely, deciding to rely 

solely on their cellular phones for 

communication in a phenomenon 

known as “wireless substitution.” 

According to a new Citi Investment 

Report, nearly 30-percent of all U.S. 

households have now disconnected 

their landlines—up from 25-percent 

just one year ago. It took more than 

90 years for landline service to reach 

100 million consumers and less than 

17 years for wireless to reach the 

same number of consumers1

. This 

fact further reinforces our theory 

that “everyone” has a cell phone.

To a great extent, law enforcement 

in general has not had the 

opportunity to keep pace with 

the rapid evolution of cell phone 

technology nor addressed the 

investigative significance of cell 

phones. As a consequence, it is now 

playing catch-up. As stated, these 

mobile handheld devices are far more 

than communications tools. Virtually 

all cell phones are, in fact, personal 

digital storage devices that potentially 

retain a substantial amount of 

personal and business data. The days 

of the “little black book” holding 

the names of “customers” of many 

proprietors of criminal enterprises are 

gone. Today that database routinely 

resides on a Blackberry, Droid device 

or an iPhone. Remote Internet 

Protocol cameras can be accessed 

over the internet providing realtime views of any scene chosen by 

the user. Many cities have real-time 

feeds of emergency response radio 

channels streaming to the internet, 

including police radio. Since 2005, 

all cell phones sold in the United 

States are required to have the ability 

to be geolocated to within 300 feet. 

With such a ubiquitous source of 

information in the hands of so many 

people, how does this impact law 

enforcement? The ability to identify, 

lawfully seize, capture, and analyze 

this pool of potential evidence has 

great investigative potential for 

the law enforcement officer. Part 

of the answer lies with the Mobile 

Device Investigations Program 

(MDIP), which is a relatively new 

five-day training program taught 

at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC) in the 

Technical Operations Division. 

The MDIP provides investigators 

with training in the art of cellular 

acquisitions, understanding 

cellular Global Systems for Mobile 

Communications (GSM), Code 

Division Multiple Access (CDMA), 

and Integrated Digital Enhanced 

Network (iDEN) technologies, and 

the art of framing investigations from 

evidence obtained through call detail 

records. Participants receive industry 

standard hardware and software 

Top Photo: A close-up of a Cellebrite UFED 

cell phone forensic analysis tool. This is one of 

the tools issued to students in FLETC’s Mobile 

Device Investigations Program. Middle: The 

Susteen cell phone forensic analysis tool and 

the associated cables. This is one of the tools 

issued to students in FLETC’s Mobile Device 

Investigations Program. Bottom: Close-up 

of the Susteen cell phone forensic cables. 

Opposite Page: Close -up of how to extract 

phone information from Cellebrite UFED cell 

phone forensic analysis tool connected to 

a Blackberry cellular device.All of the tools 

pictured are issued to students in FLETC’s 

Mobile Device Investigations Program.
8 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

most commonly used in cellular 

acquisitions, in addition to being 

provided training to facilitate their use 

in a mock investigative scenario.

As an example, Bluetooth is a low 

power wireless protocol designed to 

allow narrow band communication 

between electronic devices. Today, new 

laptops, cell phones and some cars 

have Bluetooth devices installed to 

assist us in transferring files or voice/

audio from a device to a Bluetooth 

headset. This headset is intended to 

make our lives “hands free” while we 

are driving, walking or nearly any 

other activity. Bluetooth connectivity 

is normally not enabled on new 

devices as it takes additional battery 

power when activated. However, if 

enabled, Bluetooth becomes an “open 

port” allowing any other Bluetooth 

device to connect to it or “pair” with 

it. Most people leave their Bluetooth 

enabled, even when not using this 

feature, out of convenience. Does this 

make them vulnerable? Absolutely! As 

the Bluetooth market has increased 

the use of Bluetooth devices, new 

terms have evolved to describe 

differing attacks on Bluetooth. Terms 

such as bluejacking, bluesnarfing, or 

bluebugging have been developing for 

the last five years. These terms describe 

theft of information by breaking 

into Bluetooth devices by means of 

software that infiltrates a device using 

a software exploit. Some websites post 

information about the vulnerabilities 

and how to exploit the vulnerabilities 

using free downloadable software.

Recently, co-author Vicki Bingham 

attended a technology security 

conference. Amber Shroader, CEO 

of Paraben Corporation, spoke about 

how she had successfully bluejacked 

multiple students’ phones with a 

spyware tool that she had installed on 

her mobile phone. When she turned 

on the software, it would wirelessly 

interrupt all the students’ phones 

that had Bluetooth activated in the 

classroom. The students, who had 

just been trained about Bluetooth 

vulnerabilities, would start tapping 

their Bluetooth headsets thinking 

that something was wrong with 

their connectivity. Indeed something 

was wrong. When they paired their 

devices back to what they thought 

was their headsets, they were instead 

paired with the spyware-infected 

device. The instructor had successfully 

compromised their cellular devices.

Many people unwittingly chronicle 

their daily lives on their handheld 

devices. People have their calendars, 

text messages, contacts, and internet 

on their handhelds. What about 

passwords and other sensitive 

information? One suggestion: turn 

your Bluetooth off when it is not in 

use. A default Bluetooth pass code 

is not hard to guess (it’s usually four 

numbers such as 0000) and most 

people don’t change the default. 

Protect your information. You don’t 

know who might try to access it, 

but you now know how easy it is 

to compromise. On the up side, 

through courses such as the MDIP, 

our law enforcement officers are now 

learning not only the value of this ever 

expanding pool of information, but 

also how to successfully use it in the 

investigative process.

The MDIP at the Technical 

Operations Division (TOD) is a 

one week program that provides 

investigators with training in 

the art of cellular acquisitions, 

understanding GSM, CDMA, 

and iDEN technologies, and the 

art of framing investigations from 

evidence obtained through call 

detail reports. Additionally, cell 

phone mapping techniques are 

taught and practiced in the course. 

Participants receive training using 

industry standard hardware and 

software most commonly used in 

cellular acquisitions. As is common 

with all TOD training, the hardware 

and software used by the student 

during the training are issued to the 

student upon graduation. These tools 

and techniques are used in a mock 

investigative scenario which is the 

final practical exercise. This course is 

open to any officer, regardless of prior 

“computer” investigative experienced. 

While infrequently offered on the 

Glynco campus, this course is most 

often run as an export course, which 

often decreases the costs to the 

student’s organizations. For current 

information on this course go to: 

www.fletc.gov/mdip.

1 Source: CTIA – The Wireless Association, 

Wireless Quick Facts, 100 Wireless Facts, 2009.

Top Photo: The Susteen cell phone forensic 

analysis tool connected to a Blackberry cellular 

device, pending analysis. This is one of the 

tools issued to students in FLETC’s Mobile 

Device Investigations Program. 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 9

ADVANCED INTERROGATION

FOR A NEW ERA OF [LAW ENFORCEMENT

“Twenty years ago, detectives

were looked upon totally 

different than they are 

now . . . you could be more 

aggressive and there was 

more respect coming from 

the suspect. This thing has 

changed, 20 years later it has 

flipped and you have to now 

show them a lot of respect no matter whether it’s a male 

or female, young or old, or 

different socio-economic

groups, it doesn’t matter. I 

find myself now showing 

respect to young guys who 

are hard core, and you didn’t have to do that 20 years ago.”

DETECTIVE JOHN DAVISON

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOMICIDE
10 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

THOMAS “BOBBY” MASANO

Senior Instructor, Behavioral Science

This is how a criminal investigator with over 20 years 

of experience recently described the difference in 

interrogation strategy applied to today’s suspects as opposed 

to those of 20 years ago. Because of societal changes, 

criminal investigators now must be prepared to use a 

variety of approaches to overcome resistance during an 

interrogation. Generation X and Generation Y view things 

differently when it comes to communication and authority 

which serves as the basis for these societal changes. A study 

found that people of all generations want respect; they just 

define it differently. People in positions of authority want 

their decisions to be respected, older people want people 

to respect their experience, and younger people want their 

ideas and suggestions to be respected (Deal, 2007). In 

support of Detective Davison’s comments, another study 

revealed that Generation Yers “highly valued honesty and 

respect” from authority figures (Smith, 2008). Therefore, 

an investigator’s technique must be adapted to build 

and maintain rapport while maintaining open lines of 

communication. This challenge and others like it cannot be 

successfully met with the interrogation styles of the past. 

Two factors play into the needed changes in a criminal 

investigator’s interview and interrogation strategy. The first 

is entertainment media. Over the past several years law 

enforcement television shows have constantly demonstrated 

wrong, and sometimes illegal, ways of conducting 

interrogations. Think of Sipowicz from NYPD Blue or the 

detectives from some of the Law and Order shows. These 

interrogation styles present a poor example for young and 

upcoming investigators who see these shows and think the 

methods used to interrogate suspects are normal and proper. 

This type of media has also created an expectation on the 

part of witnesses and suspects, who are often mentally 

prepared to face the stereotypical heavy-handed, badgering, 

arrogant interrogator.

Second, the new era of electronic communication outlets 

such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogging, texting, and 

dozens of other forums has put our younger generation 

of investigators at a disadvantage. These forms of social 

networking have become routine activities for young 

people and have stunted their verbal communication 

skills. In 2009, the median age for users of Facebook was 

26; MySpace was 27; and Twitter was 31 (Morgan, 2009). 

In comparison, the median age of students attending the 

FLETC’s Criminal Investigator Training Program (CITP) 

during FY10 was 30. Facebook has over 550 million 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 11

users and Twitter has over 98 million users. Twitter’s 

user population grew by 2 million during the 3rd quarter 

of 2010, with 13% of users being 18-24 years of age and 

30% being 25-34 years of age. In fact, teenagers are 

the fastest growing group of users for both Twitter and 

Facebook (Kiser, 2010). Social networking is creating 

more introverts instead of extroverts. Consider the rate of 

job turnover in the retail industry. Retail, which requires 

salespeople to communicate verbally, has a 40-60% turnover 

rate, while some companies using social networking to 

communicate with customers have reported only about an 

8% turnover rate (Maggiani, 2009). Actually talking to 

other people seems to have become the disfavored means 

of communication. With the lack of verbal communication 

skills in today’s society, there has been a steady decline 

in the quality of law enforcement interviews and 

interrogations. Younger, less experienced interviewers have 

difficulty establishing rapport or paying attention to nonverbal feedback and are sometimes unable (or unwilling) 

to repair communication breakdowns. Some interviewers 

end their interrogations abruptly as soon as they meet any 

sort of resistance. Rather than continue with patience and 

resilience, they give up. 

