Presidential Visit

The FLETC’S important role in U.S. Border 

Contents

05 Child interview

It’s only a child! How hard can it be?

09 validating physica

What makes a successful physical fitness standard 

rests on collaborative efforts.

13 golden ru

Find the positive path to successful leadership.

15 MEET THE PartnerS: the I

How this Department of Homeland Security 

component has teamed up with the FLETC.

17 The cyber counterter

investigations training p

A new course on how to understand and counter 

increasingly sophisticated terrorist tactics.

23 hotpu rsuit: sco

What this Supreme Court decision means to law 

enforcement vehicle pursuits.

27 is that material copy

How this law is relevant to you as a law 

enforcement instructor.

36 introducing the law enf

leadership i

Why this organization equips law enforcement 

professionals with the tools to become effective 

leaders.

09 Physical Ability Tests

Setting physical fitness standards have always 

been challenging ... until now.

23 Hot Pursuit

How the U.S. Supreme Court case of Scott v. Harris 

determined “reasonableness” of the seizure.

05 The Child Interview

When interviewed properly a child can provide 

essential information for the investigator.

The FLETC Journal | Fall 2007, Volume 5, Issue
Director

Connie L. Patrick

Editors

Marie R. Bau

Stephen W. Brook

Lynn Merce

Richard Hazza

William Norris, Ph

Andy Smotze

Susan B. Thornton

Mark Wa

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.

Having Words

As the FLETC Journal Editorial Board reviews article submissions for 

each issue, we are unfailingly delighted at the range of knowledge 

and experience that the articles represent. From a comprehensive 

discussion of a new process for establishing physical fitness standards that will 

equitably determine who will become a law enforcement officer -- and who 

may need to find another line of work -- to an article on interviewing child 

witnesses, to a reflection on leadership; the articles that were selected for this 

issue run as wide a range as the people who work here.

We, at the FLETC, often tend to describe ourselves in terms of our fixed 

assets: the number of sites nationally and internationally, the number of 

acres we train on, the number of points on the firearms ranges, the numbers 

of cars and boats, the raid houses, the simulation facilities. Our true strength, 

though, lies in our people and our mission. With an instructional cadre that 

averages fourteen years of operational law enforcement experience in federal, 

state, and local agencies, working side by side with current law enforcement 

officers from our Partner Organizations, the FLETC offers an unmatched 

depth and breadth of knowledge, experience and collaboration. Every day, our 

instructors teach men and women how to act, how to react, how to interpret 

and apply the law, and how to make decisions that will affect the property, 

liberty, and lives of people in this country. Every day, our instructors evaluate 

students and determine whether they can be credentialed by their agencies to 

wield the authority of a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. It is an awesome 

responsibility and we are proud to represent, in this Journal, the people and the 

organization that do that job so well.

Marie R. Bauer

Editorial Staff. Front row (left to right): Steve Brooks, Marie Bauer, Susan B. Thornton,

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

Richard Hazzard.
It’s Only a Child! How Hard Can It Be?

Interviewing Children

By Matt Hall

It’s Only a Child! How Hard Can It Be?

Interviewing Children

By Matt Hall

While I’ve enjoyed a 23-year career in law 

enforcement, I’ve had limited involvement in the 

investigation of child molestation. Emotionally, I have 

no tolerance for abusers. However, I’ve researched this 

area in detail and have had much training in this topic. 

Intellectually, I question the degree of unchecked oversight 

some states allow to family services organizations. After 

several years of foster parenting, I have adopted two 

little boys (one of which was abused), and thus have a 

concern that investigations should be sensitive in nature 

and conducted in a way that is fair for the victim and 

for all parties involved. My 

experience has taught me how 

easy it is to distort information 

from children.

This article will provide some 

basic insights into the potential 

problems of interviewing 

children. Children see and 

endure horrific situations. When 

interviewed properly, they can 

provide essential information 

for the investigator.

The Problem

In the Behavioral Science Division, we teach that 

investigators should never use leading questions (i.e. , 

“Was the car red?”) with victims for fear that they will 

provide distorted information by just agreeing with

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007

the investigator. Leading questions can be even more 

damaging when interviewing children.

Many of you may remember in the 1980s-1990s publicity 

given to false allegations of child abuse brought on by overzealous interviewers using such questions on children. 

“He hit you there, didn’t he?” These techniques distort 

information with both adults and children. So, what can 

an investigator do?

The investigator must first remember that children are 

different from adults, and often even different from 

each other. Age and maturity do not enhance good 

communication skills. Good 

interviewers learn to evaluate 

the communication skills of 

the child while evaluating the 

truthfulness of their statements. 

“Memaw burnt me!” may simply 

mean that the oatmeal was too 

hot for breakfast, that “Memaw” 

had the stove on when he put his 

hand on it, or that Memaw stuck 

his hand into boiling water to 

teach him a lesson. Don’t ASSUME that you know what 

a child means. If you don’t ask, you don’t know!

Studies have indicated that only 5-8 percent of allegations 

of child sexual abuse have been found to be false. 

Unfortunately, that covers intentional deceit rather than 

misinterpretation or the distortion brought on by leading 

questions. In traumatic circumstances (such as divorces),



Leading questions can 

be even more damaging 

when interviewing 

children.
 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007

where parents prompt children, those numbers may be as 

high as 35 percent. In a society that claims that it is better 

that ten guilty go free than one innocent is jailed, that 

figure is simply unacceptable.

A foster parent in Glynn County, Georgia, was 

accused by a 13-year-old girl of physically abusing 

her because the foster parent enforced a strict curfew 

for the girl. The girl was relocated to another home, 

along with the other children housed with the parent. 

An investigation ensued that 

eventually cleared the parent, 

but the damage was done. By 

the way, the 13-year-old called 

the foster parent and asked to 

live with her again.

I n a more ser ious 

case, a substitute teacher in 

Chicago, Illinois, threatened 

to report an unruly class of 

nine-year-olds. One girl paid 

others to claim the teacher 

fondled them. The statements 

conflicted so clearly that the 

investigation exonerated the teacher. He has never 

worked in the school system again.

For every such case, however, we must remember that 

many serious crimes can be missed if we are not advocates 

for the innocent. On May 31, 2006, CNN carried a story 

where the American Civil Liberties Union had filed suit 

on behalf of six sex offenders in Indiana to overturn a 

regulation denying them access to playgrounds. It is 

important to remember that for every case proven to be 

unfounded, as many as seven children are molested in 

factually sound cases. Even if the previous 35 percent 

error rate (adult prompted) is unacceptable, remember 

65 percent of the reporting children are accurately 

representing molestation, and molestation of any kind is 

reprehensible. 

Evaluating the Child

Okay, so the problem exists on both sides of the aisle. 

Some molesters go free and some innocents lose their 

freedom or reputation wrongfully. The question is how 

can we make both percentages lower? We must begin by 

trying to better understand children and their reliability.

Some states require “voir dire” examinations to establish 

the reliability of a child in understanding truth and lies. 

Studies have shown that children at the age of four and 

above have a good general knowledge of the concepts, 

but they base them on a “real or not real” perspective. At 

around age eight, they begin to understand the concept of 

mistakes versus lies. They then begin to understand what 

telling the truth is.

I know you’re probably thinking of your own kids and 

believing that they know truth 

and lies earlier, but consider this: 

You took the kids to the movies 

two weeks ago. They want to go 

to the movies and you say, “I just 

took you last week.” They see that 

as a lie. You see it as a mistake. 

At around eight to nine years 

old, they begin to understand the 

difference. Because of different 

developmental rates, experts 

differ on whether or not it is a 

good advance technique to ask 

“truth or lie” questions before the 

actual interview. From a lay perspective, I am concerned 

that such questions may condition the child to look for 

“tricks” in every question we subsequently ask, unless the 

reasons are explained. An excellent picture-based truth 

or lies technique can be found in “Qualifying Children to 

Take the Oath: Materials for Interviewing Professionals” 

by Lyon/Saywitz or excerpted at depts.washington.edu/

hcsats/pdf/guidelines/childinterviewguide.pdf.

Questioning

As I stated earlier, I have been teaching interviewing 

skills for 14 years. We teach interviewers to begin with 

narrative response questions, which often start with 

“tell me about....” While this is still valid, understand 

that children may have less to say in response to such 

questions. This may push the interviewer too quickly 

to ask closed-ended questions. Studies have shown that 

children have a higher degree of “inaccurate” responses 

to direct questions (19%) than they have to narrative 

questions (9%).i

 The reason is really pure logic. To 

narrative response questions, children report what they 

want to report. In direct questions, children respond to 

things they may not remember, and thus they embellish. 

