Sensory Experience 

ThE nEw FLETC SimuLaTion Lab 
The Next 

Generation 

of Training 
24 Simulation 

Val Atkins, Division Chief, Training Innovation Division 

welcomes the FLETC staff to experience the newest 

computer based training simulations technology 

9 NCIS 

Learn about the diverse mission responsibilities of this 

partner organization to the FLETC 

45 

Less Than 

Lethal 

Why flash bangs 

may pose a 

liability potential 

Contents
 5 WHAT IS AL-QAEDA? 

Understanding this global terrorist threat 

9 MEET THE PARTNERS: NCIS 

A look inside the guardians of the war fighters 

13 THE FouRTH AMENDMENT 

Ruling results from the Supreme Court’s 2005­

2006 Term 

19 WELCoME To STuDENT SERvICES 

A behind the scenes look at the division where life 

begins for students at the FLETC 

22 PASSINg IT oN 

One instructor reflects on his duty to share his 

knowledge, skills and experience with the students 

he teaches

 24 CoMPuTER-bASED TECHNoLogy 

AND SIMuLATIoN 

Read about the newest FLETC training using 

computer graphics simulation technology 

35 LAWSuITS: 

THE ovERbLoWN WoRRy 

Why lawsuits against federal officers are not as 

threatening as they sound 

38 SHARINg LESSoNS LEARNED 

How the importance of experience can benefit 

others through the Lessons Learned Work Group 

40 TRACkINg DEvICES 

New federal rule of criminal procedure addresses 

warrants for tracking devices 

42 NEW bug IN ToWN 

How to protect yourself against staph infection 

(methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus) 

45 LESS THAN LETHAL buT STILL LETHAL 

Stunning report on dynamic entry and distraction 

devices may now pose legal liabilities 
Having Words
 

EDIToRIAL STAFF. Front row (left to right): Steve Brooks, Marie Bauer, Susan B. Thornton, Lynn 

Mercer, and William Norris; Back row: Fred Charles, Andy Smotzer, Sam Webster, Mark Ward, 

Richard Hazzard. 

This issue of the FLETC Journal reflects how dramatically the world 

and law enforcement training have changed in the 37 years of FLETC’s 

existence. We have articles about threats – Al Qaeda and potentially 

fatal staph infections – that were not law enforcement issues in 

the 1970’s. We also have articles addressing new legal trends and 

technologies that will help us meet the new and emerging threats. 

In 1970, we trained in a classroom environment with largely static 

training. We now provide dynamic training in realistic environments, 

using adult-centered learning techniques. 

This Spring, FLETC opened a new building at the Glynco campus 

devoted entirely to the development, adaptation, research, evaluation 

and implementation of simulation technology in training. Simulation 

already enables us to provide a wide range of realistic scenarios in 

firearms training, without risk to our students and staff. Computerbased training gives students an opportunity to learn at their own pace. 

Technology continues to expand our reach beyond the classroom and 

simulation will enable us to teach students how to handle dangerous 

situations while the students remain in a safe environment. New threats 

and challenges to law enforcement come at us fast, and it is our mission 

to prepare our students to meet them. 

The Journal has been available in print since our first issue in Spring 

2004, and to FLETC staff and Partner Organizations through our 

Intranet. We are happy to announce that the Journal is now available 

electronically from the FLETC website at www.fletc.gov. 

Marie R. Bauer 

Director 

Connie L. Patrick 

Editors 

Marie R. bauer
 

Stephen W. brooks
 

Lynn Mercer
 

Richard Hazzard
 

William Norris, Ph.D.
 

Andy Smotzer
 

Susan b. Thornton
 

Mark Ward
 

Covers & Center Spread Designs 

Fred Charles 

The FLETC Journal is an unofficial law 

enforcement training magazine produced and 

published by the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center. It is published and printed 

through the Media Support Division in 

conjunction with the Government Printing Office. 

Circulation is 4,000 and the FLETC Journal is also 

available electronically by following the links at 

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

Views and opinions expressed in this publication 

are those of the authors, and do not necessarily 

reflect the FLETC training policy or doctrine. 

Articles, photographs, and other contributions 

are welcomed from the law enforcement training 

community and academia. Publication depends 

on general topical interest as judged by the 

editors. No changes to submitted copy will be 

made without the concurrence of the author(s). 

The editors may be contacted at (912) 267-3849. 
Wha What is al-Qaeda? t is al-Qaeda?

By Michael DeBoe By Michael DeBoe

This question poses many possibilities, one of which is 

an evolution of terrorism for the 21st century. Terrorism’s 

ultimate goal is to create fear through the use of abnormal 

force. Gone are the days of hijackings and kidnappings 

associated with terrorist events of the 1970s and 1980s, 

though isolated incidents still do take place. Attacks using 

very effective weaponry have emerged. An evolution to 

another type of smart bomb system, the suicide/homicide 

bomber, is very effective in its targeting effects and with 

generating media coverage. 

Many associate al-Qaeda with Osama bin Ladin or the War 

on Terror. However, understanding these terms requires 

not a western perspective, but an understanding of Jihad, 

gravitating away from the term “Holy War,” the Kharwarij, 

and understanding that asymmetrical warfare is the type of 

fight America’s adversaries will choose in the 21st century. 

Over time, the term “Holy War” has been translated into 

Jihad, either intentionally or unintentionally. This translation 

is not correct according to Islam, and separation of these two 

terms is necessary for further understanding. “Holy War” 

originated during the Crusades by european christians who 

sought the liberation of Jerusalem and other Christian holy 

sites from the Turkish rule. The actual Arabic translation for 

Holy War, though, is “Harbun Muqaddasatu.” The Koran 

makes no reference that Jihad is synonymous with Holy 

War. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
Within the Koran, Jihad is striving in the way 

of Allah by the pen, tongue, hand, media, and 

if inevitable, with arms. Jihad in Islam does 

not include striving for individual or national 

power, dominance, glory, wealth, prestige, or 

pride. Jihad evolves around two principles: 

inner or greater Jihad “a personal or inner 

struggle”; and outer or lesser Jihad “an external 

battle or war against aggressors.” Islamic law 

allows the right to self-defense, but regulates 

this so it cannot be abused; the basic premise is 

another’s injustice does not excuse one’s own 

injustice. 

Many Muslims consider outer Jihad and the use of suicide 

bombers for martyrdom extremely controversial. The 

Ulema (Body of Professional Scholars of Islam), must 

sanction this form of outer Jihad based on an Ijma, or 

consensus from a Mufti (General Counsel to provide/ 

approve ruling). An example of a properly sanctioned 

“Jihad” occurred during the Soviet Union’s invasion of 

Afghanistan during the 1980s. 

Currently, the use of terrorism by al-Qaeda and 

other extremist groups are at odds with Islamic 

law. Modern Muslim terrorist groups are more 

rooted in national liberation ideologies of the 

19th and 20th centuries than they are in the 

Islamic tradition. 

Overall, the majority of 

with some of his followers 

the use of terrorism and feel 

Muslims do not condone 

Currently, the use of 

terrorism by al-Qaeda and 

other extremist groups are at 

odds with Islamic law. 

who felt Ali had lost face 

that a select small minority and that he had shamed and 

of separatists have misused disgraced them before Allah. 

these traditions of Islam. The followers who felt 

This small minority is betrayed seceded from Ali 

composed of the dissenters and created a further division 

called Khawarijites. The in Islam. Those who seceded 

root word Khawarij were Khawarijites, who 

(pronounced Ka-wat-tage) demanded Jihad as the only 

means to secede. way to settle God’s will. This 

succession and diversion from 

During early Islamic history, mainstream Islamic thinking 

the death of the Prophet is similar with the rhetoric 

Mohammed caused a split and ideologies of present 

in Islam forming the Sunni 

and Shi’a (aka Shiite) sects. 

The cause for this division was a disagreement over who 

would succeed Mohammed as the next leader. The Sunnis 

believed the leadership should go to the most capable 

leader based on the Ijma of the Umma. The Shi’as believed 

the leadership should remain within Mohammed’s family, 

going to his eldest son, or a male descendant. 

In the year 656, a further split in Islam took place. Prior 

to the Battle of Siffin, both leaders agreed to resolve their 

dispute by arbitration of the Koran instead of conflict. 

Muawiyya, the governor of Damascus, proposed this 

arbitration, and Ali, the fourth Caliph, accepted. Ali’s 

acceptance created animosity 

day groups such as al-Qaeda 

and the Islamic Jihad. These 

groups are autonomous through self-imposed authorities 

and interpretations of the Koran to justify their Jihad. 

Another self-imposed interpretation with the Khawarij 

involves the unification of all Muslim countries under 

the rule of the “Islamic Caliphate.” The Islamic 

 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Caliphate would adhere to Jihad and other terror groups 

strict Muslim traditions and 

Terrorism is a deliberate 

attempt to create terror through 

a symbolic act involving the 

use or threat of abnormal 

lethal force for the purpose of 

influencing a target group or 

individual. 

in their war against the 

reeducate moderate Muslims Israeli occupation in the 

who had strayed. The Islamic West Bank and Gaza. The 

Caliphate would also consider leadership of these groups 

Jihad to regain Muslim holy have learned how saying 

sites within Jerusalem. The the right thing at the right 

Taliban in Afghanistan was time is key as to why 

the first modern day attempt and how disgruntlement 

at establishing an Islamic develops into hatred. 

Caliphate. However, most 

Muslim countries have no 

desire to unify under such restraints, preferring the 

modernity associated with the 21st century. 

Where does this context of hatred originate? One possible 

reason lies with the Kharwarij’s incompatibility between 

modernity and traditionalism. Muslim culture has often 

played an important and influential role throughout history, 

but advancements in technology and the globalization 

of the late 20th century created significant gaps between 

the haves and have-nots. While the haves, represented 

by the oil rich countries of the Middle East, are modern 

and prosperous, many Islamic extremists consider them 

puppets of Western culture. The have-nots are usually 

the failing, failed, or collapsed countries which have few, 

depleted, or no natural resources to enhance prosperity. 

Subsequently, they have become disenchanted, and are the 

prime recruiting targets for extremist groups promising a 

better life. This is a common technique used by the Islamic 

Anger and depression work 

in a continuous cycle if left 

untreated, and, in this situation, create the ideal conditions 

for “persuasive influence through relative deprivation.” 

Relative deprivation is the discrepancy between 

value expectations (individual wants) and 

capabilities (what an individual has). Tension 

develops from this discrepancy and disposes men 

to violence. 

For most U.S. citizens, terrorism before Sept. 11, 2001 

was distant, usually occurring outside of the United States. 

Since terrorism is now a concern inside the United States, 

Americans must understand terrorism and its goals. 

Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to create terror 

through a symbolic act involving the use or 

threat of abnormal lethal force for the purpose of 

influencing a target group or individual. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 7 
Throughout the ages, terrorist acts have played a role in 

warfare. These are asymmetrical in nature, in that an 

inferior force, either in size or technology, will employ 

terrorism to negate the position of the superior force. 

The differences between symmetrical and asymmetrical 

warfare usually has to do with the scale and type of 

engagement. Symmetrical 

warfare involves 

conventional engagements 

between massed militaries 

using each other’s strengths Terrorists, such as al-Qaeda, 

understand this war is based 

upon “attrition and evasion” 

and have the will to fight when 

it best suits them and hide 

when it does not. 

Once these are understood, 

and weaknesses through a coordinated effort by the 

offensive and defensive United States and its allies 

actions to see which side has can then effectively fight 

the endurance to outlast the terrorism. The pursuit and 

other. It is usually governed neutralization of problems in 

by either a chivalrous code countries and regions where 

or rules of war, which both instability and lawlessness 

sides acknowledge. Today, breed discontent and promote 

the U.S. military operates 

by a set of international 

conventions called the Law 

of Armed Conflict. Most 

other militaries also acknowledge these conventions 

and have an established set of rules they follow. The 

Geneva Convention, the Law of Armed Conflict, and 

other established rules protect noncombatants, holy sites, 

hospitals, schools, and other off-limit areas. Asymmetrical 

warfare involves unconventional military forces, guerrilla 

forces, freedom fighters, and terrorists who exploit 

and attack the weaknesses of the stronger foe. These 

weaknesses might include targets that are off limits in 

symmetrical warfare. 

Asymmetrical threats are: Unusual in our eyes; 

irregular and unrecognized by the laws of warfare; 

unmatched within our arsenal of capabilities 

and plans; highly leveraged against our assets 

(particularly military and often civilian targets); 

intended to work around, offset, and negate what 

in other contexts are our strengths; difficult to 

respond to in kind; difficult to respond to in a 

discriminate and proportionate manner. 

Those who engage in asymmetrical warfare consider 

warfare as a continuous activity; Westerners on the other 

hand, view distinct separations between peace and war. 

Western powers typically see a formal declaration of war, 

a period of combat operations, and then a conclusion 

represented by a cease fire or surrender. Terrorists, such 

as al-Qaeda, understand this war is based upon “attrition 

and evasion” and have the will to fight when it best suits 

them and hide when it does not. Countering asymmetrical 

threats will require an identification and rectification 

of vulnerabilities within our laws and security oriented 

practices and procedures. It will also require the effective 

employment of U.S. resources, including intelligence, 

counterintelligence, and law enforcement agencies working 

together. Additionally, the United States must truly learn 

to understand the adversary’s culture, social structures, 

history, ethnic diversity, 

religious parameters, and 

psychological factors to 

exploit their weaknesses. 

terrorist recruitment must 

remain a long-term high 

priority. These efforts could 

take a decade or longer. 

Amir M. Ali, “Jihad Explained.” URL:<http://www. 

thetruereligion.org/jihad.htm>, accessed Sept. 26, 2003. 

Khaled Abou El Fadl, “Commentary: Terrorism is at Odds with 

Islamic Tradition.” 