To better understand these new challenges faced 

by interrogators, and why some suspects talk to law 

enforcement and others do not, the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) partnered with 

the Dallas Police Department to examine videos from real 

interrogations to create a 360-degree case study titled “The 

360 degrees of Interrogation.” This collaborative effort 

between the Behavioral Science Division (BSD) and the 

Dallas Police Department supplements real interrogation 

footage with post-conviction interviews of detectives and 

suspects in an effort to determine what motivated suspects 

to talk to the criminal investigators.

With these factors in mind, members of the Behavioral 

Science Division (BSD) developed a new Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) advanced 

interview and interrogation program. The Advanced 

Interviewing for Law Enforcement Investigators Training 

Program (AILEITP) will be offered at the FLETC Glynco 

campus four times during FY11. A modified version of 

the AILEITP will also be available for export for those 

agencies wishing to hold a program at an alternate location.

Students attending AILEITP in Glynco during FY11 

will be part of a 36-hour program that includes 13 separate 

courses and one interrogation laboratory. The classroom 

presentations consist of lecture, demonstrations, and 

practice sessions which will help students develop specific 

interrogation skills to gain admissions and confessions 

from guilty suspects. This includes “The 360 degrees of 

Interrogation” presentation. Some of the areas covered 

include theories and methods of interrogations, advanced 

rapport strategies, Miranda warnings, questions to elicit 

admissions, advanced evidence and theme presentation, 

handling suspect denials, and countering interviewee 

questions. These courses are designed to improve 

communication skills and build confidence to conduct 

tough interviews and interrogations. Other topics, such as 

behavioral baselines and subject elimination interviews will 

help students better read verbal and non-verbal indicators 

of truth and deception. In the laboratory exercise, students 

will practice these techniques against trained role players 

during a continuing case scenario.

 If interested in attending the AILEITP, students 

must have graduated from a criminal investigations 

academy such as the FLETC’s Criminal Investigator 

Training Program (CITP) and have at least two years field 

experience conducting interviews and interrogations. For 

more information on the AILEITP, contact the Behavioral 

Science Division at: 

FLETC-BehavioralScienceDivisionPrograms@dhs.gov.

-Kiser, Paul; Social Media 3Q 2010 Update, October 8, 2010

-Maggiani, Rich; Social Media and Its Effects on Communication, 2009

-Morgan, Jacob; Social Media Today, March 5, 2009

Photo Opposite: The 

author discusses advanced 

interrogation and 

communication techniques 

with a student. This page:

Jenna Solari, senior instructor, 

Behavioral Sciences, FLETC, 

demonstrates non-verbal 

indicators with student.
12 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

THE MAKING OF A RANGER

TODD CLARK

Park Ranger, National Park Service
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 13

The creation of our national parks 

is, truly, as much of a uniquely 

American idea as is that of the park 

ranger who is sworn to protect and 

preserve these special places. For 

the past 139 years, men and women 

with unique qualities and talents 

have been working to preserve these 

national treasures for all Americans 

to enjoy for future generations. 

The National Park Service 

(NPS) was established in 1916 

under the Department of Interior 

(DOI) in order to bring the 37 

already established national parks, 

monuments and other protected 

lands under one agency dedicated 

to the protection and preservation 

of these treasures. The mission of 

the NPS is provided by law in Title 

16, Section 1. It establishes the 

National Park Service and provides 

the fundamental purpose of the 

National Parks: 

“....to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic 

monuments, and wild life therein and to provide for the 

enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will 

leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” 
14 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

I

t is at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) where park rangers train 

for their law enforcement mission 

in protecting our parks. In 1970 the 

NPS began sending a few rangers to 

Washington, DC to attend the Basic 

United States Park Police School. A 

few years later all Law Enforcement 

(LE) rangers were receiving LE 

training at the previously established 

Treasury LE Officers Training School 

(TLEOTS) in Washington, DC. That 

school soon became the Consolidated 

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center, and rangers trained at the 

Police School. Eventually, all training 

was moved to Glynco, GA, and placed 

under the FLETC, as we now know 

it. The National Park Service Law 

Enforcement Training Center (NPSLETC) is located on the campus of 

the Glynco site and coordinates the 

basic and advanced training of our 

rangers.

The history of the park ranger is 

linked to the formation of Yosemite 

and Yellowstone National Parks. 

Yosemite was first established by 

President Abraham Lincoln by 

transferring the 60 square mile tract 

of land from the Federal Government 

to the State of California in order to 

preserve it. The United States set a 

precedent with this act by being the 

first country in the world to set aside 

a piece of land purely for its scenic 

value. Although, not a federally 

protected area when it was first 

established, Yosemite was eventually 

placed under federal protection with 

the Yosemite and General Grant Act 

of 1890. The state of California hired 

caretaker Galen Clark to oversee the 

protection of the park when under 

state ownership. He was not called a 

park ranger at the time, but instead, 

the “Guardian of Yosemite”. 

Before Yosemite was transferred 

back to the federal government, 

Yellowstone National Park was the 

first park to be established under 

Federal Protection in 1872 and several 

custodians were designated to help 

guard the park. Yellowstone has 

been given credit for employing the 

first person to conduct the duties of 

what the future title of park ranger 

would personify. In 1880 former 

mountain man and scout “Rocky 

Mountain” Harry Yount was hired as 

a gameskeeper for Yellowstone. Yount 

was responsible for the enforcement 

of hunting limits and to protect 

the geological features of the park. 

Yount is considered by most to be 

the first National Park Ranger and is 

credited with setting the benchmark 

by which rangers are judged for their 

performance and public service. The 

NPS later created the Harry Yount 

Award to honor employees for the art 

and science of “rangering”. The official 

title of “Park Ranger” was not officially 

designated until 1904 and has been 

used since to describe those who wear 

the “Green and Gray”. 

The responsibilities have changed 

significantly over time and have 

morphed into two specific roles: The 

interpretive ranger who provides 

educational experiences in the 

park, and the law enforcement park 

ranger...the focus of this article. It 

has been suggested that the job of the 

park ranger is to protect the park from 

the people, protect the people from the 

park, and protect the people from the 

people. Park Rangers today are seeing 

increasingly more violent crimes 

against persons and personal property 

as well as drug trafficking violations. 

This is particularly true in our border 

parks such as Big Bend National 

Park and Amistad National Park in 

Texas, Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument and Coronado National 

Monument in Arizona. Park Rangers 

also fight a continuing battle against 

the illegal growing of marijuana in 

parks. The role of the National Park 

Ranger is ever evolving, but remains 

traditional in the same sense. Law 

Enforcement Rangers remain the 

primary providers of emergency 

medical services, search and rescue, 

structural and wildfire suppression and 

boating safety in many national parks. 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 15

The quality training that the ranger 

trainees receive at the FLETC and the 

on-going law enforcement training 

rangers receive in the field throughout 

their career are fundamental elements 

in the park ranger’s line of work. 

The NPS-LETC is tasked with the 

development and provision of the law 

enforcement skills needed for our park 

rangers. As a partner organization 

with the FLETC, the NPS-LETC 

utilizes FLETC facilities and both 

NPS and FLETC staff to conduct its 

basic and advanced training. The NPSLETC staff is committed to providing 

the highest quality, most realistic, 

relevant and state-of -the-art training 

for our rangers, special agents and 

law enforcement managers. The staff 

oversees the Basic Training Program, 

the Advanced Training Program and 

the Field Training Program, The NPS 

Firearms Program Manager and the 

NPS Commissions Office Program 

Manager are also based at Glynco. 

The majority of men and women 

seeking a position as a park ranger 

typically begin with training at a 

seasonal law enforcement training 

academy located within colleges 

across the country. Following their 

graduation from the seasonal training 

program, they are eligible to work as a 

seasonal law enforcement park ranger, 

a temporary but annually recurring 

position. When those individuals 

are hired as a permanent employee, 

they must then attend training at 

the FLETC. Once they attend the 

FLETC the entire training process 

to become a park ranger will last 

approximately 30 weeks. This program 

provides a complete academy training 

experience for both commissioned 

rangers and special agents at the 

FLETC and has the following three 

components: 1) Ranger Pre-Basic 

Training (RPBTP): The ranger trainee 

attends a 1 week agency-specific 

training at the FLETC that focuses 

on NPS law enforcement history, 

mission, policies and jurisdiction 

presented by the NPS-LETC staff 

and adjunct NPS instructors, 2) 

FLETC Land Management Police 

Training Program (LMPT): Next, 

the ranger trainee attends the LMPT 

which is the core FLETC basic 

training program approved by the 

Department of Interior (DOI) and 

utilized by seven other agencies. 

(Special Agents for the NPS attend 

the FLETC Criminal Investigator 

Training Program). 3) Field Training

Evaluation Training Program

(FTEP): Following graduation from 

LMPT, the ranger trainee departs 

for a field training assignment in the 

FTEP to complete the training cycle. 

The trainee is assigned to one of 27 

field training parks and is assigned to 

a Field Training Ranger (FTR) who 

evaluate the trainee’s competency 

at conducting law enforcement in 

the park. The FTEP ensures that all 

trainees are evaluated in the same 

fair and unbiased manner through 

strict standardization and the use 

of highly trained and professional 

senior field rangers. After successfully 

completing the FTEP, the ranger 

trainees are designated as a permanent 

commissioned park rangers and return 

to their home park to fulfill their 

duties.

Seasonal Law Enforcement 

Training. The NPS has traditionally 

utilized seasonal employees to 

conduct a vast array of ranger duties 

within the National Parks around the 

country. Seasonal rangers have also 

been called, “90 day wonders”, due 

to their employment usually lasting 

90 days during the peak visitation of 

the summer months. The NPS does 

not conduct any of its own seasonal 

law enforcement training but utilizes 

various academies around the country 

that are all affiliated with colleges and 

universities. These institutions provide 

the training recognized by the NPS 

as meeting the standards established 

in order for a ranger to obtain a Type 

II seasonal commission. The NPS 

is currently working to obtain full 

accreditation for these academies 

by the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Accreditation Office 

(FLETA).