Studies have shown 

that children have a 

higher degree of 

“inaccurate” responses 

to direct questions (19%) 

than they have to narrative 

questions (9%).
In a child’s mind, a question asked by an adult deserves an answer. 

If that answer does not exist in their memory bank, they can find it 

in their fantasy world and then it becomes the truth. Always make 

sure you tell a child before beginning an interview that to answer “I 

don’t know” is acceptable.ii

The caution here is to be very careful in your use of direct questions. 

I did not say don’t use them, just be careful. Direct questions 

can be very suggestive of the answer desired by the interviewer. 

Additionally, Deborah Reith, an Investigator for the states attorney 

office in Daytona Beach, Florida, and instructor for the Institute for 

Police Technology and Management (IPTM), says that “questions 

should be one word longer than the child’s age.” (Keep it simple.)

In one study, preschoolers were told about a child who got 

his finger caught in a mouse trap and had to go to the hospital. 

The children were then asked if that had ever happened to 

them. Over half gave narrative responses about going to the 

hospital with a mouse trap on their finger. Twenty-seven 

percent then locked into the response and insisted that it was 

the truth.iii This is a good example to remember in case you 

are tempted to say, “Once a father hit his little girl. Has that 

ever happened to you?”

Coaching

Another way that we can fail to support the child as a witness is by 

praising specific answers. Praising of the child is acceptable and even 

good, but praising should be a general attribute of the interviewer. 

Children are particularly susceptible to praise from someone in 

authority. We should thank children for their help, but a response 

of, “That was a really good answer” or “Thank you for answering 

that so well” should not be used. That may lead to embellishment 

with false (fantasy) information. Children aim to please. By the 

way, children read non-verbal messages or body language too. A 

quick smile at a response or a frown poorly timed can be just as 

troublesome as the aforementioned praise.

Another danger area of suggestibility comes from previous 

statements by others, especially parents. It is a good idea 

to ask the child if anyone else has talked to them about the 

situation before the interview begins. This may give you 

a more complete picture of the responses based on other’s 

comments to the child. While this does not negate the 

usefulness of the child’s statement, it can be a mitigating 

factor that may increase false or embellished information 

from the child.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 

Another way that we

 can fail to support the 

child as a witness is by 

praising specific answers.
The Inter view

Child interview specialists offer numerous variations in 

their approaches to interviews of children, but several 

uniformities exist. First, the interview should be conducted 

as soon as possible. This minimizes contamination from 

other adult sources. Let me summarize some good 

suggestions in a typically structured interview:

Introductions should be as informal as possible to relax 

the child. (“Hi, my name is Matt, and I get to talk to 

children as part of my job.”)

Rapport should be developed slowly to make the child 

feel relaxed and safe with the interviewer. This “settlingin period” should begin to paint the picture of a neutral 

interviewer who praises general help, but not specific 

responses. This period (setting baselines) should indicate 

the developmental level of the child and their knowledge 

of the difference between truth and “fibs”. It does need to 

be noted, however, that if you are getting nowhere after 

15 minutes you may want to consider letting someone else 

do the interview. Rapport should not be built so slowly 

that it uses up the attention span of the child. 

Questions should concentrate on obtaining narrative 

responses. Narrative responses from the child offer 

the best source of valid information. Before moving to 

more specific or direct questions, remember to explain 

to the child that “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. 

Leading or suggestive questions should be avoided at all 

cost.

A summary of information should be restricted to only the 

main points discussed by the child. If a child has made 

extensive embellishments and the investigator repeats 

them back, they may solidify in their memory banks for 

future interviews. Again, the child’s natural attention 

span also requires limiting this area.

The close of the interview should provide a way that 

the child can talk to you in the future along with the 

reassurance that you will speak with the child again.

Finally, a child should not be interviewed once and 

then set aside awaiting a court date. Memories fade 

more quickly with children unless they are reinforced. 

››› continued on page 26 

Leading or suggestive questions 

should be avoided at all cost.

A bout the Author A bout the Author

William M. (Matt) Hall is a Senior Instructor in the 

Behavioral Science Division (BSD) at the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center. Matt has a combined 

total of 37 years in Federal law enforcement service 

with 23 of those years spent with the United States 

Park Police. Matt retired from the Park Police as a 

Lieutenant in 1995 and became a full time staff member 

of the BSD. He carries degrees in Police Science and 

General Studies with a Criminal Justice concentration 

as well as a Master of Public Administration. Matt 

has been certified as a Distance Learning Instructor by 

the Teletraining Institute in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
Validating Physical Ability Tests

A Successful State and Federal Collaboration

By Bob Fisher

With Dr. Bill Norris, Bill Floyd, and Michelle Collins.

By Bob Fisher

With Dr. Bill Norris, Bill Floyd, and Michelle Collins.

Background

If we have learned anything 

about Physical Fitness 

Standards (PFS) in the past 

25 years, it is this: it is all 

but impossible to do it alone. 

It requires a collaborative 

effort among the three key 

components: the physical 

training staff who are 

responsible for the physical 

readiness of the trainees, 

the administrators who must deal with the political and 

financial consequences of dismissals, and the legal staff 

who must speculate on the likelihood of future legal 

challenges. Furthermore, it is paramount that all three 

groups be informed, involved, and in agreement from the 

beginning. When they are not, the program is rarely, if 

ever, implemented.

Dr. Bill Norris made this observation to me in the form 

of an analogy using a three legged stool; the three legs 

being the physical, administrative, and legal components 

mentioned earlier. As we watched speaker after speaker 

describe their implementation process for establishing 

physical fitness standards at the National Conference on 

Law Enforcement Testing & Measurement hosted by the 

South Carolina Criminal 

Justice Academy (SCCJA), 

in 2004, it became clear that 

two-out-of-three legs was 

the best anyone could do. 

The typical scenario went 

like this: an administrator 

tells the fitness coordinator 

to establish physical 

standards for the agency or 

academy. The coordinator 

either hires a specialist 

from the outside or begins in-house by contacting other 

agencies with existing standards, conducts a valid job task 

analysis (JTA), designs a battery of obstacles that simulate 

those tasks, and assembles a group of experienced law 

enforcement officers (LEOs) to set the cut-off score. So 

far so good, but once they begin to collect student data 

and present those results to the administration and legal 

counsel, one or both of the other two legs typically fall 

off. Their concerns about the failure rate for older staff, 

females, and even those with disabilities routinely weaken 

their support for standards intended to provide a more 

capable workforce.

The fact that an employment standard produces adverse 

impact on these groups does not mean the standard is

The crucial step at this point is: how 

you determine a minimum qualification 

necessary for successful performance 

of the job! We know that not everyone 

is qualified, but how can we accurately 

identify and distinguish them from those 

who are qualified?

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 9
illegal. To be lawful, the standard only needs to show that 

it is a “business necessity” and “job related”. In Lanning, 

et al. v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority, 308 F.3d 286 (3rd Cir. 2000) the Court stated 

that a Physical Ability Test (PAT), that produced adverse 

impact on women was nevertheless valid if it was “shown 

to measure the minimum qualification necessary for 

successful performance of the job in question”. The crucial 

step at this point is: how 

you determine a minimum 

qualification necessary for 

successful performance 

of the job! We know that 

not everyone is qualified, 

but how can we accurately 

identify and distinguish 

them from those who are 

qualified?

Bill Floyd has served the SCCJA as Program Manager 

for Instructional Standards as well as Research and his 

experience was no different. He started with a good JTA 

and implemented a well designed PAT. The SMEs were 

called upon to run the course and they set the minimum 

passing score at 107 seconds. They then started collecting 

student data and found the initial failure rate among females 

to be 70%, which was far more than the administrators 

had expected. It was also more than 20% higher than

the failure rate for 

the males, which 

meant that adverse 

impact would likely 

be a primary claim of 

any female that fails 

the test in the future. 

The administrators 

and lawyers were 

apprehensive about 

implementing such 

a s t a nd a r d a nd 

abandoned the cut 

score of 107 seconds. 

They replaced it 

with a st a nd a rd 

that required only 

completion of the 

PAT course in “one continuous motion.” 

Over the years, I have seen many well designed cognitive 

and psychomotor skills tests fail simply because 

the organization lacked the statistical expertise needed 

to set and defend their cut-scores. This looked like 

one of those cases, so I asked Bill Floyd if he still had 

the data he collected under the more stressful 107 second 

limit. Bill had not only preserved the scores, he also had 

videotapes of the students’ 

performance and agreed 

to let me analyze it. Dr. 

Norris and I took the data 

back to the FLETC and 

parsed each of the 1402 

scores into its nearest 

discrete 6-second interval. 

The results are plotted in 

Figure 1.