U R L : < h t t p : / / w w w. m u s l i m - l a w y e r s . n e t / n e w s / i n d e x . 

php3?aktion=show &number=78>, accessed Sept. 26, 2003. 

Ted Gurr, “Why Men Rebel,” The Center for International 

Studies, Princeton University, 1970: 23. 

Donald Hanle, “Terrorism: The Newest Face of Warfare,” 

Pergamon Brassey, 1989: 104. 

Colin Gray, “Thinking Asymmetrically in Times of Terror,” 

Parameters: US Army War College Quarterly, 2002: 5-6. 

About the Author: Michael J DeBoe graduated 

from Bellevue University and the Joint Military 

Intelligence College. He has been with the United 

States Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations 

(AFOSI) since September 1998, deployed in support 

of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and assigned to the 

AFOSI Academy in August 2004. He has been a 

detailed instructor assigned to the Counterterrorism 

Division, since September 2005. 

 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Meet the Partners
 

NCIS: guARDIANS oF THE WAR FIgHTERS
 

By Phyllis U. Wade 

In a dangerous and complex world, 

threats against America and its 

military forces continue to proliferate 

and evolve. Standing between these 

threats and the people, families, and 

assets of the United States Navy and 

Marine Corps is a unique, highlytrained, and effective team of special 

agents, investigators, forensic experts, 

security specialists, analysts, and support 

personnel: the Naval Criminal Investigative 

Service, better known as NCIS. 

NCIS traces its roots back to the early days of the Office 

of Naval Intelligence (ONI). In anticipation of the United 

States entering World War I, ONI was reorganized and given 

responsibility for investigating espionage and sabotage 

directed against Department of the Navy (DoN) assets. The 

ONI agents assigned to these missions were the forerunners 

of the present day special agent corps of NCIS. In 1966, 

the name Naval Investigative Service (NIS) was adopted to 

distinguish the organization from the rest of ONI. In 1992, 

the first civilian director was appointed and the name of the 

agency changed to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. 

This team of federal law enforcement professionals is 

dedicated to protecting the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps 

worldwide. Being a member of the 

NCIS family could take an agent 

from working in the small town of 

Pascagoula, Mississippi, to New 

York City; from the decks of the USS 

Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) to 

the war zone of Baghdad conducting 

a variety of investigations, operations 

and performing a plethora of missions. 

The demands on NCIS special agents and 

support personnel are many but the rewards 

numerous. 

NCIS employs over 2400 personnel, 1200 of whom are 

special agents. The agency maintains a worldwide presence 

with offices in 165 locations that are aligned under 16 field 

offices. Four of the field offices are located overseas in 

Europe, Singapore, the Middle East, and Far East. 

NCIS is unique within the Department of Defense 

(DoD), as its charter covers law enforcement as well as 

counterintelligence; counterterrorism, antiterrorism/force 

protection; personnel and information security, and cyber 

investigations. NCIS is the primary law enforcement and 

counterintelligence arm of the DoN and is the Navy’s 

primary source of security for the men, women, ships, 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
planes, and resources of America’s seagoing expeditionary 

forces around the globe. NCIS performs a broad and 

expanding set of services for the DoN. For example: 

•	 Today, most Navy ships cannot enter a port unless 

NCIS has completed an on-the-ground threat 

assessment and vulnerability assessment. 

•		 NCIS agents were the first U.S. law enforcement 

personnel on the scene at the Cole bombing ... the 

Limburg bombing ... and the terrorist attack in 

Mombassa, Kenya. 

•	 NCIS’ Cold Case 

unit has solved 50 

homicides since 

1995—one of which 

was 33 years old. 

•	 NCIS has conducted 

fraud investigations 

resulting in over 

half a billion dollars 

in recoveries and 

restitution to the 

U.S. Government 

and the U.S. Navy 

since 1997. 

NCIS agents were the first U.S. 

law enforcement personnel on 

the scene at the Cole bombing 

... the Limburg bombing ... 

and the terrorist attack in 

Mombassa, Kenya. 

homicide, rape, child abuse, 

arson, procurement fraud, and 

more. 

In support of its mission—to 

prevent and solve crimes 

that threaten the war fighting 

capability of the U.S. Navy 

and Marine Corps—NCIS 

pursues three strategic 

priorities: Prevent Terrorism, 

Protect Secrets, and Reduce 

Crime. 

•	 NCIS has agents assigned to all of the Navy’s 12 

aircraft carriers and several expeditionary strike 

group vessels. 

NCIS works closely with other local, state, federal, and 

foreign agencies to counter and investigate the most 

serious crimes: terrorism, espionage, computer intrusion, 

“Prevent Terrorism” includes a wide range of offensive 

and defensive activities designed to detect, deter, and 

disrupt terrorism and related hostile acts against DoN 

forces and installations. 

“Protect Secrets” includes safeguarding classified 

information, vetting personnel for trustworthiness, and 

protecting classified information within industry. NCIS 

10 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
has exclusive investigative jurisdiction 

into actual, potential, or suspected acts 

of espionage, terrorism, sabotage and 

assassination, or aural, suspected, 

or attempted defection by DoN 

personnel. 

“Reduce Crime” includes the 

investigation of all major criminal 

offenses (felonies) — those crimes 

punishable under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice by confinement of 

more than one year. 

In 1984, special agents began training at 

the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC). Sixteen years 

later, in 2000, NCIS moved NCIS special agents are 

its training division from its trained as investigators. Their 

headquarters in Washington, skills – interviewing and 

D.C. to FLETC. The NCIS interrogating; processing crime 

Training Academy’s mission scenes; developing informants; 

is to serve as the premier conducting protective security 

provider of training for details; administering polyall NCIS employees and graphs; presenting cases for 

to provide each and every prosecution and more placed 

employee the tools to plan them on high demand when 

and execute a successful and the nation responded to the 

rewarding career path. The events of 9/11/2001. On any 

academy has responsibility given day, NCIS personnel are 

over all basic, advanced, and in-service training programs, deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Horn of Africa, and 

and is responsible for providing relevant, timely, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the support of the Global War 

substantive, and cost- effective training programs to build on Terrorism. Over 400 special agents have deployed to 

a highly skilled workforce. these locations in the last three years. They have worked 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 11 

NCIS personnel are deployed 

to Iraq, Afghanistan, 

Kuwait, Horn of Africa, and 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

in the support of the 

Global War on Terrorism. 
protective service operations, criminal investigations, 

and counterintelligence, and served as interviewers and 

interrogators with small groups of Special Forces. 

The demands placed on NCIS to provide personnel 

overseas to support the war on terrorism led the training 

academy to design a course to prepare NCIS personnel for 

deployment to very high-risk areas such as Iraq. The High 

Risk Operations Training Program (HROTP) is conducted 

several times each year at FLETC to meet the requirements 

of NCIS deployments. This course provides in-depth 

familiarization and training with weaponry and driving 

tactics necessary to deploy in a hostile environment. It is a 

tactical, performance-based program that not only teaches 

the student the importance of being proficient, but uses the 

building-block method of instruction, fostering confidence 

in ability and culminating in the exhibition of learned skills 

while in high-stress situations. The HROTP is one of the 

academy’s premier training programs as NCIS continues to 

support the Global War on Terrorism. 

References: 

NCISHQ Office of Communications, Washington, DC 

NCIS website - www.ncis.navy.mil 

About the Author: Phyllis U. Wade has been a 

special agent with the NCIS for 19 years. She has 

served domestically, abroad, and aboard an aircraft 

carrier. She joined the NCIS Training Academy 

in July 2006 as the Division Chief for Training 

Operations. 

12 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
The Fourth Amendment 


Results from the Supreme Court’s 2005-2006 Term
 

By Jeff Fluck 

With two new members (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito), 

the Supreme Court’s last term drew an even larger audience 

than usual. The Court’s Fourth Amendment cases are natural 

attention-getters. No other kind of case more plainly controls the 

intersection where government power and citizen rights meet and 

sometimes collide. Ordinary citizens do not study the nuances of 

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. They may never expect to be 

arrested or searched. But they can easily imagine themselves on 

the receiving end of these actions and the loss of freedom, dignity, 

privacy, and possessions they entail. The Fourth Amendment is 

personal. 

Of course, law enforcement officers must follow Fourth 

Amendment cases far more closely. The Supreme Court had five 

Fourth Amendment cases last term. Three trends are apparent in 

these decisions. 

First, there is good news about the new members. Both Chief 

Justice Roberts and Justice Alito supported law enforcement actions 

in all of the Fourth Amendment cases in which they participated. 

At the same time, Justice Kennedy has replaced retired Justice 

O’Connor as the tie-breaker of the nine-member Court. He voted 

with the majority in all five cases, both the four which supported 

law enforcement actions and the one which did not. 

Second, the idea that generalized reasonableness is the true 

“touchstone” of the Fourth Amendment continued to gain ground. 

Overall, reasonableness has been used to admit more evidence. In 

particular, the Court used reasonableness this term to justify police 

actions taken to avert future harm. 

Third, the Court continued to relax its earlier reflexive use of the 

exclusionary rule to assert tight control of search and seizure. One 

important reason is the Court’s trust that modern law enforcement 

strives to and does follow the Constitution. An examination of 

each case follows. 

Proactive Entries – Brigham City v. Stuart1 

Facts: Here is a case on which all Justices agreed. Late on a 

Saturday night, local police followed up on a noise complaint and 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 13 
Fourth Amendment case. First, The officers had an objectively 

reasonable basis for believing 

both that the injured adult 

might need help and that 

the violence in the kitchen 

was just beginning. 

the couple argued, and Janet called 

he reminded us that entering the police. The police came, and 

a home without a warrant is Janet said that Scott had cocaine 

“presumptively unreasonable,” in the house. Police Sergeant 

but since “the ultimate touchstone Murray asked Scott for permission 

of the Fourth Amendment is to enter the house and search it. 

‘reasonableness,’ the warrant Scott “unequivocally refused,” so 

requirement is subject to certain Sergeant Murray asked Janet for 

exceptions.” 2 consent. She granted it. Sergeant 

Murray found a straw with what 

found a loud party fueled by lots of alcohol. As they went up the 

driveway to approach two drunken juveniles in the backyard, the 

officers could hear shouts inside the house. Once in the backyard, 

they saw four adults in the kitchen struggling to restrain another 

juvenile. While the officers watched, the juvenile punched one of 

the adults in the face hard enough to draw blood. 

The officers entered through a screen door, quelled the disorder, 

and eventually arrested several of the adults for disorderly conduct, 

drunkenness, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. 

Lower courts suppress evidence: The Utah courts suppressed 

all evidence found after the officers entered, holding that (1) the 

officers had entered in order to make arrests rather than render aid; 

and (2) the single punch was not sufficiently serious to invoke the 

emergency aid or exigent circumstances doctrines. 

Supreme Court decision: Chief 

Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, 

his first for a Court majority in a 

Second, he noted that, even if 

the officers entered primarily 

to make arrests, their subjective 

intent was simply not relevant. This kind of Fourth Amendment 

question turns on the objective facts and whether they gave the 

officers sufficient reason to enter.3 

Third, he resolved the ultimate issue with a few crisp sentences: 

“the officers had an objectively reasonable basis 

for believing both that the injured adult might 

need help and that the violence in the kitchen 

was just beginning. Nothing in the Fourth 

Amendment required them to wait until another 

blow rendered someone ‘unconscious’... or 

worse before entering. The role of a police 

officer includes preventing violence and 

restoring order, not simply rendering first aid 

to casualties; an officer is not like a boxing (or 

hockey) referee, poised stop a bout only if it 

becomes too one-sided.”4 

With incisive clarity, the Chief Justice endorsed this proactive 

police entry in the same way that earlier cases have supported 

proactive decisions to stop, frisk, enter, and inspect in order to 

prevent a variety of escalating or future harms. Inaction in these 

situations is unreasonable. The need to take proactive steps now 

to prevent or minimize future harm is the linchpin of a number of 

doctrines excusing full Fourth Amendment compliance. 

Thus, warrantless entries are permitted to deal with exigent 

circumstances before hostages are injured and render emergency 

aid before victims lose more blood. Stops can be made on less 

than probable cause when crimes are about to be committed, and 

frisks can be conducted when the stopped individual may be armed 

and later endanger the officer. Stuart uses that logic. 

Dueling Consenters – Georgia v. Randolph5 

Georgia v. Randolph veered sharply from the course that many 

lower courts had been following. 

Facts: Scott Randolph practiced law in Georgia. His wife, Janet, 

and son had left him and went to 

Canada. When Janet and the child 

returned more than a month later, 

appeared to be cocaine residue 

on it. The officer then left the 

house, called the local prosecutor, 

and applied for a search warrant. When Sergeant Murray tried to 

reenter the house, Janet withdrew consent. The search warrant was 

granted, more drug evidence was found, and Scott was indicted. 

The trial court refused to suppress the evidence. 

Initial appeals: Both Georgia appeals courts directed that the 

evidence be suppressed. 

Supreme Court decision: The Supreme Court (5-3, Justice Alito 

not participating) agreed that the evidence was inadmissible: 

“in the circumstances here at issue, a physically present cooccupant’s stated refusal to permit entry prevails, rendering the 

warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him.” 6 Justice 

Souter reasoned that “widely shared social expectations”7 can help 

determine whether a given outcome meets the Fourth Amendment 

standard of reasonableness. In his view, a guest would not come 

in if confronted at the threshold with a wife saying, “Enter,” 

and a husband saying, “Stay out.” Hence, it is constitutionally 

unreasonable for police to enter when confronted with the same 

situation. 