The curriculum includes traditional 

law enforcement topics and NPS 

specific policy and philosophy. The 

cost for this training is paid entirely 

by the student. Approximately 

90 percent of the permanent, 

Yellowstone has been given credit 

for employing the first person 

to conduct the duties of what 

the future title of park ranger 

would personify. In 1880 former 

mountain man and scout “Rocky 

Mountain” Harry Yount was hired 

as a gameskeeper for Yellowstone.
16 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

commissioned law enforcement 

rangers for the NPS have attended 

training at these seasonal academies 

before getting hired permanently and 

then sent to the FLETC for basic 

training. 

The NPS-LETC also oversees the 

Advanced Law Enforcement Training 

Programs for the NPS. This training 

includes:

Law Enforcement for Managers.

This is a mandated, week-long course 

that provides training to noncommissioned personnel, primarily 

superintendents, who currently or 

may in the future manage a NPS law 

enforcement program. 

NPS Instructor Training.

Commissioned personnel are 

mandated by Departmental and NPS 

policy to receive annual in-service 

training in firearms and defensive 

tactics, and to participate in a rigorous 

physical fitness program. NPSLETC provides training to the 

Service’s firearms instructors, defensive 

tactics instructors, and physical 

fitness program coordinators at the 

FLETC. In addition, NPS-LETC 

certifies agency Electronic Control 

Device (ECD) instructors in agency 

policy above the standards of Taser 

International to ensure the quality of 

NPS ECD instructors and users. 

Distance Learning. To bring parks 

the highest quality training in the 

most cost-effective method, NPSLETC uses the NPS TEL network 

(satellite) and the agency’s InsideNPS 

web site to provide continued stateof-the-art law enforcement in-service 

training from the FLETC. Broadcasts 

originate from the FLETC digital 

studio and go live via satellite and 

webcasting to parks. Two-way 

communications allow students in the 

field to interact with instructors. To 

get the most out of each broadcast, 

they are transferred to digital format at 

NPS-LETC and are uploaded to our 

web site on InsideNPS for download 

by the field. Hundreds of rangers 

and special agents tune in throughout 

the year. NPS-LETC also offers 

podcasts from the offices of NPSLETC instructors using the Lotus 

Sametime system. These podcasts are 

especially effective to reach a limited 

audience with specific issues to discuss 

or resolve.

Land Management Investigator 

Training Program. The NPSLETC in partnership with the DOI 

developed a curriculum for a Land 

Management Investigator Training 

Program (LMITP). The program 

will provide a training bridge for 

the law enforcement park ranger to 

become a Special Agent. The LMITP 

is designed to address the specific 

training needs of a Special Agent that 

is assigned to a land management 

agency. This course is tentatively 

scheduled to be piloted in FY 2011.

Department of Interior Motorboat 

Operator Certification Course (DOIMOCC). All DOI boat operators 

are required to complete this course. 

The NPS has MOCC instructors 

based in various parks around the 

country that provide their motorboat 

operators with this course. The goal 

of the program over the next year is 

to coordinate input from all regional 

MOCC coordinators to identify 

current and future training needs, 

and determine the potential for online 

training modules to decrease in-class 

See PARK SERVICE page 32

Park Rangers Terry LaFrance and Wendy Bredow, Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 17

THE FLETC INTERMODAL 

TRAINING FACILITY

DIERDRE BROWN, PMP

Project Manager, FLETC

Realistic Based Venues for Realistic Based Training

The Intermodal Terminal Building is well 

underway in the construction process. It is a 

key component of the Practical Applications 

Counterterrorism Operations Training Facility 

(PACTOTF). This state-of-the-art facility boasts a realistic 

airport terminal with all the elements found in actual 

airports including: passenger security and boarding areas 

and an authentic jet aircraft, a subway station with a train, 

bus depot with busses, railway station outfitted with a 

passenger railcar and a rental car counter in the airport 

terminal. 

“Now, realistic based training will have realistic based 

venues” stated FLETC Assistant Director Dominick 

Braccio, in a recent interview about the building. “Today’s 

law enforcement must be highly interconnected to be 

optimally effective in combating transnational crime 

and thwarting international terrorist organizations. That 

inter-connectivity begins at the FLETC with a myriad 

of training programs for law enforcement agencies. 

The intermodal training facility provides yet another 

opportunity for law enforcement to combine resources for 

reality based training. This new site provides a venue where 

law enforcement can rehearse knowledge driven strategies 

to be more tactically sound in their practices. As a result, 

this training methodology will lead to law enforcement 

agencies having an even greater inter-operability and 

will also lead to an increase in the security of our citizens 

who utilize airplane, subway, train, and bus modes of 

transportation.” 

A counterterrorism team 

hone their tactical skills 

using a plane at the FLETC 

Intermodal Training Facility.
18 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

Braccio sees “vast potential” in the 

new building. He predicts crossusage of the facility by the training 

divisions and partners alike. Braccio 

believes that full utilization will 

foster best practice collaborations 

and the creation of new, innovative 

training programs. 

According to Braccio, an 

additional benefit of the Intermodal 

Terminal will be “the enhancement 

of existing programs within the 

Glynco Training Directorate. For 

example, the Counterterrorism 

Division (CTD) already has the 

Flying While Armed Program, now 

called Aircraft Counter-Measures 

Training. This terminal will make 

it possible for the CTD to train 

more aircraft counter measures 

that happen in airport areas, which 

will enhance the effectiveness of 

the program by adding additional 

security layers to the training.

“The FLETC is also working 

on collaborations with the 

Transportation Security 

Administration and the Federal 

Air Marshals. Also, Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement could 

use this site for mission related 

training. The Intermodal Terminal 

Building will provide venues where 

we can train together. This will 

apply not just to aircraft and airport 

scenarios – but to other modes of 

transportation. All transportation 

modes are susceptible to counter 

measures,” added Braccio. 

Braccio also sees the merits of 

the Intermodal Terminal Building 

for the Behavioral Science Division 

(BSD). He noted that BSD will 

have the ability to conduct “field 

simulated interviews in realistic 

environments. Unlike 9/11, 

students can be trained to detect 

deceptive behavior in the various 

venues before the occurrence of a 

potential incident.” 

The Enforcement Operations 

Division (EOD) will be another 

beneficiary of the Intermodal 

Terminal Building. Braccio 

stated that “additional venues will 

be available for tactical training 

for the Active Shooter Threat 

Training Program. Safe engagement 

measures and also drug interdiction 

techniques can be practiced in 

the actual venues in which they 

are likely to occur.” Braccio 

pointed out that the “Intermodal 

Training Building will provide 

the opportunity for the student to 

take calculated risks and see results 

before they go out in the field.” 

In addition, he said, “this facility 

will provide opportunities for the 

Technical Operations Division 

...the idea of an Intermodal Terminal Building was conceived in 

2004 when tremendous focus was shifted to the vulnerabilities in 

America’s transportation modes after 9/11. 

1

2
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 19

(TOD) to practice surveillance 

techniques and how to investigate 

criminals, terrorists or adversaries 

who are seeking to break into 

unencrypted devices to compromise 

sensitive information.” 

So where did it all start? Along 

with the PACTOTF, the idea of 

an Intermodal Terminal Building 

was conceived in 2004 when 

tremendous focus was shifted to 

the vulnerabilities in America’s 

transportation modes after 9/11. 

The FLETC dedicated staff, acreage 

and facilities to this effort and 

conducted a needs analysis with the 

Training Directorate and the Partner 

Organizations. This Integrated 

Project Team launched the practical 

applications facilities which will 

forever transform the FLETC. By 

2005, the FLETC transported an 

aircraft, donated by FedEx, to the 

site that was designated for the 

Intermodal Terminal Building. 

They also began construction of 

the infrastructure for the site and 

retrofitted the FedEx aircraft for 

training. 

 In 2007, comprehensive 

discussions began with stakeholders 

about the future design for 

the building. The FLETC 

Training Directorate and Partner 

Organizations were surveyed 

to determine training needs for 

an Intermodal site. Through an 

interactive process, stakeholders were 

able to reach consensus on “must 

have” requirements for the building 

and a budget sensitive “wish list” of 

enhancements. As a result of these 

collaborations, a Statement of Work 

was developed and an Architecture 

and Engineering (A&E) firm 

received the contract to design a 

building that met the standards and 

expectation of the stakeholders. 

Bill Metcalf, the Facilities Project 

Manager and subject matter expert 

for the project, recalls the design 

process. “The most challenging 

part of the process was to gather 

the requirements of multiple 

stakeholders and to mesh these 

requirements into a workable 

design.” Metcalf mentioned the fact 

that since the Intermodal Terminal 

is a one of a kind facility that is used 

exclusively for training, there were 

no similar buildings that could be 

used as models. Nevertheless, the 

process was a success due to the 

cooperative efforts of all involved. 

Metcalf stated that “collaboration 

with stakeholder customers and the 

project team was outstanding.” 

Ken Anderson, who was 

the Program Manager for the 

PACTOTF, also commented on 

The facility boasts a realistic airport terminal with all the elements 

found in actual airports including: passenger security and boarding 

areas and an authentic jet aircraft, a subway station with a train, bus 

depot with busses, railway station outfitted with a passenger railcar 

and a rental car counter in the airport terminal. 

1. The main fusalage of 

the FedEx plane is towed 

to the Intermodal site. 2. A 

tactical counterterrorism 

team about to tactically 

engage using the plane 

at the Intermodal site. 3.

The team engages another 

insert method on the 

plane.

3
20 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

the design process. He stated that 

“he is looking forward to seeing 

the completion of the Intermodal 

Terminal building in order to meet 

the needs of Training and our 

Partner Organizations.” According 

to Anderson, “it was good working 

with subject matter experts, trainers, 

and the various disciplines involved 

in the process such as the architects 

and engineers. Everyone was openminded and committed to the success 

of the project. It was particularly 

rewarding to have the cooperation 

and commitment of the stakeholder 

customers in trying to explain training 

to the non-trainers who would be 

responsible for the final design.”