As I suspected, the shape of the graph looked very much 

like the work we had done at the FLETC in mapping 

multiple choice exam results and then modeling those 

results with binomial equations. The theory in support 

of modeling is quite simple: if our selection and training 

programs were perfect, everyone would be ready for a 

gun and a badge upon completion of the training. This 

would be one homogenous group, and the distribution 

of scores would be predicted by the single equation as 

shown in Figure 2.

Over the years, I have seen many 

well designed cognitive and 

psychomotor skills tests fail simply 

because the organization lacked the 

statistical expertise needed to set and 

defend their cut-scores.

10 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 11

We know, however, that 

our selection processes 

are not perfect and 

neither is the training. 

This implies that two 

distinct groups are 

likely to be present, and 

if such groups exist, the 

distribution of scores 

should be more closely 

predicted by two 

equations than by one. 

To test this theory, 

we constructed a 

normalized measure of 

congruence based on a 

least squares analysis 

and compared the 

results. We labeled 

our measure “LSQ Fit,” and defined it as equal to 100 

times the sum of the square of the discrepancies between 

the real data and the theoretical model. A lower number 

indicates a better fit. Figure 3 clearly shows that the 2-

group assumption is the better fit just from the proximity 

of the overlay of the real and theoretical curves (blue 

diamonds verses purple squares). The visual conclusion 

is confirmed mathematically (LSQ Fit = 122 for the onegroup assumption, but only 27 for the two-group model).

Having statistical proof of the existence of two distinct 

groups changes our thinking about cut scores. First, we 

notice the imbedded and overlapping nature of the two 

groups (yellow triangle verses light blue x in Figure 

3). This means that someone in the slower group may 

occasionally (by chance, circumstance, or whatever) do 

better than someone in the faster group who is having 

a bad day. Moving the cut score higher or lower simply 

changes balance between making a type 1 error (failing 

a qualified individual) 

and a type 2 error 

(passing an unqualified 

individual).

In the case of the 

SCCJA data, there is 

a distinct dip at 126 

seconds in the actual 

data for all persons 

(indicated by the blue 

diamond curves above), 

and that lull appears 

in both the female and 

male curves of Figure 1. 

The two-group model 

also illustrates that the 

probability of failing 

qualif ied persons
was rather small at that point. So, we suggested that a 

minimum passing score of 126 seconds might be a good 

place to start in order to assess the errors and the impact of 

various retesting protocols on the ultimate failure rates. 

Dr. Norris and I presented our data at the 2005 SCCJA 

conference and arranged to run an informal experiment 

with the audience. Recalling that Bill Floyd had 

videotaped the students, we asked him to randomly pick a 

sample of those students with times above and below the 

126 second cut-off. We then hid all the clocks and asked 

the participants to watch each runner and evaluate them 

as follows:

• Focusing only on how well or poorly each person 

performs the range of simulated law enforcement 

tasks,

• Answer this question, “In a crisis, would this person 

meet your expectations for a minimally qualified 

LEO?” (yes or no), then

• Estimate how sure you are by betting 5 to 99 cents 

next to each choice.

Knowing that the conference participants consisted 

of people with law enforcement experience and those 

without, we were careful to word our question, so it was 

answerable by both. We expected their perspectives to be 

different so we asked them to specify which they were so 

that we could separate their responses.

That evening, Dr. Norris and I plotted the results of the 

audience voting (Figure 4), which visually confirmed 

that the 126 cut-score did minimize both types of errors. 

Moving the cut-score higher or lower simply increases the 

false positives or false negatives, respectively. The shape 

of the distribution in Figure 4 also follows the logistic 

function suggested by Danish mathematician George 

Rasch as a good measure of the measurement itself. 

The most striking result in Figure 4 is the closeness of 

the LEOs’ and the public estimates. We never specified 

what the “crisis” might be, so each person, whether cop 

or civilian, had a different image in mind. Yet simply by 

watching people run the obstacle course, they came to 

nearly identical conclusions. 

The next morning, we presented these results to the 

conference participants, which included administrators 

from the SCCJA and their Legal Counsel. We wanted 

to confront the administrative and legal issues head-on. 

Our initial analysis, based on the empirical data in Figure 

1, predicted initial failure rates at the 126 second standard 

among females at 

25.6% but only 2.1% 

for the males. Because 

this difference is more 

than 20%, the validity 

of the test would have 

to be defended in a 

gender based disparate 

treatment suit. We also 

had just created the 

pesky little problem 

of publicly admitting 

that no test is perfect, 

and we had proven 

that errors will occur 

in the SCCJA test as 

well. Had we not just 

weakened our legal 

defense against any claimant dismissed by this or any 

other test? With our opening comments, we could almost 

feel the administrative and legal legs of the stool starting 

to buckle. We would need to rebuild a viable argument 

from the ground up.

››› continued on page 30

12 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
I wrote this article for those who want to move into 

supervision, supervisors with little experience, or 

veteran supervisors who want to change their management 

style. Hopefully this information will give you some 

ideas that will help in your job, and most importantly, in 

dealing with people.

In the FLETC Journal Fall Edition 2005, I wrote an article 

titled, “The Golden Rule.” In that article, I emphasized 

applying the golden rule. The article focused on treating 

everyone the way you like to be treated. It discussed 

empowerment, encouraging employees, and being 

positive. Of course, the golden rule is a very popular 

concept, but did you know it’s popular world wide? 

Tom Morris, the author of, “The Art of Achievement,” 

discusses this on pages 145 and 146 of his book. He notes 

a few examples of the various statements of the golden 

rule made throughout history:

Confucianism: “Do not do unto others what you 

would not want them to do unto you.”

Buddhism: “Seek for others the happiness you 

desire for yourself. Hurt not others with that which 

pains you.” 

Judaism: “That which is hurtful to you, do not do 

to your fellow man.”

Islam: “Let none of you treat his brother in a way 

he himself would not like to be treated. No one of 

you is a believer until he loves for his brother what 

he loves for himself.” 

Taoism: “View your neighbor’s gain as your own 

gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” 

Tom also wrote, “Moral leaders seek to live by the golden 

rule. Many of us believe it describes our practice. But 

the unfortunate truth is that most people seem to live by 

another principle altogether, one that I often call the Rule 

of Reciprocity, because it involves just reciprocating the 

sort of conduct we receive: Do unto others as they do 

unto you, or treat others the way you are treated. If I’m 

living reciprocally, then I’ll treat you well if you treated 

me well, but treat you badly if you’ve done so to me. One 

problem with the Rule of Reciprocity is that when you 

live by it you allow others to call the shots.”

“This is a truth of great importance, since it gives us one 

of the main reasons why unethical business practices are 

self-destructive. It may be easy to treat people badly one 

by one, or a few at a time, but over the long run, if you 

have treated enough other people terribly, and they are 

living reciprocally, then they are out there as a growing 

multitude preparing to do the same to you. And together, 

Golden Rule Part II

by Andrew A. Smotzer

Golden Rule Part II

by Andrew A. Smotzer

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 13
they’ll eventually have the power to 

bring you down.”

People who live by the golden rule 

draw others to them in a positive 

way and help them rise up. If we 

show truthfulness, justice, and 

kindness in our actions, we will 

build successful relationships. It sounds like I’m talking 

about nice guys. I’m sure you’ve heard the old saying, 

“nice guys finish last.” I look at it differently; how about 

“nice guys actually finish and last.” 

Since I’m talking about nice guys, how about Terry 

Francona, the head coach for the Boston Red Sox? When 

Terry was hired by the team, the biggest concern that the 

Red Sox’s Executive staff had was they felt Terry was too 

nice of a guy to be a Major League Baseball head coach. 

They knew his knowledge, experience, and abilities were 

at that level, but they weren’t sure about his toughness. 

Well, they hired Terry and the team went on to win their 

first World Series since 1918! 

How about Tony Dungy, the head coach for the Super 

Bowl Championship team, the Indianapolis Colts. 

Coach Dungy is anything but the classic overbearing, 

intimidating football coach. Several of his players have 

said they can’t remember the last time he yelled at them. 

He takes pride in that: Defensive tackle Dan Klecko said 

after the Super Bowl win, “We all wanted so bad to win 

it for him.” Team President Bill Polian, who hired Tony 

five years ago concluded, “This is Tony’s championship. 

There is no better role model in America today than Tony 

Dungy.” 

Let’s not forget Tom Moore, Dungy’s assistant, who is 

the offensive coordinator of the Indianapolis Colts. He 

prefers simplicity, he says, “It’s a player’s game and your 

job as a coach is to evaluate those players, understand 

their strengths and weaknesses, and build around that.” 