Explicit qualification: Both Justice Souter’s lead opinion and 

14 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
Justice Breyer’s concurrence emphasize limiting the ruling to the 

facts presented in this case. First, the dueling consenters have to be 

equal co-tenants – a six-year-old son’s, “Stay out,” does not trump 

his father’s, “Come in.” And the lead opinion, admitting that they 

are “drawing a fine line,” is careful not to impose a duty on officers 

to seek out and consult co-tenants who are not lucky enough to be 

awake and physically present at the front door.8 Justice Souter 

uses two earlier cases (discussed in the next two paragraphs) to 

illustrate the limits of Randolph. 

Snooze and lose: In Illinois v. Rodriguez,

9 a man beat his girlfriend. 

She got the police and used her key to let them into the apartment. 

They found her drug-dealing assailant asleep inside along with 

plainly-viewed drugs and paraphernalia. Randolph creates no 

duty for police to knock on the door, wake any or all who may be 

inside, and conduct a referendum 

on whether police should enter 

and search.10 They knocked on the door 

and were met by the suspect’s 

girlfriend. She let police search 

their room, where they found 

$4,995 in a diaper bag. 

attachment, but not the affidavit, 

was made a part of the search 

Timing matters: In United States warrant. “ANTICIPATORY” had 

v. Matlock,

11 police arrested a been written across the top of the 

bank robbery suspect in front of form. 

the house in which he shared a 

room with his girlfriend. Police The affidavit made the anticipatory 

handcuffed him and put him nature of the warrant clear: 

in their car. They knocked on 

the door and were met by the 

suspect’s girlfriend. She let 

police search their room, where they found $4,995 in a diaper 

bag. “So long as there is no evidence that the police have removed 

a potentially objecting tenant from the entrance for the sake of 

avoiding a possible objection,” Randolph does not create a duty to 

return to the squad car and consult the suspect.12 

Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent: Even if the case’s majority holding 

may mildly disappoint law enforcement, the logic, tone and sheer 

force of Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent is heartening. Observing 

that pertinent social expectations are less widely-held than wildly 

variable, Chief Justice Roberts would use a doctrine supported 

by the Court’s previous cases to admit the evidence against Scott 

Randolph. That doctrine posits that once a person chooses to 

share information, records, or a place with someone else, he can 

no longer expect that the matter remain private. Thus, “[a] person 

assumes the risk that his co-occupants — just as they might report 

his illegal activity or deliver his contraband to the government 

— might consent to a search of areas over which they have access 

and control.”13 

Anticipatory Search Warrants – United States v. Grubbs14 

United States v. Grubbs involved an anticipatory search warrant 

for child pornography. Like a standard “forthwith” search warrant, 

an anticipatory warrant specifies which items are expected to 

be found in the place to be searched. The difference is that the 

applicant for an anticipatory warrant does not claim that the items 

are there already. Instead, the applicant swears they will be there 

once something (a “triggering event”) happens. 

Facts: Jeffrey Grubbs ordered a videotape called “Lolita Mother 

and Daughter.” He had seen it advertised on the Internet and sent 

$45 cash with a note attached that read, “I hope this makes it to 

you please send film ASAP thanks Jeff Grubbs.” Unfortunately 

for Grubbs, he had placed his order with a website operated by 

postal inspectors. 

While arranging for a controlled delivery, postal inspectors also 

obtained an anticipatory search warrant. The warrant was on the 

standard “forthwith” form. The preprinted language stated that 

“there is now concealed a certain person or property, namely...” 

after which the following language was added, “the records and 

materials described in Attachment 

B to the attached Affidavit.” This 

“Execution of this search 

warrant will not occur 

unless and until the parcel has been received by 

a person(s) and has been physically taken into 

the residence.... At that time, and not before, 

this search warrant will be executed by me and 

other United States Postal Inspectors.”15 

But the affidavit, although part of the search warrant application, 

was not attached to the warrant; hence, this triggering condition 

was not identified in the warrant itself. 

Two days after the warrant was issued, an undercover postal 

inspector delivered the videotape at the Grubbs’ house at 7:20 a.m. 

Mrs. Grubbs signed for it and took it inside. About four minutes 

later, Jeffrey Grubbs left the house and was stopped by postal 

inspectors. The search team arrived and found the tape. While the 

search proceeded, Grubbs was presented with the search warrant 

(but not the affidavit specifying the triggering event). 

Trial and initial appeal: Grubbs entered a conditional guilty plea, 

was convicted, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison and 

three years of supervised release. Grubbs appealed and the Ninth 

Circuit reversed, holding that, “[t]he failure to present the affidavit 

designating the triggering events... of the search warrant rendered 

the warrant constitutionally invalid and the search illegal.”16 

Supreme Court decision: The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 

Circuit. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion and addressed two 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 1
questions: (1) Does the triggering event have to be described 

in the part of the warrant provided to the suspect? and (2) more 

fundamentally, are anticipatory warrants constitutional? All eight 

Justices (Justice Alito took no part in the decision) agreed that the 

search was legal. 

Anticipatory warrants are constitutional: All eight Justices 

agreed that a search warrant can be issued when there is probable 

cause that: (1) the triggering event will occur; and (2) once the 

triggering event occurs, the items to be seized will be in the 

place to be searched. As Justice Scalia pointed out, all search 

warrants are necessarily based on predictions. The anticipatory 

search warrant ratifies the prediction that once the triggering event 

occurs, evidence will be there. The traditional “forthwith” search 

warrant ratifies the prediction that once the warrant is executed the 

evidence will still be there. 

There must be probable cause 

that the triggering event 

will occur. Otherwise, 

“an anticipatory warrant 

could be issued for every 

house in the country. . .” 

event would never lead to an 

the triggering event will occur: 

Probable cause required that 

unconstitutional search. That 

Although obviously met in the reservation is ample reason for the 

context of a controlled delivery, cautious investigator to ensure that 

the opinion also makes a point that the triggering event is described 

often is veiled in other contexts. in the warrant itself. 

There must be probable cause that 

the triggering event will occur. Parolee Searches - California v. 

Otherwise, “an anticipatory Samson 1 

warrant could be issued for every Facts: A California statute 

house in the country, authorizing 

search and seizure if contraband 

should be delivered — though for every single location there is no 

likelihood that contraband will be delivered.” 17 

Timing and the ten-day rule: Rule 41(e)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules 

of Criminal Procedure requires that a search warrant be executed 

no longer than ten days after it is issued. What should be done if 

probable cause exists that the triggering event will occur, but the 

timing of that event is outside law enforcement control and may 

happen more than ten days out? Unlike the timing issue raised by 

nighttime execution, Rule 41 contains no authority for the issuing 

magistrate to modify this limitation. 

Two courses of action exist. One option is to renew the warrant 

every ten days until the triggering event occurs. The other option 

is to capitalize on the telephonic search warrant authorized by 

Rule 41(d)(3) – the search warrant application, proposed duplicate 

original warrant, and original warrant can be prepared and approved 

beforehand. Issuing the warrant can be accomplished with a phone 

call to the issuing magistrate. Of course, agents should be prepared 

to brief the magistrate on any new evidence bearing on probable 

cause at that time. 

This second option may be the better choice if the opportunity is 

expected to be fleeting. For example, law enforcement officers 

may know that bomb-making components will be delivered to a 

location sometime in the next six weeks. Uncertainty about the 

delivery date does not change the fact that the warrant must be 

executed quickly before bombs are assembled and deployed. A 

telephonic search warrant supports speedy execution in these 

circumstances. Warrantless entry to deal with the exigent 

circumstance is also in play. Early coordination with the local 

U.S. Attorney’s Office is wise. 

In this case, the triggering event did not have to be stated in the 

warrant itself. Five of the eight justices held that the warrant’s 

failure to recite the triggering condition did not render the search 

unconstitutional. Their conclusion rested on the language of the 

Fourth Amendment itself, which states that a warrant must only 

specify two things: (1) the items to be seized, and (2) the place 

to be searched. The remaining three justices, while not finding 

it necessary to include the triggering event in the warrant in this 

particular case, were not willing 

to say that omitting the triggering 

provides that “every prisoner 

eligible for release on state parole 

‘shall agree in writing to be subject to search or seizure by a parole 

officer or other peace officer at any time of the day or night, with 

or without a search warrant, and with or without cause.’”19 A 

police officer, acquainted with the suspect’s parole status, stopped 

Samson on the street and searched him “[b]ecause it’s a condition 

of his parole.” 20 He found a baggy with methamphetamine in a 

cigarette box in Samson’s shirt pocket. Samson was convicted of 

drug possession and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. His 

appeals were denied by the California appellate courts. 

Supreme Court decision: Justice Thomas wrote the opinion (6-3), 

holding that the evidence was admissible because the California 

statute was constitutional. The case is significant because the 

familiar reasonableness balancing analysis has been extended. 

Reasonableness determined by balancing competing interests: 

Starting with Camara v. Municipal Court21 and Terry v. Ohio22, 

the Court has often decided whether a given government action is 

reasonable under the Fourth Amendment by using a cost-benefit 

analysis: Identify the government need met by the action, assess 

the importance of that need, and compare it to the value of the 

personal right that the action compromises. A government action 

is reasonable in Fourth Amendment terms when the balance tips its 

way. In such cases, traditional Fourth Amendment requirements 

such as warrants and probable cause can be reasonably and 

constitutionally modified. 

1 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Reasonableness balancing contexts: Reasonableness balancing 

has been applied in a number of contexts. One class springs 

from meeting governmental special needs other than “general 

‘crime control’ purposes.”23 Often called inspections or, lately, 

programmatic searches, this class includes airport boarding 

inspections, border searches, certain government workplace 

searches, and the like. Their primary purpose is other than gathering 

criminal evidence from suspects. They do not require full Fourth 

Amendment compliance; hence, inspections proceed without 

judicial warrants and often without requiring any particularized 

suspicion about the possible wrongdoing of those being inspected. 

To prevent these inspections from being misused as a subterfuge 

to evade these traditional Fourth Amendment requirements, the 

scope of inspections is carefully predetermined, and features are 

added which remove discretion to choose who will get inspected. 

With some overlap, a second class is defined by the proactive 

prevention of future harm. Stops 

and frisks can be found here, and 

Stuart, discussed above, follows The Court did split 5-4 . . . 

holding that excluding 

evidence found after a violation 

of the knock-and-announce 

rule was “unjustified.” 

cocaine was eventually denied. 

this logic. Judicial warrants are He was convicted and received a 

not required and something less sentence of probation.27 

than particularized probable 

cause sometimes suffices. Supreme Court arguments: The 

These government actions are United States Supreme Court 

constrained by requiring that heard argument on January 9 and 

officers have particularized heard additional argument on 

suspicion that the harm they seek 

to prevent is, based on the facts of 

the particular situation they confront, a distinct possibility. 

Reasonableness balancing a third way: The California statute 

approved by Samson extends the realm of reasonableness further 

by jettisoning the checks of each approach. Removal of officer 

discretion checks the government’s inspection power, but this 

statute gives officers the power to decide which parolees get 

searched. The careful scoping of an inspection is also jettisoned 

- the officer’s power to “search or seize” is unqualified. Finally, 

the requirement that the officer have some particularized suspicion 

before initiating a proactive search to prevent future harm is 

eliminated as well - an officer may search “with or without 

cause.” 

What tipped the scales so decisively when Justice Thomas sought 

the balance between the parolee’s privacy interest and the state’s 

need? In Justice Thomas’s view, Hudson’s “status as a parolee 

[and] the plain terms of the parole search condition,”24 sharply 

reduce the released parolee’s expectation of privacy. A parolee 

could have chosen to stay in jail where his expectation of privacy 

is essentially nonexistent. 

Proactive prevention of future harm: Justice Thomas noted that 

the recidivism rate for California parolees is 68-70%. It follows 

that the state’s need to maintain an intense regime of suspicionless 

searches is great. By increasing the chance that he will be caught 

with the evidence, the California scheme hopefully discourages 

the parolee from committing new crimes once he is released. 

Trust in law enforcement professionalism: The opinion’s closing 

paragraph expresses the majority’s confidence that this broad grant 

of authority will not be abused because law enforcement can be 

expected to obey the statute’s bar on searches “for the sole purpose 

of harassment.”25 

Knock and announce – Hudson v. Michigan26 

Facts: With a search warrant for drugs, about seven members of 

the Detroit police arrived at Hudson’s home. On the way to the 

door, one yelled, “Police, search warrant.” Three to five seconds 

later, they opened the door and went in. Michigan conceded at 

trial that this violated knock-and-announce. The officers searched 

Hudson and found five rocks of crack cocaine in his pocket and a 

gun in the chair where he sat. 

Hudson’s motion to suppress the 

May 18. Many speculate that the 

matter was set for a second round 

of argument because Justice Alito, who assumed his duties in 

February, was needed to break a 4-4 tie between the eight justices 

who heard initial argument. 

Supreme Court decision: The Court did split 5-4 (Justice Kennedy 

concurring in most of the majority opinion and the result), holding 

that excluding evidence found after a violation of the knock-andannounce rule was “unjustified.”28 Justice Scalia offered two 

reasons. Both start by emphasizing the heavy cost imposed on 

society and its law enforcement professionals by the exclusionary 

rule — those who should be convicted for committing crimes are 

freed to commit more. 

First, this heavy cost should only be imposed to “vindicate”29 

rights directly jeopardized by the unconstitutional way the 

evidence was obtained. That close connection does not exist 

in a knock-and-announce violation. This continues a theme 

most recently advanced by Justice Thomas to avoid excluding a 

gun found as a result of a Miranda violation in United States v. 

Patane.