Where are we now? The 

construction contract for the 

Intermodal Terminal Building was 

awarded to HITT Construction, 

Inc. from North Charleston, S.C., in 

December, 2009, and construction 

began in early March, 2010. According 

to Metcalf, “one of the major 

highlights of the project has been the 

hiring of HITT as our construction 

contractor. HITT has demonstrated 

total competence and professionalism 

in their execution of this project and 

is doing so within the confines of the 

project’s schedule and budget.” 

Why does the FLETC need an 

Intermodal Terminal? It just makes 

sense. Not only will the Intermodal 

Terminal provide realism for highly 

efficient scenario based training, it 

will also provide for experiential 

training. According to Braccio, 

“experiential training is a core 

methodology for the adult learner.” 

In fact, it is a highly accepted 

theory that adults are able to retain 

and develop better through actual 

interactions with their environment. 

This facility will offer such training 

and will stand as a hallmark of the 

FLETC’s commitment to “train 

those who protect our homeland.” 

The Intermodal terminal facility is 

projected for completion in July, 2011. 

An artist’s rendering of the FLETC Glynco Intermodal Training Site.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 21

NATION OF NATIONS 

AND 40TH FLETC ANNIVERSARY

vibrations from the music – to a 

medley of tunes from a Scottish 

bagpiper. The Polynesian Islanders 

fascinated the visitors with their 

traditional dancing – complete with 

blazing fireknives, and the Georgia 

Geechee Gullah Shouters shared 

their customs through dancing and 

singing traditional songs. 

Visitors in Glynco picked up their 

passports and globe-trotted through 

booths representing 14 countries, 

populated with staff who displayed 

their personal artifacts and mementos 

from Spain, Norway, the Middle East, 

Hispanic, Greece, American Indian, 

African American, Scotland, Ireland, 

Germany, Italy, France, Caribbean 

and Asian Pacific Islanders. The 14 

booths were decorated with flags of 

the 14 regions and colorful banners 

specifying the country name. These 

activities were complemented by the 

staff in the Diversity booth which 

included service members from the 

Fort Stewart, Ga., Warrior Transition 

Battalion, who are assisting in 

FLETC students and staff in Glynco, 

Artesia, Charleston and Cheltenham 

spent the afternoon of October 7th 

learning about other cultures by 

sampling a huge array of treats from 

around the world and watching 

performances representative of the 

“Nation of Nations” that is populated 

by the FLETC family. 

At Glynco, Deputy Director Ken 

Keene introduced Director Connie 

Patrick who kicked off the event 

and noted, “The FLETC began its 

journey 40 years ago, and during that 

time period, we have been able to 

build a strong and diverse workforce 

which has brought new ideas and 

solutions that have enhanced not 

only our institution, but Federal law 

enforcement as a whole.” 

Guests watched and listened to 

a wide range of cultural activities 

from Spain’s Flamenco dancers to 

Trinidad’s Caribbean steel drummers 

and from an intricate dance by the 

Florida School for the Deaf and 

Blind – based on their sensing 

Top Photo: FLETC and PO staff 

enjoyed showing mementos 

from their “home countries” 

at Glynco, as guests had their 

“passports” stamped as they 

globe-trotted through booths 

representing 14 countries. 

Above: FLETC Cheltenham 

staff sampled food and 

beverages from the African 

American, Hispanic, American 

Indian and Asian cultures.
22 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

19

T H E F O R T I E T H A N N I V E R S A R Y

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 23

70 NATION OF NATIONS CELEBRATION

2010 

9
24 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

establishing our Operation Warfighter 

Intern Program. The FLETC 40th 

Anniversary booth featured a pictorial 

exhibit – displayed at all sites -- which 

celebrated 40 years of 

training and partnerships 

with participating 

agencies. The FLETC 

Recreation Association 

provided beverages, food, 

and souvenirs of the 

event. Among those who 

attended were community 

officials who were 

instrumental in the initial 

move of the FLETC from its temporary 

facilities in Washington, D.C., to the 

Golden Isles in 1975 – 5 years after its 

establishment in the Department of the 

Treasury. 

At Artesia, Assistant Director Woody 

Wright welcomed staff and local officials 

including Mayor Phil Burch. The guests 

tasted a sampling of food from the 

Hispanic, American Indian, African 

American, Asian and Greek cultures and 

watched traditional dancers from the 

Zuni Pueblo Sunshine Dance Group, 

as well as FLETC’s own Kina Sands, 

Training Administrator, who performed 

Middle Eastern dances during the event 

in the Land of Enchantment.

In Charleston, the staff also sampled 

food from a variety of cultures where the 

dining hall featured a different nationality 

each day: German, Italian, American, 

“The FLETC began its 

journey 40 years ago, 

and during that time 

period, we have been 

able to build a strong 

and diverse workforce...”

Connie Patrick

Director, FLETC

1 2

3 4
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 25

Mexican and Asian. Dessert was 

served mid-week, when South Carolina 

Lowcountry staff enjoyed slices from a 

40th anniversary cake, served by Deputy 

Assistant Director Wayne Anderson. 

In Cheltenham, the staff sampled 

food and beverages from the African 

American, Hispanic, American Indian 

and Asian cultures. Deputy Assistant 

Director Ted Sparks recounted the 

history of Cheltenham since 1936. 

Staff enjoyed reading through the 

African American history handouts and 

literature provided by the Alexandria 

Black History Museum, and looking 

through Carlan Hinnant’s Native 

American cultural artifacts. 

At all sites, more than 2,000 students 

and staff reviewed the FLETC’s history 

outlined in a detailed pictorial display 

and gained a better appreciation of 

each other’s culture, traditions and 

backgrounds. 

The FLETC’s Nation of Nations 

was summed up by Director Patrick 

who observed, “Throughout FLETC’s 

history we have striven to create 

a place where men and women of 

different backgrounds, genders, beliefs 

and orientations can effectively work 

together toward a common purpose 

– training those who protect our 

homeland. The best way to serve our 

nation is to have an organization that 

reflects and respects the diversity of the 

American people.”

5

6

7

1. Staff at FLETC Artesia watched Kina 

Sands, Training Administrator, perform 

Middle Eastern dances. 2. Traditional 

dances from the Zuni Pueblo Sunshine 

Dance Group entertain at FLETC 

Artesia. 3. At FLETC Glynco members 

of a Middle Eastern belly dance group 

enjoy the festivitives of the Nations 

of Nations event. 4. FLETC Director 

Connie Patrick shakes hands with 

Gordon Davis, who chaired the Glynco 

Development Authority and worked on 

securing the former Glynco Naval Air 

Station as the permanent home for 

the FLETC. 5. The main display tent 

at FLETC Glynco. 6. FLETC and PO 

staff enjoyed showing his mementos 

from their “home countries”; at 

Glynco, the guests had their passports 

stamped as they globe-trotted through 

booths representing 14 countries. 7.

FLETC Charleston Deputy Assistant 

Director Wayne Anderson talks with 

a FLETC employee following the 40th 

Anniversary cake-cutting.
FIREARMS SIMULATION STUDY

STEVE HAWTHORNE and TERRY WOLLERT, Ph.D.

Training Innovation 

RODNEY BURNETT and KEVIN ERDMIER

Firearms 

26 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 27

J

ust about everyone would agree that technology continues to transform how we live – from cell phones that link to the 

web, to the laptops and networks that enable us to communicate, work, and even be entertained. The use of technology 

and graphic simulation programs can be large in scale, such as multi-million dollar weapon system trainers for military 

pilots, to the everyday Xboxes®, PlayStationsTM, and WiisTM that entertain us with simulations of military operations, 

sports, and rock bands. Since 2007, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) has been using technology 

to enhance student learning through the use of driving and marine simulators. More recently, the Avatar Based Interview 

Simulator (ABIS) is being studied as a viable training tool for teaching students to conduct an interview using the 

five-step process they are taught in class. Even the Firearms Division (FAD) uses laser handguns and branching videos 

to teach the Judgment Pistol Shooting Course. Most recently, the FLETC explored using simulation to teach basic 

marksmanship shooting skills by conducting a Firearms Simulation study.
28 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

...a major 

advantage over 

regular dry fire is 

that the Laser Shot 

system provides 

immediate 

feedback as to 

shot placement.

FLETC marksmanship instructors coach basic students using the Laser Shot simulation laser handgun 

during the Firearms Simulation Study.

AT THE FLETC a basic student’s 

first exposure to the use of handguns 

is in the Basic Marksmanship 

Instruction (BMI) course. BMI 

includes basic weapons handling 

skills, including stance, grip, sight 

alignment, and trigger control. So, 

in partnership with the FAD, the 

Training Innovation Division (TID) 

began looking at various Firearms 

simulators for the study.

One such simulator is Laser Shot’s 

“FLETC Course of Fire.” As an 

enterprise supplier at FLETC, Laser 

Shot products are used by the FAD in

the Judgment Pistol Shooting Course 

and by the Driver Marine Division 

(DMD) in marine boat boarding 

training. Laser Shot’s “FLETC 

Course of Fire” accurately simulates 

what a real range looks like, including 

targets that move, turn, and face for 

specific time intervals. In addition, 

Laser Shot’s “FLETC Course of Fire”

can display practically any target while

accurately simulating target size at 

various distances. Finally, the Laser 

Shot “FLETC Course of Fire” can 

easily be set up in a large classroom.

Next, the TID and FAD began 

looking at various styles of handguns. 

Essentially, there are two styles of 

handguns available; those with recoil 

and those without recoil. Research by 

the U.S. Army indicates that recoil is 

not necessarily required to teach Basic 

Marksmanship (Smith & Hagman, 

2000). Other research has found that 

though the technology of simulating 

recoil has advanced, it’s not always 

reliable, and can actually hinder 

training (Grant & Galanis, 2009). This 

is especially true when using a system 

which requires the weapon to be 

tethered to a canister that is attached 

to the shooters belt and supplies 

the carbon dioxide gas necessary to 

simulate recoil. Untethered systems, 

which incorporate carbon dioxide 

gas canisters into the magazine are 

available; but at this time, they are also 

cost prohibitive.

Based on these findings, TID 

decided to first conduct research using 

a handgun without recoil. Specifically, 

TID, in concert with FAD, decided 

to use a Glock 17 R with a resetting 

trigger. Each Glock was fitted with a 

laser insert that would fire an invisible 

infrared laser each time the trigger 

was pressed. Therefore, the basics 

of stance, grip, sight alignment, and 

trigger control would be similar to 

dry firing a real weapon. However, a 

major advantage over regular dry fire 

is that the Laser Shot system provides 

immediate feedback as to shot 

placement.