He’s been a coach for 30 seasons, and is 68 years old, and 

does not waver when it comes to his philosophy. As the 

Associated Press wrote, “Now he’ll get to see how it works 

against the NFL’s toughest defenses, the Chicago Bears 

active, fast, and physical units.” Well they won! As we 

all know. Oh, by the way, Coach Moore was an assistant 

coach with the Pittsburg Steelers years ago when they won 

two of their Super Bowls. As he always says, “It’s about 

the players, it’s not about me.” So I guess nice guys can be 

successful in management roles. And that’s my point; you 

don’t have to be a micromanager, keep looking over your 

employee’s shoulders, and be hard on them by having that 

high school football coach mentality. Be compassionate 

to their needs and concerns, put yourself in a supportive 

role, and see what the staff needs to teach their students 

better, what type of training do 

they need to improve in their job 

performance, encourage and praise 

them when appropriate, be sensitive 

when critiquing negatively, and most 

of all be there for them. Major Dick 

Winters says it best in the book, 

“Biggest Brother” on page 141, “My wonder is how the 

man can expect to be a leader when he’s never around to 

lead.” Or how about David Cottrell who has held senior 

management positions with Xerox and Federal Express 

and is the author of “Monday Morning Leadership” when 

he wrote, “You have to escape from management land 

and get in touch with your people.” (Page 98). He also 

wrote, “People quit people before they quit companies.” 

(Page 98). And one of my favorites by President Abraham 

Lincoln, “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you 

want to test a man’s character give him power.” Let’s 

replace power with the word authority for our purposes.

I hope some of this information will help you in your 

supervisory career. If you just remember to always treat 

others the way you would like to be treated, you can’t 

go wrong. Always remember your staff needs to be 

appreciated, so give awards when earned and most of all 

say “Thanks.” Create an environment that your employees 

enjoy working in, always speak highly of one another, and 

treat each other with respect. Always be positive and set 

a good example for the staff. Most of all treat everyone 

the way you want to be treated.

“You must expect to be 

treated by others as you 

have treated them.”

~ Seneca

Andrew A. Smotzer has served the FLETC for 

over 25 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 graduate 

of the University of Maryland and author of 

numerous articles in several nationally published 

law enforcement magazines.

A bout the Author A bout the Author

14 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
Robert K. Baer is assigned as 

the ICE Office of Training and 

Development Deputy Assistant 

Director in Charge of the ICE 

Academy (ICEA). After joining 

the Federal government from the 

San Diego Police Department, 

DAD Baer began his Federal 

Law Enforcement career at the 

San Ysidro Port of Entry as an INS Inspector. DAD Baer 

then transferred as an INS Special Agent to Los Angeles, 

CA, where he served in several high-profile investigative 

assignments to include the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, 

Special Investigations Unit, Anti-Smuggling Unit and 

the Benefit Fraud Unit. Baer transferred to FLETC as an 

instructor in 2001 and was promoted to Training Operations 

Supervisor in 2002. In 2004, DAD Baer was promoted to 

the position of Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the ICE 

Atlanta field office. In 2006, DAD Baer returned to FLETC 

as the Director of the ICE Detention and Removal Academy 

and was selected as the DAD in Charge of the ICEA in May 

of this year.

Baer is a 23 year veteran of the United States Navy and is 

a former enlisted Military Working Dog Handler/Military 

Police Investigator (NCIS). He was commissioned in 1996 

and currently serves as the Commanding Officer of the 

NAS Jacksonville Naval Security Forces Unit and has been 

recently selected as the Commanding Officer of the NS 

Kings Bay Naval Security Forces Unit. Baer has several 

degrees and programmatic certifications to include: a BS in 

Criminal Justice, MS in Forensic Science, Masters Certificate 

in Crime and Intelligence Analysis and is a graduate of the 

USDA SES candidate program.

A bout the Author A bout the Author

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was 

created four years ago from investigative and 

enforcement components of the U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service, U.S. Customs Service and U.S. 

Federal Protective Service for the purpose of protecting 

the homeland. When created, the ICE Academy (ICEA) 

was comprised of a collective staff of approximately 60 

employees to include Special Agents, Deportation Officers, 

Immigration Enforcement Agents, Deportation Officers, 

Intelligence Specialists, Physical Security Officers, 

Attorneys and Mission Support Specialists. Over the past 

few years the mission of the agency has been growing and 

the ICE Academy has been the benefactor of increased 

growth in both mission and staffing to meet mission 

requirements. As a result the ICEA staff now numbers 

over 150 employees, offers five basic law enforcement 

programs, over forty advanced or specialized law 

enforcement programs and has now spread across FLETC 

in ten buildings located in five different areas around the 

center. The agency and its training programs are growing 

so rapidly that it was recognized that there needed to be 

one consolidated voice to assess, develop and deliver all 

agency training aboard the FLETC and to achieve full 

FLETA accreditation. This spring the agency made a 

major stride in achieving this goal by reorganizing all 

training under one overarching umbrella, the ICE Office 

of Training and Development (OTD). The OTD is that 

voice and is responsible for all training agency-wide and 

here at the FLETC.

This past year has been a landmark year for ICE aboard the 

FLETC and next year looks to be even more challenging. 

The Office of Investigations (OI) is scheduled to train over 

500 Special Agent basic trainees, the Office of Detention 

and Removal (DRO) will train over 1200 basic trainees 

for the second year in a row and the Intelligence basic 

program is projected to grow to more than 400 trainees. 

At any given time this year there are 800 ICE trainees on 

the center at a time in a combination of basic, advanced 

and specialized training. Additional growth within both 

ICE and FLETC has resulted in the two reaching an 

agreement that will move the ICE 287(g) state and local 

training program (with 350 projected trainees in FY08), 

some OI specialized training and all DRO advanced 

training to FLETC Charleston beginning in FY08, a 

total of close to 2500 trainees the first fiscal year alone 

for a total of close to 5000 trainees aboard both FLETC 

facilities. Additionally, there are several exciting programs 

being developed that address the growing ICE mission 

regarding worksite enforcement, strategic technology and 

air operations.

This bi-lateral partnership and collaboration is an 

example of the strength that can be generated by two DHS 

entities when working together and one that solidifies the 

teamwork between these two large and well-respected 

DHS components for many years to come. Watch us 

grow!

Watch us Grow!

By Robert K. Baer

Deputy Assistant Director in Charge

ICE Academy

Watch Us Grow!

By Robert K. Baer

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 1

Cyber Counterterrorism Investigations 

Training Program (CCITP) By: Barry Lane

Cyber Counterterrorism Investigations 

Training Program (CCITP)

By the turn of the century virtually all known terrorist 

groups had a presence on the Internet. In February 

2006, Gabriel Weimann, professor of communication 

at the University of Haifa, 

Israel stated that based 

on his research there 

were approximately 4800 

“terrorists” websites 

operating which has 

increased from just 12 

websites in 1998. In August 

of 2006, US Attorney 

General Alberto R. Gonzales said that more than 5000 

Internet sites were being used by extremists to train and 

coordinate internationally, filling the gap caused by the 

crackdown on the Al Qaeda terrorist network. There 

is overwhelming evidence of terrorist groups using the 

Internet to engage in psychological warfare, propaganda, 

data mining, fundraising, recruiting, networking, 

information sharing, and planning and coordination. The 

Cyber Counterterrorism Investigations Training Program 

(CCITP) focuses on investigations and operations centered 

on these uses of the Internet by terrorists.

Terrorists today are highly sophisticated in their use of 

weapons, communications and planning techniques. They 

operate in a highly decentralized manner which makes 

it difficult to locate and track more than a small cell of 

terrorists at any given time. They are using the Internet 

to collect large amounts of open source information to 

be used for the preparation 

and execution of their 

operations. Many of these 

terrorists’ organizations 

have recruited members 

with highly sophisticated 

degrees in such areas as 

computer science, biology 

and chemistry. In order to 

effectively collect intelligence, conduct investigations and 

run operations against these threats we have to identify 

their methods and be able to operate within the same 

medium.

The CCITP introduces the criminal investigator, researcher 

or analyst to concepts and methodologies related to cyberbased intelligence collection operations and investigations. 

The target audience is criminal investigators, detectives, 

intelligence specialists, and intelligence analysts from 

the federal, state and local law enforcement community. 

This training program may also benefit those who are 

tasked with performing intelligence gathering, analysis, 

investigations and operations in a Task Force environment 

or for their own respective agencies.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 1

The CCITP introduces the criminal 

investigator, researcher or analyst to

concepts and methodologies related to

cyber-based intelligence collection

operations and investigations. 
This FLETC advanced program guides 

attendees through a multi-faceted approach 

to information/intelligence collection, 

investigative research and/or targeting of various 

terrorist enterprises. By multi-faceted we mean 

that each element in the name of this program 

(Cyber Counterterrorism Investigations) has 

been developed into the course curriculum. 