30 

Second, this heavy cost has to be assessed in light of its ultimate 

goal — the deterrence of constitutional violations by law 

enforcement. Justice Scalia found that modern law enforcement 

officers are better trained and more professional than their 

predecessors. Deterrence may have been necessary in the past, 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 17 
but “forcing the public today to pay for the sins and inadequacies 

of a legal regime that existed almost half a century ago” is no 

longer smart.31 

Summary 

Overall, the last term’s Fourth Amendment cases went well for 

law enforcement. The one case which did not (Randolph) was 

carefully limited to its facts. Two cases (Brigham City and 

Samson) underwrite police authority to act proactively in order to 

reduce the potential for future harm.32 These cases signal, along 

with Hudson, a willingness to rely on law enforcement integrity 

and professionalism to curb constitutional violations. Hudson 

shows that the Court will even refrain from using the exclusionary 

rule to do so. So long as law enforcement polices itself, the Court 

may be willing to move further in the favorable direction signaled 

this past term. But the converse is also possible. If the Court is 

later forced to conclude that its current trust in law enforcement 

integrity was misplaced, it might well react by retaking the reins in 

the most forceful of ways. 

(Endnotes)
 

1 Brigham City v. Stuart, 126 S. Ct. 1943 (May 22, 2006).
 

2 Brigham City at 1947.
 

3 Brigham City at 1948.
 

4 Brigham City at 1949.
 

5 Georgia v. Randolph, 126 S. Ct. 1515 (March 22, 2006).
 

6 Randolph at 1519.
 

7 Randolph at 1521.
 

8 Randolph at 1527.
 

9 Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 197 (1990).
 

10 Randolph at 1527.
 

11 United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).
 

12 Randolph at 1527.
 

13 Randolph at 1536 (Roberts, CJ, dissenting).
 

14 United States v. Grubbs, 126 S. Ct. 1494 (March 21, 2006).
 

15 Grubbs at 1497.
 

16 United States v. Grubbs, 377 F.3d 1072, 1080 (3rd Cir. 2004).
 

17 Grubbs at 1500.
 

18 California v. Samson, 126 S. Ct. 2193 (June 19, 2006).
 

19 Samson at 2196, citing Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3067(a) (West 

2000). 

20 Samson, Brief for Petitioner at 5, citing J.A. 37. 

21 387 U.S. 523 (1967). 

22 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 

23 Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 423 (2004), citing Indianapolis 

v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000). Different facts instructively led to 

different results in these two inspection cases. In Edmond, the Court 

rejected admitting drugs found incident to a vehicle checkpoint inspection 

because the purpose of the checkpoint was “to detect evidence of 

ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Id. at 41. By contrast, Lidster approved 

a checkpoint whose purpose was not to find drugs or other contraband 

in the vehicles stopped at the checkpoint, but was instead designed to 

see if any of the vehicles’ occupants had witnessed an accident at the 

checkpoint location at the same time and day of the week before.
 

24 Samson at 2199.
 

25 Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 3607(d) (West 2000).
 

26 Hudson v. Michigan, 126 S. Ct. 2159 (June 15, 2006).
 

27 People v. Hudson, 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 1681
 

28 Hudson at 2168.
 

29 Hudson at 2165.
 

30 542 U.S. 630 (2004).
 

31 Hudson at 2167.
 

32 Two lower court cases decided as this article was being finalized 

illustrate the reach of this idea. United States v. Black, 2006 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 26670 (9th Cir. 2006) arose as follows. The victim of a recent 

domestic assault asked police to meet her outside the apartment she’d 

been beaten in. When the police arrived she was not there. The assailant 

was. In the course of an unsuccessful search of the apartment, police saw 

a gun, obtained a warrant for the gun and seized it. The Ninth Circuit 

deemed the initial proactive entry reasonable to ensure the victim had 

not been left in the apartment after being beaten again. United States v. 

Elder, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27054 (7th Cir. 2006), supported admitting 

evidence incident to proactive entry under the following circumstances. 

Someone at a farm called 911 and said, “‘I think we got meth out here’ 

and added that ‘suspicious’ people were ‘flying like quails.’” Then the 

phone hung up. Responding police could find no one in the lit farmhouse 

and entered an outbuilding to ensure the caller hadn’t been taken 

hostage or hurt. They found the meth lab later admitted into evidence. 

Citing Brigham City, the Seventh Circuit approved the admission: 

“[c]onsiderations of safety -- the caller’s and the officers’– made a looksee prudent.” 

About the Author: John Jeffrey Fluck graduated 

from Haverford College and Washington and Lee 

Law School. He entered active duty with the Army 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps in 1981. While on 

active duty, he received an LL.M. from the Judge 

Advocate General’s School. Army deployments 

included Desert Shield/Storm to Saudi Arabia with 

the 2d COSCOM in 1990-1 and Vigilant Warrior to 

Kuwait with the 24th Infantry Division in 1994. He 

has been a FLETC Senior Instructor at the Legal 

Division since July, 2001. 

1 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Student Services Division: 

Factio Actio obtimgo 

or 

Student Services Division:

Factio Actio obtimgo

or 

“Making it Happen” “Making it Happen”

By Stephen Br By Stephen Brooks and Rick Hazzar ooks and Rick Hazzardd

We deliver. A fleet of buses moves students from the dorms to classrooms and training sites. Buses also transport 

students to weekend recreational events and locations off center. 

Services are often overlooked, but always needed. This is 

especially true in training support here at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). FLETC exists to 

train federal law enforcement officers and agents. That is 

our number one mission. But what does it take to ensure 

that the training takes place? Who ensures that the students 

get to their training venue on time, where they are supposed 

to be, with the proper training uniform, in good health, and 

after a hearty meal? Let us take a minute to reflect on what 

it takes “behind the scenes” to make this work as seamlessly 

as it does. 

On a given day 325 dozen eggs; 400 pounds of bacon, ham, 

and sausage; 625 pounds of fruit; 60 dozen muffins; 450 

sweet rolls; 60 loaves of bread; and 330 gallons of milk, 

juice, and coffee are consumed. That is just one morning 

meal at FLETC Glynco cafeteria! And we do this three 

times a day, seven days a week. This does not count the 

boxed meals that are prepared and taken into the field to be 

consumed during surveillances and practical exercises. 

On any given day from 7:30 a.m. until 10:30 p.m., you can 

find at least 85 roleplayers working for some 20 different 

agencies and divisions, assisting with the training of our 

future federal officers. They are being held up, ripped off, 

interrogated, thrown to the ground, arrested, processed, 

pulled over for traffic stops, handcuffed, and shot with 

simunitions should the circumstances warrant such a 

response from the students. 

Over 253,000 items are kept in our uniform inventory, 

consisting of every size known to exist; over 2.5 tons of 

laundry is washed, dried, and folded on any given day to 

be placed back into inventory to be reissued or placed back 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 1
Room Service. Over 1800 rooms are cleaned including sheets and towels sent to the laundry five-days a week. 

in the dorms for use by the students. Over 1800 rooms are Students may play in volleyball tournaments, softball 

cleaned, with sheets and towels being inventoried and sent games, use the indoor and outdoor pools, go horseback 

for cleaning 5 days a week. riding, attend a Faith Hill concert, a Jacksonville Suns 

game, a Jaguars game, cookouts, and deep sea fishing. And 

Every day, the Ed Aide contractors prepare over 100 that is just in one week! 

transcripts, special awards, and replies to special requests 

to students, former students, 

graduations. 

A fleet of over 150 cars and 

vans for staff and students are 

maintained for use in training, 

to be ready at a moments 

notice. Buses provide service 

for students on a daily basis 

to get to work, to arrive at the 

next classroom building or 

training site, to get home in 

the evening, trips downtown 

on nights and weekends, and 

trips back and forth to the 

airports. In order to keep this 

fleet of vehicles operating, 

and in preparation for All of the above and more are overseen by a staff of 14 

. . .over 2.5 tons of laundry is 

washed, dried, and folded on 

any given day to be placed back 

into inventory to be reissued or 

placed back in the dorms for 

use by the students. 

there is also the management of the fuel and repairs needed 

to keep training on schedule. 

The Health Unit screens all students, provides immediate 

response to medical emergencies on-center, and makes the 

diagnoses that sends those injured or ill to an emergency 

room as needed, and takes care of the walking wounded on 

a daily basis. 

people in Student Services. 

These Contracting Officers 

Technical Representatives 

(COTRs), and Recreation 

Specialists are the support 

center that ensures that staff 

and students can take care of 

training without worrying 

about everyday needs such as 

food, shelter, transportation, 

and recreational activities. 

COTRs oversee the contract 

once the contract has been 

established on the center. 

They assist the Contracting 

Officers (COs) in procurement by inspecting, monitoring, 

asking the right questions, and ensuring that the contractor 

is performing in accordance with the contract, which 

includes reports of good and poor performance. They are 

the ones that see the good, observe the poorly performed, 

and hear the initial complaints from the contractor and the 

users of the contract. They are the first point of contact for 

the government, and a good COTR is invaluable in assisting 

20 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
COs in ensuring the government is getting what they paid opportunities, as a portion of the funds go directly to student 

for, and also assisting in modifications to that contract if support through the Recreation Association. These three 

needed. Recreation Specialists are 

always looking for new 

Our three Recreation events and, if they have ten 

Specialists do an excellent people that are interested in 

job of having activities for an event, they will do their 

the staff and students seven best to get transportation 

days a week. Trips to lined up so that everyone 

Jacksonville or Savannah enjoys themselves. The 

are almost always Recreation Specialists 

accompanied by a cookout strive to provide the greatest 

of some type. They work variety of opportunities 

closely with the FLETC for recreation and leisure 

Recreation Association activities for those attending 

whose board assists with training at the FLETC. 

some of the funding of these events. Every time someone 

uses the FLETC store, or the Student Center, or one of the Services: often overlooked, but always needed. The Student 

snack bars or drink machines around the center, they are Services Division, first and foremost a services organization 

supporting our recreation association and our recreational and known for “Making it Happen.” 

Recreation Specialists strive to 

provide the greatest variety of 

opportunities for recreation and 

leisure activities for those attending 

training at the FLETC. 

About the Author: Steve is in his 7th assignment 

with FLETC as the Chief of the Property Management 

Division at Glynco. Prior to his current assignment 

Steve has served as a supervisor and/or a manager 

in the Student Services Division (SVC), Training 

Management Division (TMD), the Legal Division 

(LGD), and the Behavioral Science Division (BSD). 

Steve was also a Branch Chief in the National 

Center for State and Local (OSL) Law Enforcement 

Training. 

Prior to joining the supervisory ranks of the FLETC 

Steve was a lead and a Senior Instructor in the Security 

Specialties Division (SSD) for 10 years where he was 

the Subject Matter Expert (SME) for the topical area 

of Antiterrorism for 7 years of those years. During this 

time Steve was assigned to instructor in the Seaport 

Security Antiterrorism Training Program (SSATP) 

wherein he instructed on the topics of Antiterrorism, 

OPSEC, and Criminal Intelligence and Information 

at FLETC as well as in such venues and locations 

as Yorktown, VA, Little Creek, VA, and Egypt and 

Morocco. 

Steve has earned his Juris Doctor Degree Law from 

the Florida Coastal School of Law and is a graduate 

of the U.S. Naval War College (CCE) Command and 

Staff. Steve is also a published author on the topic of 

antiterrorism and hostage/barricade incidents; and is 

a former member of the National Advisory Board of 

Hostage Negotiators of America. 

About the Author: Mr. Hazzard has been with 

the FLETC for almost 10 years. He is presently 

the Printing Library Branch Chief, but during 

his time there he has been the Branch Chief of 

Technology Support Branch (TSB), and the acting 

Chief for Student Services (SVC), Media Support 

Division (MSD), and Property Management 

Division (PMD). Rick retired from the Navy as a 

Communications Officer before joing the federal 

government, and his formal education has been 

geared toward training. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 21 
“Passing It on”
 “Passing It on”

I was inspired to write this article by 

a colleague of mine in the Behavioral 

Science Division (BSD) at the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC). Bob Bean and I were having 

a discussion on learning, teaching, and 

sharing of information. We were sitting 

down one day having a cup of coffee and 

talking about being professional trainers. 

The information we shared that day was 

interesting and made a lot of sense. So 

I would like to thank Bob for suggesting 

that I write this article and encouraging 

me in writing this message. 

By Andrew A. Smotzer 

22 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
The discussion that Bob and I had on that day was years, including many of the little secrets that very few 

about the staff at FLETC and the changes in the staff knew. The reason why very few people knew these 

over the years. I told Bob 

that when I first arrived at 

FLETC in January of 1982, 

the FLETC staff seemed 

so young. Back then the 

majority of the instructors 

were in their thirties and 

forties; however, there 

were a few exceptions. 

Today those numbers have 

changed. Now the FLETC 

staff is a much more mature 

group. According to our 

Human Resources Division 

figures, many of our staff 

will be eligible to retire 

within the next five years. 

This means that much of 

the institutional knowledge, 

along with subject matter expertise, will be lost as 

soon as these folks retire! This scenario, by the way, 

is government wide and is a major concern of senior 

management. 

I told Bob about when I first started out as a 

professional trainer (working in the Firearms Division 

here at FLETC) and how lucky I was working with an 

outstanding group of professionals who were totally 

dedicated to their profession. Of course, being new at 

this business, I didn’t know a whole lot, but was very 

anxious to learn. By letting everyone know that I was 

new to this game helped, even though it would not have 

taken the guys long to pick up on how little I knew back 

then. The mindset I had seemed to encourage the staff 

to go even more out of their way to help. As a result 

of this learning environment, having a passion for the 

firearms business, and having a positive attitude, my 

skills as an instructor were developed quickly. 