Though basic students enrolled in 

the Criminal Investigator Training 

Program (CITP) start out in BMI, 

their real goal is to shoot a qualifying 

score at the end of the Semiautomatic 

Pistol Course (SPC). After attending 

BMI, students receive 18 hours of 

SPC instruction. At the end, students 

shoot the FLETC SPC Course of 

Fire and must achieve a qualifying 

score of 210 out of 300 possible 

points. Therefore, the real question to 

be answered is whether or not the final 

qualifying SPC score of those using a 

laser handgun in BMI is significantly 

different from the final qualifying 

SPC score of those using a live-fire 

handgun in BMI.

To answer this question, TID 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 29

approached the College of Coastal 

Georgia (CCGA) about allowing 

college students to participate in 

the Firearms Simulation Study. 

Once approved, TID staff and FAD 

instructors met with CCGA students 

majoring in Criminal Justice. As a 

result, 14 college students initially 

volunteered to participate. Students 

were then stratified based on criteria 

including age, gender, and prior 

experience with a handgun. The 

students were then randomly assigned

to one of two groups, those who 

would use a laser handgun in BMI, 

and those who would use a live-fire 

handgun in BMI. All instruction was 

conducted in accordance with FAD 

lessons plans and by FAD instructors. 

After completing BMI, all students 

participated in the FLETC SPC 

course of fire. 

Due to the time constraints of 

the CCGA semester system, SPC 

instruction was limited to only 14 

hours rather than the normal 18 hour

After completing SPC instruction, 

students shot a final qualification 

round. The average SPC qualifying 

s. 

score for those college students 

who trained in BMI with a laser 

weapon was 257.8. The average SPC 

qualifying score for those who trained 

in BMI with a live-fire weapon was 

260.4. Average scores for each group 

beginning with SPC-4 are shown in 

Chart 1, above.

Though there was only a 2.6 point 

difference, 14 participants were not 

enough to draw a conclusion about 

whether or not the difference was 

statistically insignificant. However, 

the results were strong enough to 

suggest that the FAD and TID staff 

approach Partner Organizations about 

allowing their students to participate 

in the study. (To that end, the FAD 

and TID want to thank the United 

States Marshals Service (USMS) for 

volunteering three classes of their 

students enrolled in the Criminal 

Investigator Training Program (CITP) 

to participate in the study.) This 

allowed for a total of 140 students to 

be assigned to either BMI using a laser 

handgun or to BMI using a live-fire 

weapon.

As with the college students, the 

USMS CITP students were stratified 

into groups based on age, gender, and 

prior Law Enforcement or Military 

experience which included training 

on the use of a handgun. The students 

were then randomly assigned to either 

train in BMI with a laser handgun or 

with a live-fire Glock 22 .40 caliber 

handgun. Specific demographics for 

each group are shown in Table 1, page 

30.

As with the college students, 

all instruction was conducted in 

accordance with FAD BMI and SPC 

lesson plans. Rod Burnett and Kevin 

Erdmier served as the lead instructors 

with FAD staff providing all class and 

line instruction. Given that these were 

regularly scheduled training sessions, 

the full 18 hours of SPC instruction 

was provided using the Glock 22. 

Those who used a laser weapon 

during BMI training shot a SPC 

average qualifying score of 275.8. 

Those who used a live-fire weapon 

during BMI training shot a SPC 

average qualifying score of 278.2. 

An independent t-test found 

this difference to be statistically 

...14 college 

students initially 

volunteered 

to participate. 

Students were then 

stratified based on 

criteria including 

age, gender, and 

prior experience 

with a handgun. CHART 1
30 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

insignificant. Average scores for each 

group during the last seven SPC 

sessions are shown in Chart 2, below. 

To determine if the students in the 

research study performed differently 

than students who receive routine 

firearms training, data was compared 

to the three previous USMS CITP 

SPC classes. These USMS CITP 

classes were used as the control group. 

In total, 138 students in prior classes 

who trained with a live-fire handgun 

in BMI shot a SPC average qualifying 

score of 275.8. This is the same 

average as those who trained with a 

laser handgun in BMI. Data analysis 

indicated that differences between the 

control group and the study group 

were statistically insignificant. See 

Table 2 below for a summary of SPC 

qualification scores.

The students with prior military 

and/or law enforcement firearms 

training who trained with a laser 

handgun in BMI shot an average SPC 

qualifying score of 280.1 compared 

to an average SPC qualifying score 

of 282.5 for those who trained with 

a live-fire handgun. These differences 

were also statistically insignificant.

Those with no prior military and/or 

law enforcement firearms training who 

trained with a laser handgun in BMI 

shot an average SPC qualifying score 

of 265.0 compared to an average SPC 

qualifying score of 266.8 for those 

who trained with a live-fire handgun 

in BMI. Again, these differences were 

statistically insignificant. These results 

are presented in Table 3, page 31.

Based on the score a student shoots, 

they are given one of five possible 

classifications. Scores below 210 

are classified as “Did Not Qualify,” 

scores from 210 to 254 are classified 

as “Marksman,” scores from 255 to 

284 are classified as “Sharp Shooter,” 

scores from 285 to 299 are classified 

as “Expert,” and a score of 300 is 

classified as “Distinguished Expert.” 

Results by category are shown in 

Table 4, page 31. Though there is some 

variation within each classification, 

based on the BMI training method, no 

statistical differences were found. All 

students in the study group who “Did 

Not Qualify” were provided with four 

hours of live-fire handgun training 

on BMI; subsequently, they shot a 

qualifying score during the reshoot.

As mentioned before, all training 

was done in accordance with the 

applicable lesson plans. However, 

those training with the laser handguns 

during BMI did not need to wear 

hearing protection. This allowed 

instructors to carry on normal 

conversations while instructing 

students in the proper stance, grip, 

sight alignment, and trigger control. 

Students could freely ask questions 

and get answers without having to 

“yell” or “read lips.” One instructor 

commented that because he could 

get “up close and personal,” he was 

able to see errors in weapon handling, 

especially in respect to grip and trigger 

press, that he would not have normally 

been able to see.

Other benefits include both a 

reduction in ammunition usage, 

Firearms Study Participation Demographics

BMI Training 

Method

Group

Size

Average 

Age Males Females No Prior 

Experience

Prior Experience

(Military or LE)

Laser 70 29 59 11 20 50

Live-Fire 70 30 61 9 19 51

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

SPC Qualification Scores

BMI Training 

Method

Study

Group

USMS CITP 

Control Group

Laser 275.8 N/A

Live-Fire 278.2 275.8

CHART 2
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 31

accompanying cost savings associated 

with range maintenance, and in freeing 

up valuable range time. This additional 

range time could then be used to teach 

more advanced live-fire courses and/

or increase the through-put of basic 

training classes. Furthermore, since 

BMI using a laser handgun can be 

taught in a large classroom, those 

without an indoor range can still train 

no matter what the weather conditions 

might be outside. 

If a laser handgun is to accurately 

simulate a live-fire handgun, the 

impact of recoil must be considered. 

As mentioned before, there are 

recoil systems that incorporate 

carbon dioxide gas cylinders into the 

magazine. When the trigger is pressed, 

gas is released causing the slide to 

operate. This also forces a student to 

reacquire their sights. Some of the 

more advanced simulated handguns 

can even be programmed to simulate 

a weapon malfunction that can be 

cleared by the “Primary Immediate 

Action” procedure and emergency 

reloads. However, even the best 

simulated weapon with recoil cannot 

simulate the concussion blast of a 

live-fire handgun. Still, future research 

should be designed to incorporate 

simulated recoil and should seek to 

partner with other agencies in order to 

evaluate the success rate with the full 

range of FLETC students.

In conclusion, it does appear that 

the CCGA students and the USMS 

CITP students training with a nonrecoil laser handgun in BMI achieve 

statistically similar SPC qualification 

scores that students training with a 

live-fire weapon achieve. In addition 

to the potential cost savings, laser 

handgun BMI training offers several 

instructional advantages and also 

provides a safer environment than 

live-fire. In the end, nothing will ever 

replace actual live-fire or “putting 

rounds down range.” However, several 

studies, to include the FLETC 

Live-Fire/Simulation Study, seem to 

indicate that firearm simulation is a 

viable approach to certain introductory 

phases of marksmanship training and 

is on the verge of becoming a valuable 

tool in both the teaching and learning 

of psychomotor skills.

-Grant, S. C., & Galanis, G. (2009). Assessment 

and prediction of effectiveness of virtual 

environments: Lessons learned from small 

arms simulation. In Cohn, J. & Nicholson, D. & 

Schmorrow, D. (Ed.) The PSI Handbook of Virtual 

Environments for Training and Education, Volume 

3, Integrated systems, Training Evaluation, and 

Future Directions, Westport, CT.

-Smith, M., & Hagman, J. (2000). Predicting 

Rifle and Pistol Marksmanship performance with 

the Laser Marksmanship Training System (Tech. 

Rep. 1106). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral Sciences.

SPC Qualification Scores

BMI Training 

Method

No Prior 

Experience

Prior Experience

(Military or LE)

Laser 265.0 280.1

Live-Fire 266.8 282.5

TABLE 3

BMI Training 

Method

3 Prior CITP 

Classes

SPC Classification Laser Live-fire Live-fire

Did Not Qualify 2.9% 0% 0.7%

Marksmanship 10.0% 7.1% 10.9%

Sharp Shooter 48.6% 47.1% 50.8%

Expert 34.3% 37.1% 35.5%

Distinguished Expert 4.3% 8.6% 2.2%

TABLE 4

A FLETC marksmanship instructor 

helps a student correct shooting 

position and alignment during the 

Firearms Simulation Study.
32 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

time and maximize 

on-the-water boat 

operations. 

FLETC 

Advanced 

Training Programs. NPS-LETC 

coordinates access for park rangers 

to the FLETC advanced training 

programs, ranging from physical 

security, firearms instructor, driver 

instructor, to advanced computer 

forensics and crime scene 

management. 