Specifically, throughout this one week program 

the presentations focus on the 

“cyber” aspect of investigative 

and/or information collection 

operations; the use of computer 

hardware, sof t ware and 

internet technology to aid the 

investigator and enhance their 

capabilities and efforts. The 

“counterterrorism” aspect is 

emphasized through specific 

examples of terrorists’ utilization 

of internet technology to direct 

and control their operations. 

And finally, the “investigations” 

aspect emphasizes the use 

of traditional 

i n v e s t i g a t i v e 

methodologies 

in collaboration 

with the 

technological or 

“cyber” aspects. 

Ad d i t i o n a l l y, 

this program 

s o m e w h a t 

mir rors the 

continuous case 

m e t h o d o l o g y 

currently used in 

the FLETC basic programs, albeit in a much more time condensed 

scenario. We have infused an investigative case scenario into the 

CCITP that specifically relates to the training presented. Although 

this case scenario must unfold in a very short one week program it 

is presented through a “Just-In-Time” application. This application 

presents students with a targeted block of instruction from which 

learning objectives and/or hard skills presented are immediately 

applied to the case scenario. This “Just-In-Time” approach builds 

sequentially throughout the week to ensure the case scenario is 

as realistic as possible. One of the primary goals of this training 

program is to enable the participants to develop information to a 

logical “point”. However, that logical point may not necessarily 

be a final prosecution. Realistically, once a target is attacked by

››› continued on page 26

A bout the Author A bout the Author

Mr. Lane retired from AFOSI in October 

2005 after serving approximately 13 years

as a special agent. Mr. Lane worked as a 

Counterintelligence agent and a Computer 

Forensic Field Examiner prior to instructing 

at the AFOSI academy at FLETC in Oct 

2001. Following retirement from AFOSI 

he was hired as a Senior Instructor in the 

Computer and Financial Investigations 

Division specializing in internet 

investigations. Barry is currently assigned 

to the Enforcement Operations Division, 

Tactics Branch as a tactics instructor. 

1 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
Fast, Focused and Flexible

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center proved this motto just 72 hours before a visit by President 

George W. Bush and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, May 29. 

Staging the Event

Work crews started from scratch with plywood ...

... and paint ...

... and eager backs ...


“...This center is full of smart, capable instructors who are helping to train men 

and women who’ve volunteered to serve our country on the front lines of 

protecting the homeland. I am grateful to be in your midst...”

President george w. 

Lights were brought in as work continued overnight.

The stage was nearly set ...

... and then it awaited the guests.
Scott v. Harris:

What does this Supreme Court Decision mean to Law Enforcement?

By Pete Peterson

Scott v. Harris:

Rational people should never try to elude the police -- 

but sometimes they do and when they do, it may end 

in tragedy. The Supreme Court recently ruled on one such 

case – Scott v. Harris.i

Scott v. Harrisii is a case that will now 

be in the forefront of the minds of law enforcement officers 

involved in hot pursuits. In Scott, the Supreme Court said 

that the extent of the suspect’s 

blame for the incident could 

be considered when deciding 

the “reasonableness” of the 

seizure by a police officer.iii

Here are the basic facts of this 

case:

In March 2001, a Georgia county deputy clocked the 

suspect’s (Victor Harris) vehicle traveling at 73 miles 

per hour on a road with a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. 

The deputy drove up behind Harris and activated his blue 

flashing lights to pull Harris over. Instead of complying, 

Harris sped away initiating a chase down what is mostly a 

two-lane road at speeds exceeding 85 miles per hour. The 

deputy radioed his dispatch to report that he was pursuing 

a fleeing vehicle and broadcast its license plate number. 

Deputy Timothy Scott heard the radio communication 

and joined the pursuit along with other officers in the 

area. In the midst of the chase, Victor Harris pulled 

into the parking lot of a shopping center and was nearly 

boxed in by the police vehicles. Harris evaded the trap 

by making a sharp turn and collided with Deputy Scott’s 

police car. Harris then exited 

the parking lot and sped off 

once again down a two-lane 

highway.

Following Harris’ shopping 

center maneuvering, which 

resulted in some slight 

damage to Deputy Scott’s police car, Scott took over as 

the lead pursuit vehicle. About six minutes and almost 10 

miles into the chase, Scott decided to attempt to terminate 

the pursuit by employing a “Precision Intervention 

Technique” (PIT) maneuver. Scott radioed his supervisor 

for permission to do the PIT maneuver and was told by his 

supervisor to “go ahead and take (Harris) out,” indicating 

Scott had permission to conduct the PIT maneuver. Scott 

decided he was traveling too fast to perform the PIT so

Rational people should never try to 

elude the police - but sometimes they 

do and when they do, it may end in 

tragedy.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 23
he bumped the rear of Harris’ 

vehicle with his push bumper. 

As a direct result of the bump, 

Harris lost control of his vehicle, 

left the roadway, traveled down 

an embankment, overturned, and 

crashed. Harris was critically 

injured and was rendered a quadriplegic.

The pursuing law enforcement officers drove vehicles 

with “in car cameras,” which resulted in at least two 

videotapes that were admitted into evidence, including a 

videotape taken from Deputy Scott’s vehicle. The tapes 

also provided evidence for the Supreme Court to review 

how reckless Harris was driving and how dangerous he 

was to others. As one commentator stated:

In its review of the case, the United States Supreme 

Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that they 

must only look at the facts found by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which 

had concluded that Harris had fled in a somewhat 

safe manner. The Court decided that the facts, 

with respect to Harris’ dangerousness during the 

chase, were evident from a review of the video of 

the pursuit. They suggested that the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit should have 

reviewed the tape instead of relying on the trial 

court record. The Court concluded that the facts, 

as alleged by the plaintiff with respect to the chase, 

were clearly contradicted by the tape. The Court 

concluded that Harris’ actions during the pursuit 

did pose a significant danger to other motorists.iv

The decision and the statements from the Supreme 

Court should send a message to everyone that it’s not 

a good idea to flee from the 

police. Most police agencies 

will pursue suspects and use 

whatever “reasonable” means 

are necessary to stop them before 

they hurt an innocent person. It 

is believed that in the coming 

weeks and months, numerous attorneys, lower courts, 

agency administrators, the media, criminal justice 

educators and even police trainers will view the Scott

decision from varying perspectives. One example of this 

is the headline to an article about the case, posted by the 

“Detroit Free Press” on May 1, 2007, which read: “Court: 

Cops can force suspects to crash.”v

Unlike the implication of this headline, the Scott case is 

not about cops having “free reign” to do as they please 

during a pursuit. This case is also not about whether a 

suspect being rammed by the police will be considered 

deadly force. In general, courts consider each case on the 

facts of that particular case. A police officer could use 

a ramming technique at a reasonable speed, and it may 

not be considered deadly force. The same can be said 

about the Precision Intervention Technique (PIT), for the 

technique, as it is taught and trained, is not necessarily 

designed to result in deadly force. Ramming and PIT 

are techniques that have very different applications to 

a suspect’s vehicle. Both techniques, when used in the 

proper place, at the proper time, and under the proper 

circumstances, can be considered quite suitable pursuit 

termination tactics. Further, it must be pointed out that 

any pursuit termination technique could possibly result 

in deadly force, and yet, depending on the particular 

facts of the case, be completely “reasonable” under 

the constitutional standards of Graham v. Connervi and 

Tennessee v. Garner.vii

...the Scott case in not about cops 

having “free reign” to do as they 

please during a pursuit.

24 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
This case is about the suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights and 

the suspect’s own illegal actions leading to his injuries. As the 

Supreme Court said in Scott, “We lay down a ... sensible rule: 

A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed 

car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not 

violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing 

motorist at risk of serious injury or 

death.”viii

Dr. Geoff Alpert, professor of Criminal 

Justice and Director of Research for 

the College of Criminal Justice at 

the University of South Carolina, 

who describes himself as a “pursuit 

expert,” claims that if officers would 

simply not pursue suspects, or, when 

suspects flee, if the police would discontinue any pursuit of that 

suspect, then suspects would surely slow down and not endanger 

the public. He further argues that one innocent life lost because of 

a pursuit is too many.