After spending most of my adult life in the firearms 

discipline (over 22 years), my knowledge and skills 

naturally developed to a higher level. I became the 

training officer for many of the new instructors and 

gave them the same time and attention the guys gave 

me when I first started out. I also included those 

“secrets of the trade” some veterans have a hard time 

giving up. Thinking back, I remembered having a 

similar discussion with my father in regards to the 

same subject of “secrets of the trade.” My father told 

me that when he started out in his chosen profession, 

his training officer was extremely knowledgeable and 

was willing to share everything he had learned over the 

. . .many of our staff will be 

eligible to retire within the 

next five years. This means 

that much of the institutional 

knowledge, along with subject 

matter expertise, will be lost as 

soon as these folks retire! 

secrets was because they 

were never passed on to the 

next generation. My father 

explained to me the reasons 

why he felt this way. If this 

type of information was 

passed on, the student may 

get as good as or even better 

than the one teaching this 

skill -- meaning the trainer 

may lose the competitive 

edge. However, my father 

didn’t feel that way, and he 

believed the teachers were 

duty bound to provide all 

knowledge and information 

to the next generation and 

hope they would get better 

than us. So remember, 

no matter what position you may have, don’t hold 

anything back. Let the person you are training know 

everything you know, so they can excel like you. It’s 

our duty to pass it on! 

About the author: Andrew A. Smotzer has served 

the FLETC for over 24 years. He is a former Secret 

Service Uniformed Division Officer and Firearms 

Instructor. At the FLETC, he has served as a Lead 

and Senior Instructor. He is currently a Branch Chief 

in the Behavioral Science Division at the FLETC 

in Glynco, Georgia. He is a college graduate and 

author of numerous articles in several nationally 

published law enforcement magazines. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 23 
Computer-Based Simulation: 

The Road Ahead 

By Ronald S. Wolff 

Computer-Based Simulation:

The Road Ahead

By Ronald S. Wolff

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) 

vision is to provide fast, flexible, and focused training to 

secure and protect America. Since its modest beginning in 

1970, FLETC has earned the reputation as a world class 

learning institution and is recognized around the globe 

as providing some of the best law enforcement training 

available. But with each day that we commit to train 

those who protect our homeland, the challenges before us 

continue to increase due to the complex political climate, 

both here and abroad. Nevertheless, we are expected to 

continue our high level of service while working within 

budget and within demanding time constraints. It is also 

important that we continue to maintain a safe environment 

and a system that promotes instructor/student morale by 

providing access to the most advanced teaching facilities, 

techniques, and technologies available. 

MILITARY	MODELING,		

SIMULATION,	AND	TRAINING

For the past thirty years, the Department of Defense 

(DoD) has made a consistent investment and commitment 

to the development and integration of advanced modeling 

and simulation technology for training. The military 

has recognized the value of computer-based training 

and simulation as the most effective, safest, and least 

expensive means to supplement its current and future 

training programs. Unfortunately, due to the high cost 

of modeling and simulation, it was not initially adopted 

by the non-military sectors as a viable training option. 

However, with recent technological advances, cost 

reductions, and leveraging of existing technology, there 

has been a significant move among government, corporate 

America, law enforcement, and academic institutions to 

Continues on page 29 

24	 FLETC	Journal		D		Spring	2007
,,

The Ribbon Cutting
 

More than 100 attendees, including representatives from several of the 83 federal partner 

organizations FLETC serves and local community leaders, were able to participate in several 

hands-on demonstrations after the ribbon cutting ceremony. Demonstrations included driving 

simulators, firearms simulators, Advanced Use-of-Force Training simulator, and Sight Alignment 

Aimpoint Simulation (SAAS). 

This training format will enhance what we have 

already been doing for many years to give our 

law enforcement personnel the best basic and 

advanced training possible. , , 

CoNNIE PATRICk
 

FLETC DIRECToR
 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 2
Inside Driving Simulators
 

Cameras monitor student reaction to driving scenarios 

Computer-aided console tracks real time driver progress while 

simultaneously recording on instructor s server for after action 

course critique 

FLETC Instructor can give one on-one instruction or monitor 

and change training scenerio from their own computer station 
Three large flat panel monitors provide students a realistic 

panoramic view during their training experience 

Driver s cockpit can be adjusted to optimize 

individual student training performance 

Instrument console is configured like a regular patrol car complete 

with radio and switches for emergency lights and sirens 
The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center celebrated the grand opening of its new 

Simulation Laboratory, February 14. The facility is a culmination of a two year project, 

which is part of the FLETC Director’s goal of integrating technology and simulation into law 

enforcement training here. 

Stimulating 

Training 

FLETC team members will test and evaluate new simulations 

systems within the approximately 40,000 square-foot lab. The 

$5.4 million facility features an open-bay area for simulators, and 

eight classrooms designed to facilitate tabletop, computer-based 

simulation exercises, and a staff areas with 13 offices. 

2 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Computers 

Firearms Training 

Systems (FATS) 

BeamHit 

Distance Learning 

Program (DLP) 

FLETC Integration of 

Simulation in Training 

(FIST) Team 

TID Established 

Orlando Simulation 

Office Established 

LaserShot 

Computer Games 

Simulation Building 

L3 Driver Simulators 

Computer –Based Technology at FLETC 

FLETC 

Established 

Initiatives

Technology

Computer Based 

Training Scenarios 

1970 1980 1990 

Figure 1. History of computer-based technology at FLETC.2 

integrate modeling and simulation technology into their 

training and education programs. Recently, a new genre of 

simulation and training systems know as Serious Games 

has emerged which combine elements of both gaming and 

DoD simulation technology. 

FLETC TECHNOLOGY HISTORY 

The FLETC leadership recognized early on the potential 

benefits of both simulation-based training and e-Learning 

as viable options to enhance their current training programs. 

The FLETC involvement in computer-based simulation 

started in 1988 with the integration of the Firearms 

Training System, Use of Force Simulator. FLETC was one 

of the first users of the Firearms Training Systems (FATS) 

and even participated in the prototype development and 

evaluation of the FATS, Use of Force Simulator in 1985. 

The FLETC involvement in e-Learning started in 1999 

with the Distributed Learning Feasibility Conference, 

which ultimately led to the FLETC Distributed Learning 

Program.1 As a result of this effort, FLETC established 

and implemented a Learning Management System, an in2000 2010 

house e-Learning and Computer-Based Training (CBT) 

development capability, and a wide range of interactive 

video-based scenarios including crime scene investigation, 

Fourth Amendment, interviewing skills, judgmental use 

of force, and others. 

THE SIMULATION INITIATIVE 

While FLETC has made a consistent effort to incorporate 

computer-based technology since its humble beginnings 

back in 1970, it wasn’t until 2004 that Director Patrick and 

the FLETC Executive Team decided to make technology 

and computer-based simulation a high priority initiative 

within the organization (see Figure 1). Since that time 

there has been no turning back. With Director Patrick’s 

vision and the leadership of the FLETC Executive 

Team, FLETC has recently completed several important 

simulation initiatives, including the construction of a new 

40,000 square foot simulation building, the acquisition 

of 28 L3 driver simulators, the evaluation of several new 

Serious Games for training, and the development of a 

Sight Alignment and Aimpoint Simulator. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 2
External Stimulus Initial Processing Elaboration 

Distributed Practice 

Sensory 

Memory 

Short-term 

Memory 

Long-term 

Memory 

Response 

Lost / Forgotten 

Repetition 

Lost / Forgotten 

•Sight 

•Hearing 

•Touch 

•Smell 

•Taste 

Retrieval 

Attention Encoding 

Feedback 

Figure 2. Modified three-stage memory model with feedback. 

MOVING FORWARD 

To understand how we can most effectively integrate 

technology and computer-based simulation in the training 

curriculum, we must first understand the science of how we 

learn. FLETC’s ultimate selection of training technology 

must be based on sound theory guiding the instructional 

design.3 A fundamental premise underlying instructional 

design is that different instructional approaches are 

necessary to produce different learning outcomes.4 Based 

on Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains,5 there are three 

distinct, but overlapping learning domains: Cognitive 

(knowledge), Affective (attitude), and Psychomotor 

(skills). What makes training especially challenging at 

FLETC is the fact that so much of the learning is grounded 

in all three learning domains. 

Computer-based simulation, while capable of supporting 

all three learning domains, typically has the highest 

return on investment when primarily focused on the 

cognitive learning domain. However, it should be kept 

in mind that there is significant overlap in the previously 

defined learning domains, and even the development 

of psychomotor skills has a cognitive or knowledge 

component that can be augmented with computer-based 

simulation. 

The most widely accepted cognitive theory of learning 

is often referred to as the “stage theory.”6 The “stage 

theory” suggests that information is serially processed, 

in a discontinuous manner, as it is moves through three 

distinct stages: sensory memory (SM), short-term 

memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). Based 

on this model, effective learning can be considered as 

the acquisition, storage, retrieval, and application of 

information from long-term memory (See Figure 2). 

Therefore, to effectively learn something, one must first 

recognize and process an external stimulus via their 

external sensors in a very rapid timeframe (e.g., less than 

1⁄2 second for vision; about 3 seconds for hearing). Moving 

data from SM into STM requires stimulus that is interesting 

and recognizable based on prior knowledge. Once data 

is moved into STM, it will only stay there for a short 

period of time (i.e., 15-20 seconds) unless it is repeated or 

rehearsed. Short-term memory is also called the working 

memory since it relates to whatever we are processing at 

the moment. If the data is not effectively moved into LTM, 

we cannot expect to access this information after about 

20 minutes. Moving data from STM into LTM requires 

elaboration and distributed practice, also referred to as 

periodic review. Long-term memory is organized in one 

30 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
or more structures: declarative (things we can talk about), 

procedural (process/steps), and/or imagery (pictures). 

Our ability to recall LTM data is directly related to our 

success in moving data from STM to LTM. A complex, 

biochemical feedback loop within the brain ensures that 

the entire process runs smoothly. 

Extensive research, based on the cognitive theory of 

learning, has shown that there are distinct cognitive learning 

principles that will facilitate our ability to learn. In the 

white paper titled, “The Use of PC Simulations for Navy 

Training,” the authors have identified, from a wide body 

of research, the following important cognitive learning 

principles that lay the foundation for understanding how 

PC simulations can support learning:7 

Cognitive Learning Principles 

1.	 Cognitive resources are limited. Students, 

especially novice students, can only effectively 

process small amounts of information at a time. 

2.	 Prior knowledge is the basis of new learning 

and provides a framework by which a student 

organizes new information. 

3.	 Distributed practice strengthens learning. 

Cognitive and psychomotor tasks trained to 

automaticity will be performed quickly, with little 

conscious processing, freeing resources for other 

tasks as needed. 

4.	 Feedback improves learning and performance 

and is regarded as an essential factor in the 

acquisition and retention of desired response 

patterns. Feedback can be intrinsic, e.g., changes 

in the environment, or augmented, e.g., instructor 

feedback. 

5.	 Transfer of training, i.e., performance, is better 

when features of the training environment closely 

resemble those of the on-the-job environment in 

which the trained skill will be applied. 

6.	 Rehearsal is critical to moving data from shortterm memory into long-term memory. Rehearsal is 

typically either maintenance rehearsal (repetition 

of information) or elaborative rehearsal (active 

rehearsal where the student identifies relationships 

between previous knowledge and the target 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 31 
information to be learned). 

7.	 Solutions to higher-order thinking tasks require 

the student to recall knowledge from multiple 

domains, engage in effortful information 

processing, and select the best strategy. 

8.	 Experts and novices process information 

differently. As a result of their practice, the 

expert’s skill performance has moved from being 

effortful, requiring a great deal of attention and 

control, to being automatic and effortless. 

The extent to which the training curriculum recognizes 

and addresses these fundamental principles of learning 

will dictate the overall success of the training program. 

For each of the previously discussed cognitive learning 

principles, it has been recognized that computer-based 

technology and simulation can provide the following 

benefits to training:8 

1.	 Supplement the current training curriculum by 

providing additional information through multiple 

modalities (audio, visual, text, kinesthetic, etc.). 

2.	 Accommodate different knowledge types by 

adapting training methodologies and content to 

the student needs by providing a wide range of 

instructional approaches and presentations. 

3.	 Enhance learning by providing varying levels of 

difficulty and allowing students to control their 

learning environment and learn at their own pace. 

4.	 Provide consistent, standardized, and validated 

instruction. 

5.	 Provide both intrinsic and augmented feedback, 

an essential factor in the acquisition and retention 

of desired response patterns. 

6.	 Provide a safe environment for exercising ‘what32 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
if’ scenarios and learning from one’s mistakes. 

7.	 Provide deliberate practice (repetitive performance 

of intended cognitive or psychomotor skills) in 

specific domains. 

8.	 Bridge the gap between knowledge-based 

learning, e.g., classroom environment, and skillbased learning, e.g., role playing.
 

9.	 Reduce training time and can mimic real time or 

non-real time events.
 

10. Mimic the actual work environment, thus 

producing better retention of learned skills.
 

11. Compress time, allowing learners to observe the 

effects of their actions on dynamic systems.
 

12. Allow learning to take place without the need 

for using expensive operational equipment, thus 

reducing life-cycle cost.
 

CANDIDATE TECHNOLOGY SELECTION 

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing us today is not 

the development of the 

technology itself, but rather 

the proper selection and 

application of technology 

so that we can ensure that 

we most effectively utilize 

technology when and need, e.g., browser-based 

where it makes the most simulator, stand-alone 

sense. We must not simply simulator, or distributed 

use technology for the simulation. 

sake of using technology. 

The decision to use PC 4. Select the categories 

simulation for training and of PC simulation that are 

the subsequent technology appropriate to the training 

selection process should needs. 

be based on sound human 

5.	 Conduct a Return On performance engineering 

Investment (ROI) analysis. 

The decision to use PC 

simulation for training and 

the subsequent technology 

selection process should 

be based on sound human 

performance engineering 

practices. 

practices. To determine if 

PC simulation is a candidate technology to meet a training 

need, the following steps are recommended:9 

1.	 Establish a need from the human performance and 

instructional systems design perspective. 

2.	 Determine the minimal level of interactivity, 

fidelity, and immersion needed to meet the training 

need. 

3.	 Determine the appropriate simulation 

implementation mechanism to meet the training 

CHALLENGES 

The adoption of emerging technologies and the integration 

of training simulation systems at FLETC will no doubt 

present challenges. However, as with any new endeavor 

there are always challenges that need to be overcome. 