The Ranger Honor Guard. The 

coordination and deployment 

of the distinct 18 member NPS 

Ranger Honor Guard is the 

responsibility of the Advanced 

Program Manager. The 

Ranger Honor Guard comes 

to the FLETC to train for this 

prestigious duty. 

In addition to protecting the 

scenic and natural features of our 

park lands, the park ranger also 

protects the cultural and historical 

features of these lands by enforcing 

the laws specifically established to 

protect these valuable resources. 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was a 

legislative landmark that set aside 

and protected historic landmarks, 

historic and prehistoric structures 

and other objects of historic or 

scientific interest. Furthermore, in 

1979 the Archeological Resource 

Protection Act was established to 

protect the ancient and historic 

remains of cultures on federal and 

Native American lands. 

The overlapping laws of 

jurisdiction within the National 

Parks: The Federal laws and 

regulations established expressly 

for the protection of our national 

parks are contained within Title 16 

of the U.S. Code and Title 36 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR). Many parks have 

promulgated their own special 

regulations designed specifically to 

protect certain features particular 

to that one park. Park rangers 

can enforce all federal law within 

the jurisdictional boundaries of 

the park. In addition, the NPS 

has entered into Memorandums 

of Understanding with other 

land management agencies and 

cross-designate law enforcement 

personnel to assist each other 

with routine and emergency law 

enforcement situations. State 

law is also enforced within the 

national parks through the use of 

the Assimilative Crimes Act and 

adoption process with 36 CFR. 

Many park rangers are also either 

deputized within the states that 

the park resides, or possess state 

law enforcement powers through 

state statutory provisions. 

Our 392 national parks stretch 

from all 4 corners of the United 

States and nearly everywhere in 

between. From Acadia National 

Park in Maine to Everglades 

National Park is south Florida; 

from Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument in southern Arizona 

to Olympic National Park in 

Northwest Washington State; 

with parks established in San Juan, 

Puerto Rico, Hawaii, American 

Samoa, Guam and Alaska, our 

national parks cover every state in 

the union except one, Delaware. 

Our parks are as diverse and 

unique as the park rangers who 

work in them. The role of the 

park ranger has evolved over 

time...first created to protect 

and watch over these American 

treasures...now park rangers 

conduct duties not too unlike those 

of a city patrolman, responding 

to domestic disputes, drunk and 

disorderly calls, Driving Under 

the Influence, gang related crimes, 

drug smuggling, etc. The park 

ranger’s duties are as diverse and 

range from structural and wildland 

firefighter, to mountain climber, ski 

patrol, horseback riding, high angle 

rescue, search and rescue, boat 

patrol, river rescue, EMS, SCUBA 

diver, wildlife management, 

cave explorer, archeologist, 

geologist, paleontologist, biologist, 

campground manager, fee collector, 

pilot, and airboat operator, just 

to name a few. The U.S. Park 

Ranger position encompasses 

perhaps more diverse functions 

and responsibilities than any other 

job within the federal government. 

The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center and the NPS 

Law Enforcement Training 

Center form a crucial partnership 

in providing the essential law 

enforcement training our park 

rangers need today to perform 

their jobs in our national parks. 

 

Charles R. “Butch” Farabee Jr. (2003). 

National Park Ranger: An American Icon. 

Roberts Rinehart Publishers.

Paul D. Berkowitz. (1995). U.S. Rangers. 

The Law of the Land. The History of 

Law Enforcement in the Federal Land 

Management Agencies. CT Publishing 

Company.

William R. Supernaugh. (1998). Enigmatic 

Icon: The Life and Times of Harry Yount. 

Annals of Wyoming: The Wyoming History 

Journal, Spring 1998, Vol. 70. No. 2. 

Wyoming State Historical Society.

PARK SERVICE

continued from page 16
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 33

FBI UNDERWATER EVIDENCE TEAM 

UNDERGOES FLETC TRAINING

The FBI group 

successfully completed 

the rigorous week-long 

Inland Boat Operator 

Training Program (IBOT) 

at FLETC’s Glynco site.

JEFF DUPONT

Program Specialist, Driver and Marine

Members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) 

Underwater Evidence Program (UEP) recently completed 

boat operating training at the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC). The 17 Special Agents are 

all members of a team whose mission is to locate and recover evidence, 

such as weapons and bodies, as well as to assist other law enforcement 

agencies with similar recoveries. The FBI group successfully completed 

the rigorous week-long Inland Boat Operator Training Program (IBOT) 

at FLETC’s Glynco site. 

The IBOT, which was originally developed by the Driver and Marine 

Division’s (DMD) Marine Training Branch, provides novice boat 

operators with the necessary skills needed to safely operate a vessel in a 

law enforcement environment. The IBOT is a shortened version of the 

popular and demanding four-week Marine Law Enforcement Training 

Program (MLETP). The IBOT course focuses specifically on those 

agents and officers who will be operating law enforcement vessels on 

Members of the FBI 

Underwater Evidence 

Program train to locate and 

recover evidence such as 

weapons and bodies.
34 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

inland waterways or those 

who may have specialty 

assignments or collateral 

marine related duties, such as 

the FBI’s UEP.

During the week-long 

IBOT course, students are 

instructed in the basic, yet 

critical, areas of maritime 

education which includes, 

but is not limited to nautical 

terminology, marlinespike 

seamanship (knot tying), 

navigation rules of the road, 

aids to navigation, piloting 

& charting, vessel handling, 

preventive maintenance 

and electronic navigation/

radar operations. Following 

their first full day in the 

classroom, the students are 

introduced to their training 

vessels, 31’ center console 

Contenders powered by 

twin 250 HP outboards. 

The remainder of the week 

is then spent on the water, 

as students begin applying 

the skills they learned in the 

classroom. Senior instructor 

Chip Bright, who oversees 

the program, emphasizes 

that there is no substitute 

for hands-on instruction 

when it comes to marine 

training, “With certain skills 

such as vessel handling and 

docking, there is only so 

much effective training that 

can be accomplished in the 

classroom” added Bright.

After the basic skills are 

mastered, students are then 

taught some of the more 

technical and advanced 

aspects of marine training 

such as night navigation. 

During the night piloting 

exercises, students are 

required to safely navigate 

their vessels in unfamiliar 

waters, utilizing only their 

visual, radar and paper chart 

interpretation skills. Senior 

Instructor Mike Evans stated 

that many novice mariners 

often rely solely upon their 

GPS and other electronics 

devices to navigate their 

vessels; however that is not 

the case for IBOT students. 

They may encounter 

“instructor lightning,” a 

common teaching technique 

where the instructor turns 

off all electronic equipment, 

thereby forcing the students 

to navigate in darkness with 

only a paper chart and a 

sharp lookout to safely guide 

them to their destination. 

FBI Supervisory Special 

Agent Kevin Horn is 

assigned to the Evidence 

Response Team Unit that is 

based in the FBI Laboratory 

Division in Quantico, 

Virginia. Horn explained that 

the UEP, which is composed 

of a newly-formed full-time 

team of technically trained 

divers who are attached to the 

FBI Laboratory in Quantico, 

as well as four twelve member 

Underwater Search and 

Evidence Response Teams 

(USERTs) based in the 

Los Angeles, Miami, New 

York and Washington D.C. 

field offices, has performed 

hundreds of dive missions 

throughout the United States 

and the rest of the world. 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 35

Some of UEP’s recent 

noteworthy cases were 

evidence recovery in the 

1996 crash of TWA flight 

800 over the Atlantic Ocean, 

the 2003 space-shuttle 

Columbia disaster and the 

I-35W bridge collapse in 

Minneapolis in 2007. In 

2006, the team deployed 

to Iraq in order to conduct 

dive operations in the 

“Triangle of Death” area 

south of Baghdad. Horn 

and members of the UEP 

served a critical role in 

recovering key pieces of 

evidence in these and many 

other cases. The team is also 

often requested to assist 

other agencies such as the 

National Transportation 

and Safety Board with black 

box recovery missions in the 

event of a commercial airline 

mishap.

When asked why the FBI 

chose to attend FLETC’s 

IBOT program, Horn 

explained that the team 

needed to enhance the 

abilities of its boat operators 

so all USERT members 

were equally adept in their 

operating skills when at the 

helms of their 27’ custom 

Boston Whalers and other 

vessels. 

Not all of the USERT’s 

missions actually involve dive 

operations. Their custom 

designed boats are equipped 

to transport and deploy the 

team’s technological search 

platforms, including side scan 

sonar and Remote Operated 

Vehicle (ROV). The ROV is 

used in recovery situations 

where it isn’t feasible to use 

a diver, such as at extreme 

depths where decompression 

limits would not permit 

sufficient bottom time to be 

able to thoroughly search 

an area. The ROV is also 

advantageous because it can 

be deployed in situations 

where conditions would be 

hazardous to a diver, such 

as contaminated waters or 

when searching areas where 

underwater explosive devices 

may be present. 

The FBI agents who 

attended the course had 

various levels of marine/

boat handling abilities, with 

some ranging from little 

or no experience to others 

who hold the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s Master’s licenses. 

The ultimate objective 

of the IBOT is to have 

everyone who graduates the 

program leave with newly 

acquired knowledge or a 

better understanding of 

prior knowledge. Following 

night exercises on Thursday, 

the students all completed 

a written exam on Friday 

morning. As expected, the 

class passed with high marks 

and then departed back to 

their field offices, ready to 

apply newly obtained boat 

operating skills to support 

their next unknown dive 

missions.

Photos courtesy of the FBI Underwater Evidence Program

Above and Opposite: The 

FBI UEP team conduct 

an underwater evidence 

investigation using a 

technological search platform.
36 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

LegalBrief

RUSES: 

HOW TO KNOW 

IF YOU’RE GOOD TO GO

POPPI RITACCO

Senior Instructor, Legal

Lies and deception are age-old techniques used effectively and legally in law enforcement. Whether an officer 

is lying to a suspect in an interrogation room, or an agent is posing as a supplier of government paper for a 

counterfeiting investigation – deception can be an integral part of an investigation. See Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 

731, 739 (1969) (Defendant’s confession was still voluntary and admissible even though police lied to him by 

telling him that his co-conspirator had confessed). Deception has also long been used as a tool to gain entry into otherwise 

inaccessible areas: a suspect’s house or apartment, for example. This type of deception, commonly referred to as a ruse, can 

assist law enforcement officers by helping them use the element of surprise to gain entry and control of a suspect while 

minimizing the chance of violence or resistance. 