Dr. Alpert is correct that one innocent life lost in a pursuit is too 

many, but suspects should not be allowed to escape. As pointed out 

by the Supreme Court in Scott, the police need not take a chance 

that the innocent public will be protected, and tragic accidents be 

entirely avoided, by simply ceasing a pursuit and hoping for the 

best.ix First, there would be no way to convey convincingly to a 

suspect that the chase is off, and that the suspect is free to go.x 

A suspect, looking in his rearview mirror and seeing the police 

deactivate their flashing lights and turning around, would have no 

idea whether the police were truly letting him get away, or simply 

devising a new strategy for capture. Second, the Court said that 

it is “loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing 

suspects to get away whenever [suspects] drive so recklessly that 

they put other people’s lives in danger... [because] every fleeing 

motorist would know that [they could escape] if only he accelerates 

to 90 miles per hour, crosses the double-yellow line a few times, 

and runs a few red lights.” xii

Does this mean the police should pursue all law violators all 

the time? The answer is “no.” Law enforcement officers must 

remember that those seizures must be “reasonable.” They should 

continue to weigh all of the circumstances surrounding a particular 

pursuit and, in so doing, there will be times 

when it makes sense to discontinue the pursuit 

and use good police work to catch the violator 

at a later time. However, in other cases, it may 

be “reasonable” to continue a pursuit in order to 

arrest the law violator.

T h i s S u p r e m e 

Court ruling won’t 

necessarily make 

the roadways safer; 

however, it should 

give police the 

latitude to exercise 

“ r e a s o n a b l e ” 

judgment without the 

fear of being held civilly liable as a result of a 

lawsuit brought by a suspect who was pursued. 

It’s about time that the courts considered the 

culpability of the suspect, for it is the suspect 

who initiates the danger, not the police who 

respond to that danger. However, what we don’t 

want to happen is for officers to think they have 

“carte-blanch” authority to pursue anyone who 

tries to elude them and to use more force than is 

reasonable under the circumstances. Just as the 

court noted, the answer here is “reasonableness.” 

Further, officers must still follow their agency 

policy (which can be more restrictive than the 

constitutional guidelines) or be ready to face 

administrative discipline for policy violations.

Police officers must realize that high-speed 

pursuits can injure innocent bystanders as well 

as suspects. The situation might have been 

different in the Scott case had the person who 

was injured been an innocent bystander. In such 

a situation, negligence principles under state 

law, rather than constitutional principles under 

federal law, might have been the focus. This 

is why some agencies have established policies 

against pursuing suspects for minor incidents. 

Will agencies change their policies because of 

It’s about time that the courts 

considered the culpability of the 

suspect, for it is the suspect who 

initiates the danger, not the police who 

respond to that danger.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 2
Periodically, the investigator should re-contact the child 

to check their level of retention. This will also allow the 

child and investigator to develop a trust that may relate in 

even more information coming forward.

Conclusion

They’re just children, how hard can it be? It can be pretty 

hard or rather pretty easy to distort, taint, or embellish 

information. Children are valid witnesses with usual and 

sometimes unusual needs. As law enforcement, we are 

painstakingly adept at caring for our physical evidence. 

We must be just as painstaking at caring for our child 

witness. Let’s not let another molester go free, nor another 

innocent suffer the cloud of false accusation because we 

induced a false memory in a child. Let’s advocate for 

those who cannot advocate for themselves while bringing 

forth legitimate, prosecutable cases against the predators 

that make the precious world of the child a nightmare. 

Let’s walk a path that protects all innocents.

References

i Poole & Lamb, Investigative Interviews of Children, American 

Psychological Association 1999, p. 53

ii Annon, Jack S., Recommended Guidelines for Interviewing Children 

in Cases of Alleged Sexual Abuse, IPT-Forensics 1994, Volume 6, p. 2

iii Op. cit, p. 61

Child Inter view ››› continued from page 8

CCITP ››› continued from page 18

a terrorist element our jobs are fairly clear cut regarding 

the investigation, apprehension and prosecution of the 

attackers. In today’s environment, however our goal is to 

detect and prevent the attack from ever occurring. The 

challenge then becomes how do we go from little or no 

information to the logical point of do we initiate a formal 

investigation on our targets (and therefore allocate more 

resources) or end our inquiry and deem it unsubstantiated? 

This is the area CCITP is primarily focused on. 

CCITP was developed for the low-level to average 

computer user and no special computer, internet and/

or computer forensic skills are required for attendance. 

For further information regarding CCITP dates and 

registration please refer to the CFI webpage at www.fletc.

gov/cfi and chose Technology Investigations.

A bout the Author A bout the Author

Mr. Peterson has over 38 years of Law Enforcement related 

experience. He spent approximately 14 years as a city police 

officer in Illinois. He then accepted a position with the Coastal 

Georgia Police Academy serving as the Basic Police Training 

Manager and Assistant Director, and later attained the position 

of Academy Director. After 8 years, he was offered a position 

as a Driving Instructor with the Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center (FLETC), and has been with the FLETC for 

18 years and is currently a Senior Law Enforcement Training 

Instructor for the Driver and Marine Division. 

Mr. Peterson has a B.A. in Criminology from Saint Leo 

University, St Leo Fl. He has an A.S. Degree in Law 

Enforcement and Sociology from Richland College Decatur 

Il. He has attended over 70-law enforcement related training 

programs throughout his career.

this decision? That’s a question yet to be answered. In any 

case, if a vehicle can be identified, or the driver or owner 

can be identified and apprehended later, the pursuit should 

be evaluated for possible termination. This decision will 

depend on the circumstances at the time.

So how do we ensure officers understand the implications 

of the Supreme Court’s decision and continue to use good 

judgment? The answer, of course, is training, training, 

and more training. The last thing we want is a court 

decision right after this one which finds an officer civilly 

liable for a pursuit instead of the suspect who caused the 

pursuit.

References

i 127 S.Ct. 1769 (2007).

ii Id.

iii 127 S.Ct at 1778.

iv Jack Ryan , U.S. Supreme Court Decides on 

Scott v. Harris, Public Agency Training Council, 

May 2, 2007. v Author unknown, Posted by the Detroit Free Press, 

Froop.com powered by the Detroit Free Press 

May 1, 2007

vi 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

vii 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

viii 127 S.Ct at 1779.

ix See, Id. x See, Id.

xi Id.

xii Id. 

2 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
Is That Material Copyrighted? by John Seaman

Introduction

It has been said that a picture can be worth a thousand 

words. Certainly, as instructors of adult learners, we 

know that an instructional approach that appeals to more 

than one of the three learning modalities (visual, auditory, 

and kinesthetic) enhances student 

understanding and retention.

i

 Because different students 

assimilate new information in 

different ways, it is crucial that 

instructors present teaching 

materials in a manner designed 

to appeal to as many of the 

students’ senses as possible.ii

Using modern media technology can definitely enhance 

the learning experience of adult learners, including 

those attending the Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center (FLETC). Media technology allows instructors 

to bring the “real” world into the classroom and to 

reinforce instruction in a dynamic way. Use of this media 

technology, however, must be done with care because

there exists a body of law which controls how and when 

we can use materials created or produced by others. This 

body of law is called copyright.

What is Copyright?

Copyright, Title 17 United States Code, is a body of law 

that protects authors, artists, and 

others by giving them a monopoly 

over their created works. Created 

works include, but are not limited 

to, printed materials such as 

books and magazine articles, TV 

and radio broadcasts, videotapes 

and DVDs, music performance, 

photographs, training materials 

and manuals, software programs, databases, and WorldWide-Web pages. This monopoly includes the right 

to control how created works are copied, distributed, 

displayed, performed publicly and used to create derivative 

works. A basic understanding of copyright is critical for 

instructors as the penalties for copyright infringement are 

very severe. A court may award up to $150,000 for each

A court may award up 

to $150,000 for each 

separate, willful copyright 

infringement.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 2
separate, willful copyright infringement.iii

Copyright is Not New

The basis for U.S. copyright law is found in Article I of 

the U.S. Constitution. Section 8, Clause 8 states “the 

Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress 

of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times 

to authors and inventors the exclusive r ig h t t o t h e i r 

respective writings 

and discoveries.” 

The First Congress 

implemented the 

Copy r ight Act 

of 1790. Due to 

advancements in 

technology, major 

revisions to the act 

were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, 1976, 1998, 2002, 

and continue to be implemented today.iv

Public Domain Works Are Not Protected By Copyright

Not all works are protected under the copyright laws. 

Works that are considered to be in the “public domain” 

may be freely used. Any work published before 1923 is 

considered to be in the public domain. Works published or 

created between 1923 and 1978 are protected for a period 

of years depending on publication date and renewal. Since 

1978, however, works generally have copyright protection

for the life of the author or creator plus an additional 70 

years. In addition, since 1989, works are protected by 

copyright regardless of whether a copyright notice is 

displayed on the work and regardless of whether the 

copyright is registered with the United States Copyright 

Office.v

If No Exception to Use Exists, Seek Permission 

The general rule is 

that if a work is not 

considered to be in 

the “public domain,” 

or if no exception 

to use exists, then 

permission must be 

obtained from the 

copyright holder 

before protected materials may be used. In the academic 

world, there are three major exceptions which apply to the 

use of copyrighted materials. These are: the face-to-face 

teaching exception, the fair use exception and the library 

exception (not addressed in this article).