To be successful, FLETC will have to address these 

challenges: 

1.	 Reconsidering the course curriculum in light of 

new instructional tools and media choices. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 33 
2.	 Removing the perception that simulation will 

somehow replace instructor training. This 

is simply not possible – Simulation does not 

replace training, but 

rather supports the 

instructors in their 

role so that they 

The challenge that lies 

ahead for FLETC is 

to understand when and 

how best to apply 

technology within the 

training curriculum... 

Atkinson, R.L., & Shriffin, can become more 

R.M. (1968). Human memory: effective. A proposed system and its 

control processes. In K.W. 

3.	 Educating the Spence & J.T. Spence, (Eds.), 

users on how to The psychology of learning 

and motivation: Advances in effectively integrate research and theory, Vol 2. simulation into the New Your: Academic. curriculum for the 7	 Anglesea, C. et al. (2006). optimal blending White Paper: The Use of PC 

of instruction Simulations for Navy Training. 

methodologies. 

4.	 Overcoming the fear 

of change. To reach 

new plateaus, both 

individually and organizationally, we must be 

willing to reach out beyond our comfort zone and 

explore new techniques and methods. 

THE ROAD AHEAD 

The technological foundation for the road ahead is 

well laid. We are fortunate to live in a time where so 

many technologies have come together simultaneously 

in forming the “perfect technological storm.” 

Computers, video gaming, the internet, modeling and 

simulation, and serious gaming have all developed to 

a high level of maturity and are ready for prime time 

integration. We are only limited by our imaginations, 

motivation, and ability to utilize these technologies to 

create unprecedented learning environments for our 

students. The challenge that lies ahead for FLETC is 

to understand when and how best to apply technology 

within the training curriculum so that we can ensure 

that we are improving our product while increasing 

efficiency and reducing the overall cost of training per 

student. 

This is truly an exciting time to be at FLETC. 

(Endnotes) 

1 Mihal, S. (2005). The Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center Distributed Learning Program. Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center. Glynco, GA. 

2 Loomis, J., Foley, G., & Atkins, V. (personal 

communication, Oct, 2006). Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center. Glynco, GA. 

3 Kneebone. (2005). Evaluating clinical simulations 

for learning procedural skills: A theory based approach. 

Academic Medicine, 80(6), 549-553. 

4 Gagne, R. (1985). The Conditions of Learning (4th ed.). 

New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 

5 Bloom’s taxonomylearning domains. http:// 

b u s i n e s s b a l l s . c o m / 

b l o o m s t a x o n o m y o f l 

earningdomains.htm 

6 

Draft
 

8 Anglesea, C. et al. (2006). 

White Paper: The Use of PC 

Simulations for Navy Training. 

Draft 

9 McLean, C. (2004). PC Modeling and Simulation 

Guidelines: Volume 1 – Overview. National Institute of 

Standards and Technology. Simulation and Visualization 

Program. 

About the Author: Ronald S. Wolff is the Chief 

Engineer for Modeling and Simulation with the 

FLETC’s Chief Information Officer Directorate

(CIO). He serves as the technical expert for 

research, development, and implementation of 

diverse training systems and technologies at 

FLETC. He has over 20 years of experience with the

design and integration of simulation-based training 

systems, has nine patents, numerous publications, 

and holds a Master’s Degree in Electrical 

Engineering from the University of Central Florida. 

34 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
Lawsuits -
 Lawsuits -

The overblown Worry
 The overblown Worry

By Keith E. Hunsucker By Keith E. Hunsucker

During training and throughout their careers, many federal 

officers and agents worry about being sued for actions related 

to their job. This worry can cause officers to dangerously 

hesitate when action is necessary. 

This worry is unnecessary. The odds of a federal law 

enforcement officer (FLEO) being successfully sued are 

very low, because lawsuits against FLEOs are hard to win.1 

Given the high cost of litigation, few people will hire a 

lawyer to pursue a civil suit with little chance of success. 

Lawyers who work on contingency, that is, for a percentage 

of the judgment, are not anxious to take a case where the 

judgment is likely to be zero. 

The two primary reasons that FLEOs are unlikely to be 

personally sued are the Federal Tort Claims Act2 (FTCA) 

and the legal concept of qualified immunity. 

The Federal Tort Claims Act 

The FTCA is a law which specifically covers federal 

employees for acts committed within the scope of their 

employment. This law serves a dual purpose. First, it insures 

that individuals who are injured by federal employees acting 

on behalf of the government are fully compensated for their 

injury. Secondly, this law protects federal employees from 

personal liability for acts committed within the scope of 

their employment. 

For example, a federal employee is driving from City A 

to City B on federal orders. The employee is negligent, 

causes an accident, and injuries result to a third person. 

The injured person would not sue the federal employee, 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 3
but would instead sue the United States under the FTCA. wanted to sue the FLEO personally, they are prevented 

The federal employee benefits because they do not have to from doing so by the FTCA. If the injured party filed such 

pay the damages. The injured person benefits because the a suit personally against the FLEO, it would be dismissed 

United States unquestionably has sufficient funds to pay once the FLEO demonstrated he was acting within the 

for their injury, whatever the amount. scope of his employment. 

Any federal employee could have an accident while in the Qualified Immunity 

scope of their employment. 

However, if the ordinary 

employee intentionally 

injured someone, they would 

be outside the scope of their 

employment and not covered 

by the FTCA. Because of 

the unique nature of law 

enforcement, FLEOs are 

sometimes required to apply 

force to individuals as part 

of their job. The FTCA 

recognizes this, and therefore 

FLEOs are covered for both 

negligent and intentional acts 

committed within the scope of 

their employment. 

The FTCA is the exclusive 

If the injured party filed such 

a suit personally against the 

FLEO, it would be dismissed 

once the FLEO demonstrated 

he was acting within the scope 

of his employment. 

Under the Supreme Court 

decision in Bivens v. Six 

Unknown Named Agents 

of the Bureau of Narcotics3 

(Bivens), FLEOs can be 

personally sued for violating 

an individual’s Constitutional 

rights. However, the 

Supreme Court has only 

allowed Bivens suits where 

violations of the Fourth (false 

arrest, unlawful search), Fifth 

(due process violations), or 

Eighth (cruel and unusual 

punishment) amendments 

are alleged. 

Therefore, in any Bivens 

lawsuit, the first question is 

remedy for an injured party to receive compensation from 

the government for injuries caused by federal employees 

in the scope of their employment. Even if the injured party 

whether the plaintiff alleged a violation of his Fourth, 

Fifth, or Eighth amendment rights. Some Bivens suits 

are brought by criminals against individual officers 

3 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
solely to harass or intimidate them. Unless the suit 

alleges a Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth amendment violation, 

it is subject to summary dismissal. 

Even where the suit alleges a Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth 

amendment violation, the officer is still entitled to 

“qualified immunity.” Qualified immunity simply means 

that the officer is immune from suit with the qualification 

that he was acting “reasonably.” Any actions taken by an 

officer are deemed reasonable unless it would be “clear 

to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in 

the situation he confronted.”4 

Importantly, this does not mean the officer must be 

correct. Officers are entitled to qualified immunity as 

long as their actions were reasonable in light of the 

facts and law, even if their judgment was mistaken. The 

Supreme Court put this best when they observed: “[t]he 

qualified immunity standard ‘gives ample room for 

mistaken judgments’ by protecting ‘all but the plainly 

incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’5 

This accommodation for reasonable error exists because 

‘officials should not err always on the side of caution’ 

because they fear being sued.”6 

Conclusion 

Federal agents and officers are required to make many 

decisions which impact on the rights of others. The law 

does not expect the officer to make perfect decisions, only 

reasonable ones based on the facts and circumstances 

known to the officer. 

Federal employees are not civilly liable for acts 

committed within the scope of their employment. As 

long as the FLEO is acting within the scope of his 

employment, the United States is liable for anything 

that goes wrong. 

Where the FLEO is arguably outside the scope of his 

employment, he might be subjected to personal liability 

under Bivens. To avoid summary dismissal, the plaintiff 

must allege that the FLEO violated his Fourth, Fifth, 

or Eighth amendment rights. Even then, the officer 

is immune from personal liability if he shows he was 

acting as a reasonable officer. 

It is extremely difficult to successfully sue a FLEO for 

actions he committed in his official capacity. Because 

of this, such suits are relatively rare. A successful suit 

is much rarer. 

FLEOs can be required to make split-second decisions 

in an often uncertain and dangerous environment. 

Hesitation in this environment is a very bad thing. The 

law recognizes this. The law enforcement officer needs 

to remember this, and not worry about a lawsuit which 

is unlikely to ever happen. 

(Endnotes) 

1	 Precise statistical data is not available. However, the author 

routinely teaches experienced federal law enforcement officers 

in advanced training courses. By way of demonstration, a show 

of hands is requested by any officer who has been sued under 

Bivens. In a typical class of 30 to 40 officers, it is rare that more 

than one or two have been sued under Bivens. It is extremely 

rare to meet a federal officer that has been successfully sued 

under Bivens. The author encourages officers to conduct this 

same inquiry among their coworkers. It is unlikely they will 

ever meet a federal law enforcement officer who had to pay a 

judgment as a result of any job-related action. 

2		 28 U.S.C. §§ 2672 et. seq. 

3		 403 U.S. 388 (1971) 

4		 Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) 

5		 Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (1991), quoting, Malley v. 

Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) 

6		 Hunter at 229, quoting, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 

(1984) 

About the Author: Keith Hunsucker is currently 

a Senior Instructor in the Legal Division. He 

is a graduate of the University of Akron (B.A., 

cum laude, 1984), and the University of Akron 

School of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1987). Prior to 

coming to FLETC, Mr. Hunsucker was an attorney 

with the U.S. Department of Justice for over ten 

years. During this time he was also designated a 

U.S. Immigration Officer. He received numerous 

commendations, including being selected the 1994 

Immigration and Naturalization Service Attorney of 

the Year. He was also a defendant in one Bivens 

suit, which was dismissed. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 37 
Sharing Lessons Learned
 Sharing Lessons Learned

By Mike Poillucci, photos by Rick Edwards By Mike Poillucci, photos by Rick Edwards

Law enforcement officers sharing information about their 

own experiences, whether positive or negative, is vitally 

important in fighting the war on crime, drugs, and terrorism. 

For over 20 years the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC) has hosted guest speakers who have 

given their own lessons learned presentations which have 

benefited the law enforcement community in officer safety 

and survival practices. These presentations have enhanced 

the survival mindset of law enforcement officers and have 

made a significant impact on developing law enforcement 

curriculum. 

In 1983, FLETC established a Lessons Learned Committee, 

now known as the Lessons Learned Work Group (LLWG), 

consisting of representatives from FLETC; Partner 

Organizations; and state, local, and international law 

enforcement agencies around the globe. Since its inception, 

the LLWG has facilitated numerous information sharing 

presentations. Some of these presentations include: Lesson 

Learned on the WACO Incident, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 

and Firearms; Rifle Assaults against Police Officers, Georgia 

State Patrol and Lowndes County Sheriff’s Office; The Will 

to Prepare to Win, National Park Service; Capture of the 

“BTK” Serial Killer, Wichita Police Department; and A 

National Park Service (NPS) conducting 

fishing license checks in San Francisco. 

Hunt for Justice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These 

are just a few of the many presentations that have been 

accomplished, along with an Officer Survival Colloquy -

The Trainers’ Forum, which involved many federal, state, 

and local law enforcement organizations from around the 

country. 

Today, the LLWG continues with information sharing to 

ensure that we provide our brother and sister law enforcement 

officers with state of the art training and to offer insight into 

future situations which may save the life of an innocent 

person or a law enforcement officer. 

The purpose of the LLWG is to thoroughly examine 

recent incidents or situations that have occurred in the 

field to either improve and/or validate current training 

methodologies. The LLWG makes arrangements for 

guest speakers to come to FLETC to conduct lessons 

learned presentations. After reviewing these incidents, 

course and program developers: (1) determine the 

type of training that might be needed which may not 

be currently provided; (2) determine ways to improve 

existing training; and (3) evaluate the effectiveness of 

the training that the law enforcement officer may have 

3 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
Illegal make-shift shooting range near Lake 


Mead-Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
 

already received. Lessons learned information is then 

disseminated to training personnel and to our Partnering 

Organizations for their action. This type of after-action 

review is paramount in ensuring that trainers continue to 

provide state-of-the-art training to the law enforcement 

community and that law enforcement officers have the 

knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to successfully 

accomplish organizational goals and objectives in a 

highly effective manner. 

We ask for your support in joining efforts in information 

sharing. The LLWG can only be effective through the 

full participation and cooperation of the law enforcement 

community. If you have been involved with or have 

knowledge of an incident, the LLWG needs your help. 

Your lessons learned may very well save the life of one 

of our brother or sister law enforcement officers. Please 

visit the LLWG web site at: http://www.fletc.gov/training/ 

lessons-learned-work-group. 

View of a canyon where stolen vehicles were 

dumped (NPS). 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 3
New Federal Rule of Criminal
 New Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure Addresses Warrants
 Procedure Addresses Warrants 

for Tracking Devices
 for Tracking Devices

By Keith Hodges By Keith Hodges

OnDecember1,2006,FederalRuleofCriminalProcedure 

41 was substantially revised. The modifications set forth 

the procedure for federal law enforcement officers and 

agents to obtain, process, and return warrants to install 

and use tracking devices to include GPS.1 

Below is a summary 

of the new provisions. 