Ruses are generally legal as long as they comply with voluntariness requirements. Voluntariness is critical in determining 

the legality of deceptive police practices. So long as the police don’t do anything that may be deemed to have coerced the 

action or statements of the target, the deceptive practice is likely to be upheld by the courts. Some situations are easy to 

assess. If you point a gun at someone and ask that person to open the door, the subsequent door opening is not voluntary. 

Conversely, if you politely ask someone to open the door, and that person complies, that door opening is voluntary. A 

voluntariness determination, of course, is not always so simple. What happens if you lie to get someone to open the door? 

Which lies are permissible, and which are not? 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 37

Ruses generally break down into 

three categories: (1) those that give the 

impression that consent cannot lawfully 

be withheld because law enforcement 

has alternative authority, (2) those that 

use dire or exigent circumstances, and 

(3) those that use deception effectively to 

obtain voluntary consent. United States 

v. Montes-Reyes, 547 F. Supp. 2d 281, 287 

(S.D.N.Y. 2008). 

The first two categories of ruses are 

legally impermissible because the type of 

deception used is coercive in nature. The 

seminal case example of the first category 

is Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 

543 (1968). In Bumper, officers told a 

66-year-old widow that they had a search 

warrant when they did not. Based on their 

assertions, she allowed them to enter and 

search her house. They found a rifle that 

was later used as evidence in a trial of the 

widow’s grandson. The Court found the 

consent to be coerced since the police 

claimed that they had a search warrant 

which would have given them authority 

to enter regardless of whether the widow 

gave her consent. This type of ruse, lying 

about having a warrant, does not present 

a real choice to the consenting party, and, 

therefore, is impermissibly coercive. 

Montes-Reyes exemplifies the second 

category, a ruse which is impermissibly 

coercive because it creates a “false sense 

of exigent circumstances.” 547 F. Supp. 

2d at 291. In Montes-Reyes, DEA agents 

identified themselves as NYPD officers 

searching for a missing girl. They 

showed the defendant an actual “missing 

persons” flier with photos of a real 

missing four-year-old girl and a woman 

labeled “Abductor.” Id. at 283. The Court 

reasoned that “[a] false claim of a missing 

child is precisely the kind of “extreme” 

misrepresentation of investigatory 

purpose by which a person is “deprive[d] . 

. . of the ability to make ‘a fair assessment 

of the need to surrender his privacy.” Id.

at 291 (citing LaFave et al., Criminal 

Procedure § 3.10(c)). United States v. 

Giraldo is another example of the second 

impermissible category. 743 F. Supp. 152 

(E.D.N.Y. 1990). In Giraldo, agents used 

a gas leak ruse and posed as gas company 

workers who were there to check for the 

leak. Based on their representations, the 

defendant allowed them inside where they 

identified themselves as law enforcement 

and obtained consent to search. Among 

other things, police found cocaine and 

a large amount of money. Even though 

the Court found no evidence of coercion 

in the subsequent consent to search, it 

excluded the evidence as the fruits of 

involuntary consent obtained through 

the coercive use of a ruse that presented 

the defendant with a “life-threatening” 

situation: the gas leak.” Id. at 154.

There are a number of federal cases 

that exemplify the third category of 

permissible ruses. One such very recent 

case is United States v. Gonzalez, 609 

F.3d 13 (2010), a district court case 

from the District of Rhode Island. In 

this case, police pretended to be carrier 

employees delivering a package to the 

defendant at his apartment. Posing as 

carrier employees, police were admitted 

to the apartment and subsequently gained 

consent to search. Although the legal 

issue challenged on appeal was not the 

ruse, this is an example of a ruse where 

the consenting party is “deceived” but 

there are no coercive elements to the 

deception. Another example of this type 

of lawful ruse can be found in Lewis v. 

United States, 385 U.S. 206 (1966), in 

which an officer who posed as a potential 

drug customer was admitted to the 

defendant’s home because the defendant 

thought he was there to buy drugs. 

Again, the deception used by police was 

not coercive in nature, and the defendant 

freely admitted the officer whom he 

believed to be a drug customer. 

There has been some recent case law out 

of the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Texas concerning 

ruses commonly used by Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement agents. In 

United States v. Hernandez-Juarez, 2009 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22031, the Court found 

consent to enter a home involuntary 

when ICE agents lied about for whom 

they were there to look. Agents showed 

the occupant of the apartment, Mrs. 

Hernandez, a photo of a man, whom they 

In Bumper, 

officers told 

a 66-year-old 

widow that they 

had a search 

warrant when 

they did not. 

Based on their 

assertions, she 

allowed them to 

enter and search 

her house. 
38 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

did not believe to be at the house, and 

asked consent to enter to search for that 

individual. They were actually looking for 

her son whom they believed was at the 

house. Agents testified that they used the 

ruse because they did not think that Mrs. 

Hernandez would give them consent to 

search if she knew they were looking for 

her son. Once inside, agents located yet a 

third individual whom they arrested. 

The Court acknowledged that the ruse 

used by agents in Hernandez-Juarez did 

not involve “the use of police deception 

to the degree recited in Montes-Reyes,” 

but still analogized the two cases. Citing 

Montes-Reyes, the Court further observed 

that the status of the law enforcement 

officer, whether undercover or identified, 

is not singularly determinative of whether 

the consent was voluntary. Instead, the 

court found that it is the totality of all 

of the circumstances that determines the 

voluntariness of the consent given. Id.

at 9 (citations omitted). In HernandezJuarez, the Court found that “[t]he ICE 

agents used a ruse upon a non-English 

speaking alien to obtain entry. The typical 

reasonable person would have understood 

that exchange between the agent and Mrs. 

Hernandez would have amounted to at 

most allowing a search of the premises 

for the man in the ruse photo.” Id. at 

10. The Court subsequently found Mrs. 

Hernandez’s consent to be involuntary 

and, in the alternative, limited to a search 

for the man in the photo. Id. 

Hernandez-Juarez presents an 

interesting set of circumstances in which 

law enforcement officers used a ruse 

that neither involved a false assertion of 

legal authority, as in the first category 

described in Montes-Reyes, nor a false 

emergency, as in the second category. 

Nonetheless, the Court found the 

consent to be coerced, citing a number 

of factors such as the immigration 

status and language of the consenter. 

The Court then quickly followed its 

determination of coercion with the 

caveat that, if it were wrong, the agents’ 

search would still have exceeded the 

scope of the consent (which was limited 

to searching for the man in the photo). 

One is hard-pressed to see how the ruse 

in Hernandez-Juarez is impermissibly 

coercive in and of itself. It is, as the Court 

stated, likely a combination of all of the 

circumstances that led the Court to find 

Mrs. Hernandez’s consent to have been 

coerced. Not only did the court highlight 

that she was a non-English speaking alien, 

but it also noted that agents acted only on 

a “hunch” and that, once inside, “the agents 

used their fraudulent entry for a general 

roundup...” Of course, law enforcement 

officers are free to seek consent when 

they have only a “hunch,” and that’s often 

exactly when they do because they don’t 

have enough proof to get a warrant. As 

far as the “roundup,” the Court did not 

address the legality of the seizure of the 

defendant or any other aspect of agents’ 

contact with him.

So, where does Hernandez-Juarez leave 

us? Keeping in mind that HernandezJuarez is a district court case out of the 

Western District of Texas, San Antonio 

Division, it is not binding law for the 

majority of law enforcement. The three 

categories set forth in Montes-Reyes 

are still good guidelines for permissible 

and impermissible ruses. Nonetheless, 

Hernandez-Juarez reminds us that law 

enforcements officers should always be 

careful to evaluate the totality of the 

circumstances when employing any 

ruse. What may be permissible in one 

circumstance with one individual may 

become coercive when applied to another 

situation with another individual. A 

thorough assessment of all of the facts 

is in order when lies and deception are 

used by police. When used correctly, ruses 

remain a creative tool leading to safer and 

more effective investigations. When in 

doubt, law enforcement officers should 

always consider contacting their Assistant 

United States Attorney for guidance. 

Of course, law 

enforcement 

officers are free 

to seek consent 

when they have 

only a “hunch,” 

and that’s often 

exactly when 

they do because 

they don’t have 

enough proof to 

get a warrant. 
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 39

FLETC DIRECTOR HONORED BY NCIS

ORLANDO, FLORIDA—Director Connie Patrick 

has been recognized by the US Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service for a demonstrated commitment 

to strengthening the working relationship between 

FLETC and NCIS. 

Director Patrick was a guest of honor at a 

breakfast hosted by NCIS in conjunction with the 

annual International Association of Chiefs of Police 

conference, held this year at the Orlando Convention 

Center.

NCIS Director Mark Clookie notes that, “Each 

year during IACP, we hold an event to recognize 

special partnerships NCIS has with a number of 

counterpart agencies around the world. The partners 

we honor at this event underscore the incredibly 

diverse nature of law enforcement and the global 

nature of both the threats and solutions. Without our 

domestic and international partners we simply could 

not do our job. NCIS wants to be sure the men and 

women in these organizations – as well as those they 

serve – realize just how much we value the working 

alliances we have with them.”

Mr. Clookie also said, “We believe the ongoing 

partnerships we have and the new ones now being 

forged are essential to effective law enforcement in 

today’s highly dynamic global environment. Only 

through enhanced cooperation and collaboration 

–including new initiatives in information sharing, 

training, and more – can we truly succeed in 

addressing the reality of today’s criminal, terrorist, 

and other threats.”

“In our view, this approach to law enforcement is 

definitely a win-win relationship for everyone – most 

of all, for those we are charged to protect and serve.”

ED BUICE

Public Affairs, Naval Criminal Investigative Service

NCIS Director Mark Clookie presents a 

plaque to FLETC Director Connie Patrick for 

demonstrated commitment to strengthening 

the working relationship between FLETC and 

NCIS.
40 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

FLETC HOSTS PSLD CONFERENCE

For three days in December, the Public Safety Leadership Development Consortium (PSLDC) held their 2010 summit 

in the Golden Isles at the invitation of FLETC Director Connie Patrick. The PSLDC is comprised of police leaders 

from the U.S., Canada and Germany as well as executives from various universities including Sam Houston State 

University, Texas Woman’s University, Youngstown State University and Methodist University. The theme of the 2010 

summit was “Building Quality Leadership in Public Safety”. The FLETC and PSLDC currently deliver joint leadership 

training at international venues that will include the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary in 

2011. The PSLDC has various study teams that conduct research in the areas of ethics, competencies, international issues 

and support and women’s issues in public safety.