The face-to-face teaching exception: Sections 110(1) and 

(2) of the Copyright Act allows non-profit educational 

institutions and government agencies to publicly display 

and perform copyrighted materials in the course of 

face-to-face teaching activities, so long as the protected 

material is directly related to the lesson objectives. In

The general rule is that if a work is not 

considered to be in the “public domain,” or if 

no exception to use exists, then permission must 

be obtained from the copyright holder before 

protected materials may be used.

2 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
2002, § 110(2) was expanded by The TEACH Act. The 

TEACH Act allows for the use of copyright protected 

material by an instructor, including displaying movie clips, 

photographs, music clips, etc., in face-to-face classroom 

teaching and digital distance education. The TEACH Act 

does not allow for the use of copyrighted materials where 

an instructor assigns students to study, read, listen to or 

watch copyrighted materials on their own time outside of 

the classroom. In addition, the provisions of The TEACH 

Act do not apply to materials that an instructor knows or 

should know were not lawfully acquired, or textbooks, 

course-packs and other materials typically purchased

by students individually. 

The fair-use exception: Title 17 United States Code § 

107, called fair use, gives instructors limited ability to use 

protected material regardless of permission. Section 107 

states: “[N]otwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 

and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including 

such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by 

any other means specified by that section, for purposes 

such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching 

(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, 

or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In 

determining whether the use made of a work in any 

particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered 

shall include: (1) the purpose and character of the use, 

including whether such use is of a commercial nature or 

is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the 

copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of 

the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as 

a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential 

market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that 

a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair 

use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the 

above factors.” 

The fair use exception is not a blanket right to use 

copyrighted materials, but rather serves as a defense to 

copyright liability.vi Unfortunately, the four-part test 

listed above is difficult to apply as it is vague and very 

fact-dependent. In other words, one person’s fair use can 

still be another’s copyright infringement.

The Proper Balance

One of the best business practices that balances proper 

adherence to the law, FAIR Use, and policy is to have 

a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). This helps to 

ensure uniformity among the instructors throughout the 

training environment. It also removes the “interpretation 

and application of law” from the hands of the non-legal 

instructor, that work having been performed by the Office 

of Chief Counsel and lawyers from the Legal Division.

How Do I Get Permission From the Copyright 

Holder?

All copyright permissions or releases must be in writing 

and obtained from the copyright holder. When seeking 

permission to use copyrighted material, the requestor 

should include the following:

1. Title, author and/or editor, and edition.

2. Exact material to be used.

3. Number of copies to be made.

4. Intended use of the material, e.g., educational.

5. Form of distribution, e.g., hard copy to 

classroom, posted on internet.

6. Whether material is to be sold (e.g., as part of

coursepack).vii

A bout the Author A bout the Author

John Seaman received a BA from Augusta State 

University, Augusta, Georgia and a JD from Georgia 

State University College of Law, Atlanta, Georgia. 

After law school he joined the U.S. Army Judge 

Advocate General’s Corps. His Army experience 

included prosecuting Courts Martial cases and 

serving as a Special Assistant United States Attorney 

(SAUSA). After serving in the Army, he began working 

as an Assistant District Counsel for the Department 

of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

The I.N.S. subsequently became Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement under the Department of 

Homeland Security. While serving with the I.N.S. and 

I.C.E., he represented the government in immigration 

proceedings before the Department of Justice’s 

Executive Office of Immigration Review. He is a 

member of the Georgia and Arizona bars. 

››› continued on page 38

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 29
Content versus Criterion Validation

The Achilles heel of any PAT has always been the cutscore. Everyone agrees that the content is valid if the 

simulated tasks in the PAT are derived from a JTA. This 

linkage documents that the obstacles on the PAT course 

are similar to situations encountered on the job. No one 

disputes it.

The criterion validity, on the other hand, always takes 

the hit because it has been based either on very weak 

statistical correlations to incumbent performance 

appraisals, or on the “professional opinions of SMEs.” 

The correlation method is standard textbook theory, but 

as numerous studies show, annual appraisals can be quite 

subjective and disconnected from actual performance on 

the job. This inherent lack of reliability means that the 

overall reliability of any correlation with those appraisals 

must be weaker still. The use of SMEs actually yields 

much more reproducible results, but when challenged as 

witnesses, the SMEs are hard pressed to say why they 

think 126 seconds is acceptable, while 127 is not. The lack 

of objectivity in this process makes it easy to understand 

why the attorneys and administrators get nervous about 

defending these tests.

The method of criterion validation that we used with the 

SCCJA suffers from neither of those problems, but instead 

turns them into strengths. Our legal argument is this: 

Yes, everyone makes 

mistakes, but we take 

great pains to quantify 

those measurement 

errors and establish 

remediation and testing 

protocols that minimize 

their impact while 

balancing the rights of 

the individual with the 

needs of society. 

The results of Figure 4 

demonstrated that all 

of us (the public and 

LEOs) have certain 

expectations when we 

call for a cop. It also 

indicates that the PAT is a good predictor of those views. 

But we go further. By modeling the empirical data with 

purely mathematical equations, we quantify and predict 

the effect of various remediation and retesting protocols 

on the ultimate failure rates for females and males.

We proved in Figure 3 that at least two significantly 

different groups do coexist within our training 

environment, but it would be a mistake to proceed with 

this analysis without first proving that those two groups 

were not just “males verses females.” To do so we simply 

model the females separately with their own set of 

equations (Figure 5) and repeat the process for the males 

(Figure 6). 

The model of best fit for females, Figure 5, puts 13.8% of 

the 234 females in the slow group with a mean time of 

167 seconds and puts 86.2% in the fast group with a mean 

time of 111 seconds. The area under the light blue curve 

that is to the left of the red cut-off line represents the odds 

(11.6%) of a qualified female failing on her first attempt 

(a type 1 error). Conversely, the area under the yellow 

curve and to the right of the red cut-off line represents the 

odds (1.4%) of an unqualified female passing on her first 

attempt (a type 2 error). 

The best fit for males, Figure 6, puts 3.7% of them in the 

slow group of 144 seconds and the remaining 96.3% in 

the fast group with a mean time of 89 seconds. Here the

Physical Abilit y Tests ››› continued from page 12

30 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
similarity ends because 

the odds of a qualified 

male failing are only 

0.2% while the odds 

of an unqualified male 

passing are 19.5%. 

Those probabilities 

are not gender neutral. 

They occur because 

the average times of 

both male groups are 

faster than their female 

counterparts. No 

matter what cut score 

we choose, the relative 

position of those groups 

will remain the same. 

Some may not like this 

disparity and some may 

even think it unfair, but it reflects reality, and the courts 

have consistently held to a rule of “one standard for all.” 

The rule makes sense. It is based on the proposition 

that the “job” has certain requirements, and anyone who 

cannot do those things, irrespective of gender, is not 

qualified for the job. The PAT is linked to the job by the 

JTA. The classic organizational response to this apparent 

conflict between the quest for diversity and the quest for 

fitness has been one of three options: 

• adopt the favorite administrative solution 

of taking the teeth out of the test and letting 

everyone pass, or

• stand firm with the SMEs and accept a high 

female failure rate that invites a law suit from 

the failure of a qualified woman, or

• accept the attorneys’ advice to drop the PAT and 

settle out of court if it is already too late to avoid 

litigation. 

Yet we instinctively know 

that diversity and fitness 

should not be incompatible 

goals. There are fit and unfit 

people in all groups, so there 

must be other options. The 

one that SCCJA took was to 

simply eliminate the type of 

errors that lead to sustainable law suits. They decided to 

quit failing qualified people of either gender! Given that 

goal, the task was to demonstrate a way to drive those 

type 1 errors so low that they become miniscule.

The Casino Solution

There is a well known and proven way to magnify 

probabilities and predict outcomes. Does anyone dispute 

the fact that at the end of the day, the gaming casinos 

win? They win because of the impact of a small 

statistical advantage on multiple roles of the dice. There 

may be a few lucky patrons, but the great majority will 

be going home with less. The same is true for testing. A 

qualified candidate has a better chance of passing than 

an unqualified one. On any single role of the PAT dice, 

the outcome may be uncertain, but given multiple trials, 

a clear pattern emerges. All we need to do is establish 

a multiple remediation and retesting protocol and let the 

statistics play out. 

As Table 1 shows, about 24 

of the qualified females can 

be expected to fail the 126-

second PAT (type 1 error) on 

the first test, but the number 

shrinks to 2.7 of them failing 

twice, to 0.3 failing three 

times, and to none failing 

four times. Table 1 also 

It is based on the proposition that 

the “job” has certain requirements, 

and anyone who cannot do those 

things, irrespective of gender, is not 

qualified for the job.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 31
shows that the 3-remedial protocol effectively eliminates 

type 1 errors for both females and males.