Agents and officers • A reasonable period are encouraged to read of time that the device the text of the change may be used. for themselves. A 

clean version of the 

• The time will not new rule and other exceed 45 days. changes to the Rules 

are available at • Other extensions for 

http://uscourts.gov/ not more than 45 days rules/supct1105/CR_ may be granted for Clean.pdf good cause shown.2 

A. Authority to issue • A command that the 

the warrant - Rule device be installed: 

41(b)(4) 

• Within 10 days or A magistrate judge less from the time the 

in the district where warrant is issued, and 

the device will be 

installed may issue a warrant to install a tracking device. • During the daytime unless the magistrate for good cause 

The issuing magistrate judge may authorize tracking in shown authorizes another time. 

both the district where the device will be installed and 

any other district. • A command that there shall be a return on the warrant. 

B. Contents of the warrant - Rule 41(e)(2)(B) 

The warrant must contain the following: 

• Identity of the person or property to be tracked. 

• Identity of the magistrate judge to whom the return on the 

warrant will be made. 

40 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
Warrant Requirements – gPS Installation – No Tracking in REP area. 

(Tracking in an REP area will require a warrant.) 

Location oF 

Vehicle during 

Installation 

In REP area Not in REP area In REP Area Not in REP area 

Location oN 

Vehicle 

In REP area 

(Internal installation) 

Not in REP area 

(External installation) 

Not in REP area 

(External installation) 

In REP area 

(Internal installation) 

Officer action Warrant required. No warrant 

required. Warrant required. Warrant required. 

C. Return on Warrant - Rule 41(f)(2) 

Within ten days after use of the device has ended, the officer 

executing the warrant must make the return to the magistrate 

judge specified in the warrant. The return must contain the 

exact dates and times of both installing the device and the 

period in which it was used. The return must be served on 

the person who was tracked, or whose property was tracked, 

within ten days after use of the device has ended.3 

D. Delays in the Return - Rule 41(f)(3) 

Upon request of the government, the magistrate judge may 

delay providing the notice required by the return. 

The new rule does NOT address whether law enforcement 

officers need a warrant to install or monitor a tracking device. 

Whether a warrant is required to install a tracking device, or 

track a vehicle or other object, revolves around expectations 

of privacy (REP). If an intrusion into REP is necessary to 

install the device,4 or the vehicle or object will be tracked in 

an area where one has REP, a warrant is required. If there 

is no intrusion into REP to install the device and the item 

or vehicle will not be tracked in an REP area, a warrant is 

not required. An overview of the warrant requirement is 

represented above. 

(Endnotes) 

1 18 U.S. Code Section 3117 defines a tracking device as an 

electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of 

the movement of a person or object. 

2 If the results of the tracking device thus far disclose evidence 

of criminal activity, that fact should always be mentioned in 

the request for an extension. 

3 Any delay in the required notification must be one 

“authorized by statute.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3103a (2006). 

4 An intrusion into REP may be necessary to reach the vehicle, 

as when it is parked within curtilage, or to complete on 

internal GPS installation that would require access to the 

vehicles passenger compartment or internal wiring. 

About the author: Keith Hodges is an attorney 

and Senior Instructor in the Legal Division at the 

FLETC. Prior to joining the FLETC, Mr. Hodges 

served in the U.S. Army for 29 years retiring in 

2000 as a Colonel in the Judge Advocate General’s 

Corps. While a Judge Advocate, he served as a 

prosecutor and defense counsel as well as a Staff 

Judge Advocate. he spent his last nine years of 

active duty as a Military Judge. Mr. Hodges was 

an Adjunct Lecturer of Law in Evidence and Trial 

Advocacy at the College of William and Mary for 

one year. Mr. Hodges has made presentations to the 

IACP and other national conferences, and has served 

on two forensic technology working groups, and 

he is currently a member of the Scientific Working 

Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT) 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 41 
A New Bug in Town
 A New Bug in Town 

An Article on Protecting Yourself from
 An Article on Protecting Yourself from

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)
 Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)

By Steve Yates and Lynn Mercer By Steve Yates and Lynn Mercer

Bacteria live on everyone’s skin and usually cause no 

harm. However, when staphylococcus bacterium gets 

into your body through a cut or an abrasion in the skin, it 

can cause a “staph” infection. A staph infection usually 

develops into a pimple, mild rash, blister, or a boil which 

can be treated with proper cleaning and, if necessary 

antibiotics. Over the past several decades, however, 

staph infections have become harder to treat as the 

bacteria has developed resistance to antibiotics. This new 

resistant form of staph infection is called “methicillinresistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).” If not treated 

appropriately, skin infections from MRSA and other 

resistant staph, can develop into more serious, even lifethreatening conditions. 

MRSAhas, up until now, mostly affected hospitals, nursing 

homes, and health care facilities. MRSA has been reported 

in increasing numbers among otherwise healthy persons of 

all ages without these traditional risk factors (e.g., exposure 

to the bacterium while in a health-care facility and among 

persons with histories of repeated or long-term antibiotic 

therapy). These new MRSA infections are referred to as 

community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA). MRSA is 

now the single cause of most common skin infections in 

the United States, with an estimated 100,000 people in the 

United States hospitalized each year with CA-MRSA.1 

The Centers for Disease Control have also documented 

the increased incidence of CA-MRSA in specific areas and 

close quarter contact environments such as correctional 

institutions, military installations, health clubs, homeless 

shelters, specific life style and ethnic populations, athletic 

teams,2

and law enforcement training facilities. 

What does an MRSA infection look like? 

•	 Symptoms may include redness, swelling, pus, skin 

tenderness, pimples, boils or blisters. 

•	 Often misdiagnosed as a spider or bug bite – but it 

is NOT caused by a spider or insect bite. 

•	 MRSA- infected skin lesions (sores) can change 

from skin or surface irritations to abscesses or 

serious skin infections. 

•	 If left untreated, MRSA can infect blood and 

bones. 

How is MRSA spread? 

•	 MRSA is almost always spread by direct skin-toskin contact. 

•	 Drainage (pus) from skin sores can spread bacteria 

to other body parts or to other people. 

•	 MRSA can also spread through touching of objects 

such as towels, sheets, workout areas, and sports 

equipment that have MRSA germs on them. 

How do I know if I have MRSA? 

•	 Only a health care provider can determine if you 

have MRSA. A sample of the infected wound 

is used to grow the bacteria in the microbiology 

laboratory. This is called a culture. If the 

staph germs that are cultured cannot be killed 

with standard antibiotics the infection is called 

MRSA. 

42 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
How are staph infections (including MRSA) treated? 

•	 Several antibiotics can be used to treat most staph 

infections, including MRSA. If antibiotics are 

prescribed, patients should complete the full course 

and call their doctors if the infection does not 

improve. 

•	 Additionally, many MRSA infections can be treated by 

draining the abscess or boil and may not require antibiotics. 

Only healthcare providers should drain sores. 

How can I prevent staph or MRSA skin infections? 

Good personal hygiene helps prevent staph and MRSA 

skin infections. Specific 

recommendations include: 

•	 Wash your hands 

often with soap and 

running water. Rub 

vigorously for at 

least 20 seconds and 

include wrists and 

under fingernails. 

Washing hands also 

helps prevent colds 

and flu. 

•	 Keep cuts and 

abrasions clean and 

covered with clean, 

MRSA is now the single 

cause of most common skin 

infections in the United States, 

with an estimated 100,000 

people in the United States 

hospitalized each year 

dry bandages until healed. 

•	 Avoid contact with other people’s wounds or 

anything contaminated by a wound. 

•	 Avoid sharing personal items such as soap, towels, 

razors, and clothing that has come into contact with 

a wound. 

•	 Clean and disinfect objects (such as gym and sports 

equipment) before and after use. 

•	 Wash dirty clothes, linens, and towels with hot 

water and laundry detergent. Using a hot dryer, 

rather than air-drying, also helps kill bacteria. 

FLETC Initiatives to Prevent CA-MRSA 

In response to increased cases of CA-MRSA at other law 

enforcement training facilities in 2004, FLETC initiated a 

proactive review of potential areas most at risk for harboring 

the CA-MRSA bacteria. The primary focus was on student 

uniforms, towels, porous and non-porous protective 

equipment used for defensive tactics, role player equipment, 

and facilities such as student locker rooms, bathrooms, 

showers, mat rooms, weight rooms, cardiovascular training 

rooms, and athletic training room. Given the increasing 

number of MRSA cases identified throughout the county, 

FLETC has further stepped up efforts within the last few 

months to ensure all commonly shared equipment is properly 

cleaned and disinfected after each use. 

All FLETC training sites areas (Glynco, Artesia, Charleston, 

and Cheltenham) were consulted regarding proper cleaning, 

maintenance, and storage of porous and non-porous 

training equipment. Specific inspections were conducted 

at the Physical Techniques Division, Behavioral Science 

Division, Forensic and Investigative Technologies Division, 

Counterterrorism Division, Firearms Division, Enforcement 

Operations Division-Practical 

Applications Branch, and 

Computer and Financial 

Investigation Division. These 

inspections involved the 

review of Standard Operating 

Procedures for the cleaning and 

maintenance of porous and nonporous equipment with special 

attention given to particular 

cleaning procedures, frequency 

cleaned, and disinfectants/ 

cleaning agents used that 

contain anti-bacterial and antiviral agents. The disinfecting 

policy, cleaning frequency, and 

chemicals utilized were also examined for the indoor and 

outdoor aquatic training facilities. 

In response to this review, FLETC has taken the following 

action: 

•	 Increased awareness and education of the dangers 

of CA-MRSA to students and staff through posters 

and pamphlets showing photographs, signs, and 

symptoms of CA-MRSA. This information is also 

included in the student orientation packet. 

•	 The FLETC Health Unit carefully monitors students 

and staff for skin infections. This includes mandating 

that students and staff with suspicious skin infections 

be evaluated by a healthcare professional. 

•	 Students and staff must have all abrasions, cuts, and 

scrapes properly covered and bandaged at all times 

until healed. 

•	 Wall mounted antimicrobial hand sanitizers have 

been strategically placed outside of at-risk areas of 

physical contact such as mat rooms and workout 

areas. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 43 
• Disinfectant gym wipes and spray bottles have been 

placed in each weight room and cardiovascular 

training areas to be utilized in the wiping and 

spraying after each use.

 • Established a standard of practice for the cleaning of 

all porous and non-porous equipment with regard to 

personnel, procedures, and products in all FLETC 

facilities. 

• Frequency of cleaning schedules regarding mat 

rooms and equipment were examined and adjusted 

to meet the demanding use of these facilities. 

Extra protective equipment such as boxing gloves, 

grappling gloves, chest protectors, and helmets 

were purchased to allow for proper cleaning and 

disinfecting thus providing at least 24 hours drying 

time between classes. 

About the Author: Mr. Yates has been with FLETC 

at the Physical Techniques Division for over 4 years. 

He has been a Certified Athletic Trainer by the 

National Athletic Trainers Association for 35 years. 

He was Head Athletic Trainer at the Virginia Military 

Institute for 9 years and Wake Forest University for 

16 years. He was also a teaching faculty member of 

the Bowman Gray School of Medicine-Department 

of Orthopedic Surgery of Wake Forest University for 

fourteen years. He was named Most Distinguished 

Athletic Trainer by the NATA in 1999. Mr. Yates has 

also published book chapters and over twenty articles 

nationally in the field of Athletic Training and Sports 

Medicine. Steve has a Bachelors Degree from West 

Virginia University and a Masters Degree in Sports 

Medicine from the University of Virginia. 

• Continued emphasis on the practice of good 

personal hygiene among students and staff. 

It is everyone’s responsibility to prevent the spread of CAMRSA. To date, FLETC has not had a major problem with 

CA-MRSA. FLETC remains committed by identifying, 

initiating, and implementing safety measures ensuring the 

health, safety and welfare of all students and staff in the 

prevention and control of CA-MRSA. Education, washing 

one’s hands, and practicing good personal hygiene remain 

key elements in the prevention and fight against CAMRSA. 

References 

1.	 Ghassemi J. A Threat of Microscopic Proportions. The 

Washington Post. August 15, 2006. 

2.	 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC and 

Prevention Experts’ Meeting on Minimizing the Impact of 

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the 

Community. Atlanta, Georgia. March 2006: 1-24. 

About the Author: Ms. Mercer joined FLETC in 

October 2006 as the Deputy Assistant Director, 

Office of Training Support (OTS). Lynn comes to us 

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) where she held various positions with AIDS 

and other infectious disease programs, grants 

management, financial management and business 

support functions. Lynn holds two Master’s degrees 

a Master of Public Administration from the 

University of Georgia and a Master of Public Health 

from Tulane University. 

44 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 
LESS LETHAL...
 LESS LETHAL...

buT STILL LE buT STILL LETHAL


By Vic Sikes By Vic Sikes

In the world of law enforcement, the officers 

must evolve and adapt to the changing times. In 

response to the violence demonstrated by many 

offenders in the drug culture, more and more 

police tactical units are conducting dynamic entries 

in the service of narcotics search warrants. 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 4
The use of light/sound distraction 

devices, more familiarly referred to as 

“flash-bangs” or “stun grenades”, has 

become a common tactic in such “highrisk” entries. The device’s job is to 

stun violent offenders momentarily, via 

a blinding flash of light and a violent 

explosion, giving tactical personnel an 

advantage during entry. There are several 

configurations of distraction devices, the 

most common of which is the grenade 

type device. This article addresses the use 

and misuse of that configuration. When 

deployed properly and under appropriate 

circumstances, flash-bangs are necessary 

and effective tactical tools. However, 

when deployed improperly or under 

inappropriate circumstances, the potential 

liability is huge. At some point, officers 

need to be reminded of the dangers inherent 

to the devices and the accompanying legal 

issues. 

Dynamic entries have become so common 

in many jurisdictions that officers tend 

to develop a somewhat casual attitude 

about distraction devices. Some officers 

flash. Indeed, those effects 

are created by flashDynamic entries have 

become so common in many 

jurisdictions that officers 

tend to develop a somewhat 

casual attitude about 

distraction devices. 

mistakenly believe 

that the only effects of 

distraction devices are 

the loud noise and bright 

bangs (hence the name), 

but there are other less 

desirable effects, namely; 

thermal, fragmentation, 

and blast. In creating the 

desired levels of flash 

and percussion, the flashbang relies on confined 

deflagration of a flash 

powder mixture inside. 