The summit included a presentation by Director Patrick entitled: “Leadership Training and Development at a Public 

Safety Learning Institution: Looking Back, Looking Forward”. Other agenda items and topics included Emotional 

Intelligence, Ethical Issues for Public Safety Supervisors, Women in Police Leadership Roles and the application of 

the Myers-Briggs Instrument in Leadership Development. The summit also included a tour of the FLETC and a Low 

Country Boil at the Student Center.

Portia Dewhurst, Director of Programs for the Canadian Police Sector Council and chair of the PSLDC, commented, 

“This was a productive and informative conference, indicative of the power of the PSLDC. This Consortium provides 

a unique opportunity for professionals working to address pressing leadership development concerns for public safety 

to network and share information, concerns, best practices, ideas, the very latest research and to explore solutions.” 

Additional information concerning the PSLDC is available at www.psldc.com.

Building quality leadership in public safety

Members of the Public Safety Leadership Development Consortium pause for a group photo during the FLETC hosted conference.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 41

Khoo Boon Hui, president, INTERPOL, 

addresses members of the Technology 

and Research Exercise recently held at 

the FLETC. Pictured at the conference 

table are Dale Sheehan, Director, Police 

Training and Development, INTERPOL, 

Connie Patrick, Director, FLETC, and 

Ken Keene, Deputy Director, FLETC.

FLETC / INTERPOL TECHNOLOGY 

AND RESEARCH EXERCISE

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 

and the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) co-hosted a two-day Technology Research 

Exercise focusing on technological training advancements 

and examining how criminals leverage cyber-technology to 

expand underworld operations. 

In opening remarks to the international law enforcement 

delegation the FLETC Director Connie Patrick punctuated 

the need to give our front-line police force the cyber and 

technological edge in their training to develop effective law 

enforcers nationally and internationally.

“It is critical that we provide our law enforcement officers 

on the front-line with the most comprehensive, current 

and relevant training to overcome the criminal threats that 

confront us today. By sharing the resources and knowledge 

that we have all acquired, we can equip our future law 

enforcement professionals for years to come,” Patrick said.

INTERPOL President Khoo Boon-Hui applauded 

Director Patrick’s commitment to grooming an 

international police community capable of coordinating, 

sharing and applying best practices to stay ahead of 

criminal activity and enhance investigative capabilities.

“Law enforcement agencies must raise the capabilities 

of their officers, help them to master new tools and always 

stay ahead of the criminals. In addition, countries have 

to cooperate more closely with one another by sharing 

intelligence, watching for international fugitives, and 

conducting joint enforcement actions,” Khoo stated.

Rather than meeting for a theoretical discussion of how 

technology and research might benefit law enforcement 

training, the FLETC was able to show its technology 

integration and transformation that has taken place over 

the past five years at the Center. The two-day exercise 

allowed the delegation to experience the avatar based 

interview simulator, use the marine and driver simulators, 

make “use of force” decisions, shoot a firearms’ course of 

fire, and conduct an investigative operation – all while 

using simulation. The delegates also had the opportunity 

to hear a presentation by Dr. Bill Norris which described 

the training outcomes from the Survival Scores Research 

Project. This ten year study focused primarily on improving 

decision making under stress, but has also led to improved 

audio-video feedback of scenario performance, more 

consistent scenario scoring, and numerous other technology 

improvements throughout the FLETC. Interestingly, 

although these technological devices have dramatically 

improved the decision making capabilities of students, 

they are not designed to replace the hands on skills such as 

driving, shooting, and handcuffing that must be successfully 

performed prior to graduation. 
42 FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011

On August 24, 1984, the Capitol 

Police lost their first officer 

in the line of duty when Sergeant 

Christopher Eney was killed during 

a training exercise. On October 15, 

1991, the National Law Enforcement 

Officers Memorial was dedicated in 

Washington, DC, to honor the more 

than 14,000 officers slain in the line of 

duty. An inscription on the memorial 

by Vivian Eney Cross, Sergeant Eney’s 

wife, reads, “It is not how these officers 

died that made them heroes, it is how 

they lived.” 

In 1987, Congress authorized the 

establishment of an Off-Site Delivery 

Center as a screening facility for 

the delivery of goods to the Capitol 

Complex, which brought about 

the expansion of the K-9 unit. The 

Capitol Police K-9 units’ primary 

responsibility is the detection of 

explosives and their duties include 

conducting explosive detection sweeps 

of congressional buildings, commercial 

and private vehicles, and public 

assembly areas. The USCP K-9 unit 

also has Urban Search and Rescue 

(USAR) Teams who have been trained 

to locate victims trapped in the rubble 

of a catastrophic building collapse. 

In December 1988, renovation of 

the old Immigration Building located 

at 119 D Street, NE, Washington, 

DC, was completed and the Capitol 

Police Headquarters was moved from 

its previous location at the old Plaza 

Hotel located at 331 First Street, NE. 

In 1992, Congress passed legislation 

that expanded Capitol Police 

jurisdiction in the city of Washington 

from the Department’s primary 

jurisdiction within a 47 square block 

radius in and around the US Capitol 

to an “extended jurisdiction zone”. 

This zone involved specific areas of 

concurrent jurisdiction that are shared 

with other local law enforcement 

agencies. 

In 1997, the USCP developed the 

Advanced Legislative Emergency 

Response Team (ALERT), which is 

comprised of specially trained and 

equipped officers who can detect, 

respond to and mitigate the effects of a 

chemical or biological release.

The year of 1998 was a tragic one 

for the USCP, when a gunman entered 

the Capitol Building and killed Officer 

Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective 

John M. Gibson on July 24, 1998 

(pictures from Odmp.org). In 2005, 

Members of Congress and Members 

of the USCP began a yearly event to 

raise money for the Capitol Police 

Memorial Fund, which benefits the 

families of Officer Chestnut, Detective 

Gibson and Sergeant Eney. The 

event is entitled “The Longest Yard 

Football Classic” and it pits Members 

of Congress and former NFL players 

against Capitol Police Officers in a 

game of flag football. 

On September 11, 2001, America 

was rocked by the devastating terrorist 

attacks against New York and the 

Pentagon. The Capitol Building, 

and other sites around the city, were 

targets of the terrorists, but they were 

not successful. The United States 

Capitol Police mobilized to meet 

any other attacks that might have 

occurred that day, and since that time, 

have reexamined existing policies 

and procedures to ensure that the 

Department is ready to handle future 

threats. Just over a month after the 

September 11th attacks, the Capitol 

Complex was again the target of 

terrorism, when, on Monday, October 

15, 2001, the United States Capitol 

Police responded to a report of an 

anthrax exposure in the Hart Senate 

Office Building. 

Although the USCP’s mission to 

protect the Congress, its legislative 

processes, members, employees, the 

over 3 million annual visitors, and 

facilities from crime, disruption, or 

terrorism has never changed, the 

methodology, tools and training by 

which the Department’s employees 

are equipped to accomplish this 

task has greatly evolved. The USCP 

continues to accomplish their unique 

mission today by using a number of 

means. The Patrol/Mobile Response 

Division (PMRD) provides police 

services through motorized, bicycle 

and foot patrols, prisoner processing 

and transportation, drug and alcohol 

enforcement, crime scene search and 

a very active Civil Disturbance Unit. 

The HAZMAT team and bomb 

squad routinely respond to calls for 

suspicious packages. 

Editor’s Note: To read the entire article, go 

to www.fletc.gov/reference/reports

THE U.S. CAPITOL POLICE

An Historical Perspective

GLENN BROGAN

USCP Representative, FLETC

This excerpt was unintentionally omitted from an article published in the FLETC Journal, fall 

2010 issue, which traces the history of the U.S. Capitol Police from its inception to present day.
 

FLETC JOURNAL | SPRING 2011 43

IN THE BEGINNING...

STEPHEN W. BROOKS, J.D.

Chief, Property Management and Founding Member, the FLETC Journal

Around 1993 Andy Smotzer picked up an idea that had 

been “floating” around the FLETC for a few years and 

decided to make it a reality. It wasn’t long the before the 

FLETC Journal as we know it today was born. The Journal 

has had its ups and downs, plenty of high quality articles 

to edit and at other times the Editorial Board would sit 

around the conference room on the second floor of the 

Media Support Division wondering if the issue of the 

journal in development would have enough articles prior to 

going to print.

We shouldn’t have worried as much as we did because 

without fail Andy Smotzer would come though and 

write an article or two himself . . . always. What Andy 

contributed was not mere fluff to fill pages, but rather 

substantive articles relating to law enforcement training, 

regardless what division he was assigned to or the position 

he held within them. Andy is a prolific and gifted writer 

that always had a smile and a good word for everyone. 

With Andy the glass was not only always half full, it was 

about to be topped off.

During the years, editors of the journal came and went 

but Andy was always there, and probably not known 

to most at the FLETC one of the last two original 

members still with the publication and without his handson involvement the FLETC journal would not be the 

respected, professional publication it is today, read literally 

by thousands of officers and agents around the world. 

With Andy, working on the Journal was a true labor of 

love and I tell you my friends Andy has passion for the 

FLETC Journal as no other and dearly believes in the 

core mission it was designed for: to provide a venue for 

FLETC instructors, staff and Partner Organizations to not 

only share law enforcement training information, but to 

showcase their individual talents.

While no one person is indispensible, Andy Smotzer will 

surely be missed, and the FLETC Journal will be the lesser 

for his retirement. So readers as the saying goes, “we are 

looking for a few good men and women” to pick up where 

Andy has left off and write about what is happening in your 

topical areas in training, or what you are doing to support 

the law enforcement training mission.

Andy Smotzer began his 

career with the Secret 

Service Uniform Division. 

He transferred to the 

FLETC as a firearms 

instructor. Promoted to 

branch chief, Smotzer 

served in various FLETC 

divisions until his recent 

retirement.
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

Firearms simulation training at the FLETC