Deflagration refers to the 

combustion of a material 

which burns rapidly and 

produces a large quantity 

of hot gases. Gunpowder 

is one of the better 

examples of a material 

that deflagrates. 

In form and function, flash-bangs are 

grenades. They consist of a hollow body 

4 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
filled, in this case, with a pyrotechnic mixture and a fuse 

body or fuse assembly fitted into the grenade body. 

fuse body contains a primer (much like a shot-shell primer), 

a spring-powered, rotating striker, and a lever or spoon and 

a pin. The spoon holds the striker in a rearward or cocked 

position. The pin secures the spoon to the fuse body. When 

the pin is pulled and the grenade thrown, the spoon is pushed 

away by the striker which is allowed to rotate under spring 

tension. The striker completes the rotation and strikes the 

primer, which ignites the burning fuse. The fuse burns for 

one to two seconds into an initiating charge which ignites 

the pyrotechnic filler of the device. 

There are two basic configurations 

available to law enforcement. 

a very large firecracker. 

contained within a heavy cardboard or light plastic 

tubular body, which is fully encapsulated. 

fuse body is secured in one end of the device. 

The other type consists of a heavy steel 

body, in which a cardboard cartridge 

containing pyrotechnic powder is 

secured. It should be noted that the 

steel body configuration requires 

much less pyrotechnic powder 

than the cardboard cartridge to 

achieve the same effects, but blast 

pressure, heat generation, and 

fragmentation hazards are inherent 

to all. All commercially manufactured 

distraction devices are carefully designed 

to minimize hazardous effects 

When a deflagration 

is confined, a great 

The 

of flash-bangs 

The first is, in essence, 

The pyrotechnic powder is 

The deflagration 

seeks the 

path of least 

resistance and 

naturally escapes 

through the large 

hole in the base of the 

body. In that process, a 

great deal of pressure builds 

rapidly (up to 30,000 psi), and 

the hot gases exit the device at 

super-sonic speed, creating the 

loud noise desired, again with blast 

pressure. The pressure within the 

steel flash-bang body is comparable to 

pressures achieved in the chamber of a 

deal of pressure is 

created in an instant 

within the space The pressure within the 

of the device. The steel flash-bang body is pressure naturally 

escapes via the path comparable to pressures of least resistance. 

In the cardboard achieved in the chamber 

body devices, there of a firearm. In fact, the is not a path of least 

resistance, therefore device functions in the 

a mechanical overpressure occurs, same manner as a gun firing 

and the cartridge a blank cartridge, but on a explodes, creating 

blast pressure. In much larger scale.
 the steel body flashbang, the pressure 

created by the 

firearm. In fact, the device functions in 

the same manner as a gun firing a blank 

cartridge, but on a much larger scale. If 

a part of a person’s body is within close 

proximity of either type of device when 

it functions, the pressure release can 

cause great injury. 

The fragmentation effect is inherent 

with explosions. Fragmentation can 

be generated by either pieces of the 

device or objects in close proximity 

to the device being propelled by the 

blast pressure. Diversionary devices 

present a low risk of fragmentation 

injuries, but any time blast pressure 

exists, there is a danger of objects 

being propelled through the air. 

The cardboard cartridge device can 

propel the grenade fuse body at 

considerable velocity. Additionally, 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 47 
shreds of cardboard move at high velocities for a very 

short distance. The release of pressure from the steel 

body type flash-bang tends to propel the heavy grenade 

body at a velocity which can cause injury if it should 

strike a person. This particular problem has been 

somewhat alleviated in the later versions of the device 

by the addition of a number of vent holes in the top of 

the body, surrounding the fuse body, or by a number 

of holes in the steel body through which pressure is 

released. The release of pressure from these vent holes 

tends to counteract the pressure released from the larger 

vent in the base, which limits 

the distance and velocity of 

the movement of the grenade 

body. 

Yet another undesirable 

effect of distraction devices . . .persons and objects 

within close proximity to 

the device at the time of 

the explosion are subject 

to severe burns from the 

thermal event or flash. 

or handle them. Standard 

is the thermal event or deployment of a flash-bang 

heat, which creates the is to toss the device at a low 

brilliant flash of light. High trajectory along the ground 

temperatures are needed to or floor so that it will be 

generate the desired bright in contact with the surface 

flash. The source of the almost immediately. Officers 

heat is the deflagration or and agencies have created

burning of the flash powder. techniques and attachments 

Metals such as magnesium 

and aluminum are used 

in such mixtures to create 

the white-hot flash. The 

thermal event associated 

with a flash-bang is of very 

short duration, (which is a good thing) but persons and 

objects within close proximity to the device at the time 

of the explosion are subject to severe burns from the 

thermal event or flash. There is a great potential for 

the flash-bang to start fires when in close proximity 

to combustible materials. It should be stressed that 

distraction devices should never be deployed in 

environments where volatile or combustible materials 

are present, with an emphasis on clandestine drug labs. 

In an atmosphere of volatile fumes, the deployment of a 

flash-bang can initiate a much larger, more destructive 

secondary explosion. 

Injuries from distraction devices can be caused by any or 

all of the effects previously discussed. Incidents seem 

to result from careless handling, lack of training, and 

inappropriate deployment. The prescribed procedure for 

deploying a flash-bang is as follows: 

1.	 Hold the grenade in the throwing hand, 

securing the spoon firmly in the web of the 

hand between the thumb and forefinger. 

2.	 At the time the grenade is to be deployed, 

pull the pin from the fuse body with the 

index or middle finger of the non-throwing 

hand. 

3.	 Throw the grenade. 

It is as simple as that. Injuries have been caused by 

individuals doing such things as fully or partially 

releasing the spoon while the device is still in his/her 

hand. Distraction devices have a one to two second time 

delay, unlike fragmentation 

grenades which can have up 

to a five second delay. They 

are designed to function 

quickly so that there will be no 

time for anyone to approach 

for distraction devices to suit 

tactical needs; however those 

tactics and modifications will 

not be discussed here. 

Officers have been 

injured by distraction devices that have been thrown 

against solid objects and bounced back at the persons 

throwing them. With the short time delay, the individual 

has no time to get away from an activated flash-bang. 

Numerous reports of injuries and damage have been 

the result of flash-bangs being thrown, intentionally and 

unintentionally at persons, with devices functioning in 

direct contact with or in close proximity to the person’s 

body. The intentional deployment of one of these devices 

at a person amounts to an application of deadly force due 

to the nature of distraction devices. All efforts should be 

made to deploy distraction devices a distance of at least 

six feet from any person. 

On rare occasion, distraction devices fail to function for a 

variety of reasons. Agencies that use distraction devices must, 

for the sake of safety and liability, develop and implement 

misfire procedures for the eventuality of a device misfire 

or failure to function. When a misfire occurs, the device 

is not to be approached or handled for at least 30 minutes, 

in the event the burning time delay in the device is burning 

or smoldering. In a tactical situation, officers are usually 

4	 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
forced to continue operations 

until all subjects at the location 

are secured. During that time, 

they should anticipate that 

the device will function at 

any time and maintain a safe 

distance from it, if possible. 

Once subjects are secured, all 

personnel should evacuate 

until the appropriate wait time 

has elapsed. In the training 

environment, all personnel 

should immediately evacuate 

the area of the misfired 

device and observe the wait 

time. Handling of misfired 

ordnance should be done 

by EOD or Bomb Squad 

personnel, who are trained 

and equipped to do so safely 

and efficiently. Disassembly, 

Recent criminal cases have 

resulted in convictions and 

possible imprisonment of 

law enforcement officers. 

The incidents in question 

involved individuals taking, 

transferring, storing and 

using distraction devices 

outside the exemptions. . . 

may cause it to release and 

function the device. 

THE LAW 

Distraction devices currently 

in use by Federal, state and 

local law enforcement are 

categorized as “destructive 

devices” in the United 

States Code. Flash-bangs 

are readily available to 

law enforcement agencies, 

who are exempted from the 

Federal statutes regulating 

receiving, possessing and 

storing them. The exemption 

does not relieve officers and 

agencies from liabilities 

created by improper storage, 

security and accountability 

of the destructive devices. 

manipulation or any attempt to re-fire a misfired flash-bang Distraction devices are not available to the public at 

should be strictly prohibited. Misfires can result from a large without special permitting. Recent criminal cases 

striker component hanging up in some fashion. Handling have resulted in convictions and possible imprisonment 

FLETC Journal D Spring 2007 4
of law enforcement officers. The incidents in question 

involved individuals taking, transferring, storing 

and using distraction devices outside the exemptions 

granted law enforcement in the U.S. Code. A number 

of incidents have occurred in the country in recent years. 

The following is a high profile example of misconduct 

leading to criminal convictions. 

HOUSTON TEXAS 

Charles A. Malouff Jr. pled guilty in U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas in August 2006, to 

one count of Unlawful Transfer of a Destructive Device, 

which can carry up to a 10 year sentence. His sentencing 

was scheduled for January of 2007. The case against 

Malouff was the result of an investigation of an incident 

which occurred in Magnolia, Texas in August of 2004. 

The incident involved severe injuries to an individual 

caused by a flash-bang grenade which was thrown 

into a group of people at a bachelor party in a private 

residence. 

Eugene H. Williams Jr. deployed the flash-bang as a 

“prank” at the bachelor party inside his own residence. 

It functioned near the foot of Steven Crosby, the 

assistant Fire Chief of Huffman, TX, literally blowing 

off a portion of his foot. At the time of the incident, 

Williams was a reserve police officer, an employee of 

a tactical EMT organization. As an interesting side 

note, he is also a former ATF special agent. A Federal 

District Court jury found Williams guilty of: Possession 

of an Unlawfully Transferred Firearm, Possession of 

a Firearm Not Identified by Serial Number, Improper 

Storage of Explosives and three counts of Possessing 

Unregistered Firearms which can result in a sentence of 

up to 11 years in prison. His sentencing in U. S. District 

Court is scheduled for March of 2007. 

State charges of Aggravated Assault and Tampering 

with Evidence are pending against Williams. Allegedly, 

persons present at the party had removed evidence of 

the distraction device from the room, prior to the arrival 

of investigators. Following the incident, investigators 

were told by those present that the injury to Crosby was a 

result of a “chainsaw accident”. The story then changed 

to a “fireworks accident”. According to Texas state law, 

a person commits Aggravated Assault if he intentionally, 

knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence causes 

serious bodily injury to an individual. 

Another earlier incident was documented during which 

Eugene H. Williams Jr., as a joke, deployed a flash-bang 

under the patrol vehicle of an on-duty police officer on 

a restaurant parking lot. No injuries or damage were 

documented, but the incident occurred during a major 

event and attracted a lot of attention. This incident was 

not reported or documented until the investigation of the 

latter incident uncovered it. 

Eugene H. Williams Jr., obtained the flash-bangs from 

Charles A. Malouff Jr., who admitted to taking a number 

of flash-bangs from two police agencies he previously 

worked for. He then gave the devices to Williams, 

who kept them in his office. Following the events at 

the bachelor party in Magnolia, investigators recovered 

seventy- eight flash-bang devices and other items from 

Williams’ office in the building of the Tactical Medic 

service by which he was employed. 

SUMMARY 

The use of distraction devices by police agencies 

provides tactical officers with a tool that gives them 

the advantage over armed and dangerous suspects. In 

legal and practical terms, however, flash-bangs are 

explosive weapons, classified as destructive devices by 

Federal statute. As such, agencies must maintain strict 

accountability of and security for them. Irresponsible 

or malicious use of distraction devices has resulted in 

severe injuries to innocent persons and unnecessary 

property damage, not to mention public embarrassment 

and censure of police officers and agencies. They are 

high risk tools for high risk operations and must be 

used sparingly and appropriately to avoid unnecessary 

injuries and liability. Policies and procedures must 

be in place regulating the receipt, storage and use of 

distraction devices. Further, safety procedures for both 

the tactical and training environments must be in place 

and enforced. 

About the Author: Vic Sikes is a former instructor 

for the FBI/U.S. Army Hazardous Devices School 

at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. There he was a 

subject matter expert in the areas of recovery and 

disposal of explosive materials, safety and control 

of explosives and booby traps. Prior to that time he 

was a contract instructor for the Texas Engineering 

Extension Service, Weapons of Mass Destruction 

Incident Command Structure program, after retiring 

from the Police Department in Odessa, Texas 

where he was a Detective Lieutenant and Bomb 

Squad Commander. Vic served as an active bomb 

technician for nearly 20 years. Vic Sikes is currently 

a Senior Instructor for the General Training Branch 

at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in 

Artesia, New Mexico. 

0 FLETC Journal D Spring 2007
1 

2 3 

1. The Glynco Port of Entry provides the backdrop for the 126 

top executives who participated in the 2007 U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection Leadership Retreat (photo: The Darkroom). 

2. CBP Commissioner Ralph Basham tests a new FN303 

Pepperball Launcher during the 2007 CBP Leadership Retreat 

(photo: Rachel Torres, CBP Field Operations Academy). 

3. CBP Commissioner Ralph Basham is processed into the 

United States at the CBP Field Operations Academy Port of 

Entry by CBP Basic Officer Perez (photo: Rachel Torres, CBP Field 

Operations Academy). 

FLETC Hosts 

CBP Leadership 

Conference 
The next issue is closer than you think
­

The FLETC Journal from the Moon 

238,000 miles 

The FLETC Journal to you in one click 

www.fletc.gov 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

1131 Chapel Crossing Road 

Glynco, Georgia 31524 

www.fletc.gov