The downside of retesting is that these multiple attempts 

increase the cumulative odds of making type 2 errors. 

Because a person only has to pass once, the type 2 errors 

add up from 0.5 unqualified women passing on the first 

try to a total of 1.9 after the fourth try. Similarly, 25.1 

unqualified males will pass at least one of the four tries. 

That is still a very small overall error rate: passing fewer 

than 2 out of 234 unqualified females are 0.8% and 25 out 

of 1168 unqualified males are 2.1%. 

Thus, retesting dramatically lowers the odds of failing 

qualified st udents, but it increases the odds of 

passing unqualified students of both genders. 

We initially recommended only two remedial 

opportunities, but the SCCJA added a third in order to 

make sure that no qualified 

individuals failed.

Table 2 shows all four possible outcomes for students. 

All 1327 of the qualified students should pass the test. 

Clearly there are errors: figures 5 and 6 indicate that 75 

people are unqualified, but only 48 people fail the test (30 

women and 18 men). Two unqualified females pass, along 

with 25 unqualified males, but this does not constitute 

disparate treatment. They are all type 2 errors; i.e., they 

are just the lucky winners on these roles of the PAT dice. 

Thus, the test is 98% accurate, and the 2% error that does 

occur is biased in favor of the individual. The overall 

passing rate is 98% for males and 87% for the females.

Combining the Lessons

While it is essential to observe the “one standard for 

all” rule, it is equally important to consider the females 

and males separately and then combine those results. A 

significant improvement to the two-group model in Figure 

3 comes from the combination of the data from Figures 

32 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
5 and 6 to form Figure 7. Notice that while our measure 

of congruence is only slightly better for the four-group 

model (LSQ Fit = 26) than it is with the two-group model 

(LSQ FIT = 27), the shape of the slow group in Figure 7 

is much flatter and its peak is shifted to the left. 

The reason for this is that the two group model mistakenly 

puts a large number of the qualified females into the 

unqualified camp. It does so because it only has two 

choices and their times are closer to the slow group 

than the fast one. This failure is not uncommon among 

methods that force the equality assumption on situations 

that are not equal. It is often the well intentioned result 

of people trying to do right by remaining gender neutral 

while justifying their rejection of reality as conformance 

to the “one standard for all” rule. Because the twogroup model pretends that there is no difference between 

typical female and male performance, it overestimates the 

number of unqualified at 15.0 % and falsely predicts their 

mean score as 128 seconds. If this were true, the 126 cutoff would allow 96% of them to pass after three retests, 

which suggests the need for a tougher standard and fewer 

retests. That would further disadvantage women far more 

than men, rather than reducing the gender differences. 

The four-group model in Figure 7 is simply more realistic 

than the two-group model, so the predictions are far 

better. The four-group model indicates that only 5.4% 

of the total population is unqualified at a mean score of 

154 seconds, so 64% 

of the unqualified will 

fail on four consecutive 

attempts (the initial 

test plus three retests). 

The odds of a qualified 

woman failing all four 

attempts are less than 

1 in 6300 and lower for 

the men.

The lesson we take 

from this is that 

gender differences 

do sometimes exist. 

We need to test for 

them, and if present, 

we should form a 

four-group model as 

demonstrated above. 

The key to success is realism and candor; the empirical 

data anchors us to reality, and we need to frankly 

communicate its impact to everyone involved.

Building Suppor t

One month af ter the 2005 SCCJA Measurement 

and Evaluation Conference, Dr. Norris and I were asked 

by the SCCJA administration to present our findings 

and recommendations to their South Carolina Law 

Enforcement Training Advisory Council. We made that 

presentation in January, 2006, and they approved the 126 

second standard and a multiple retesting protocol. So that 

is how the SCCJA standard went from one that was too 

rigorous at 107 seconds, to one that was too lax at “one 

continuous motion,” to something that everyone could 

support.

In retrospect, I believe the turning point in gaining approval 

for the PAT actually came at the 2005 measurement 

conference two months earlier. Having the SCCJA 

administrators and legal counsel in the conference room 

as we discussed our results with representatives from 

other law enforcement organizations was invaluable. The 

sense of the group was that this kind of realism was the 

objective approach they needed. One participant even 

suggested showing the videos of the student performance 

to the court as a possible defense strategy. It could also 

help prospective recruits prepare before coming or delay 

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 33
their application.

One of the more challenging questions asked at the 

conference was if I expected the recommended cut-score 

to change over time. The question came from their legal 

counsel. My answer was that it should not, because the 

cut-off time is tied to the difficulty of obstacles that do 

not require any special skills or training. Crawling, 

climbing stairs, running, jumping and dragging stuff are 

activities that nearly everyone has done at some time in 

his or her life. Thus, the groups found in the PAT should 

be reflective of the fitness levels of men and women in 

the society as a whole. The cut-score simply reflects 

an organization’s relative tolerance for different types 

of errors. It can be set higher or lower, but for now the 

SCCJA is willing to error in favor of the individual and 

accept a few unqualified ones. The relative number of 

people in various groups may change, but the average 

times of each group should be fairly stable, especially for 

the qualified people in the faster groups. I did predict that 

the size of the slower group should decrease over time as 

prospective students recognize that failing the standard 

has real consequences. 

Anecdotal data from Michelle Collins at the SCCJA 

indicates that students are indeed coming to the academy 

better prepared, and that those students who fail but follow 

her remedial diet and exercise program do eventually 

succeed. In that case, those students are actually moving 

out of the unfit group and into the qualified group because 

of a significant increase in their overall fitness levels. 

They pass because they should pass.

These are precisely the desired outcomes. The academy 

benefits by being able to tailor the training level to a 

more homogenous group of fit females and males rather 

than two groups of each. The quality of training and 

operational efficiency is increased. The students benefit 

by being better able to carry out their duties and support 

their colleagues, while the society benefits by having 

better prepared officers responding to their needs. 

Conclusions

For decades we have done a great job at establishing content 

validity and a rotten one at defending criterion validity. 

We start with the reality that there is no perfect cut-off 

score and recognize that no one expects us to find one. 

Secondly we face the fact that this is a joint effort. The 

strength of the PAT ultimately lies in the willingness of 

the SMEs, administrators, and attorneys to communicate 

and work together throughout the entire process. Each 

group must be committed to supporting their leg of the 

stool. Decades of experience tell us that without all three 

on-board, it is absolutely pointless to start. The SMEs 

can validate the content and the criterion, but they can 

neither speak for the organization nor defend it in court. 

Like life itself, we have to balance the pros and cons of 

setting a higher or lower cut-score, and then explain it in 

a way that makes sense to us, the public, and the people 

affected. What we have is a range of possible cut scores 

dependent upon the organization’s and society’s tolerance 

for different types of error. If an organization is willing 

to accurately assess the magnitude of each type of error, 

offer remediation and retesting opportunities to minimize 

their impact, and explain how the PAT is related to their 

mission, then it has clearly demonstrated good faith, 

diligence, and fairness. It is crucial that administrators, 

attorneys, and SMEs all support this reality. Finally, this 

analytical method can be applied to any test, not just a 

PAT, and it is independent of job content or the opinions 

of SMEs. The results are purely objective. 

The strength of the PAT ultimately lies in the willingness of the SMEs, 

administrators, and attorneys to communicate and work together 

throughout the entire process. Each group must be committed to 

supporting their leg of the stool.

34 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
Validating Physical Ability Tests

A Successful State and Federal Collaboration

Biographies

Michelle Collins is a Class One Certified South Carolina Law Enforcement officer and currently teaches 

Ground Defense, Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray, and Driving at the South Carolina Criminal Justice 

Academy. She is a nationally accredited Instructor Trainer in the Pressure Point Control Techniques (PPCT) 

Defensive Tactics system and serves on the Board of Technique Standards and Compliance. Ms. Collins also 

holds a Bachelor’s degree in Biology / Psychology from the University of South Carolina, and has several 

advanced certifications as a PR-24 instructor through Monadnock. Specializing in defensive tactics and 

physical training, Michelle has won the title of Ms. South Carolina in Bodybuilding and received the Best 

Overall Female Athlete award presented by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Officers’ Association. 

Bob Fisher is Chief of Evaluation & Analysis Division at the FLETC, Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). He holds degrees in Physics, B.S., and Engineering, M.S., from the University of Tennessee, plus 

an MA Ed. from the George Washington University, DC. He joined the FLETC in 1996 as a Senior Training 

Research Analyst, with responsibility for testing and evaluation functions and later served as the Chief of 

the Testing, Evaluation, and Analysis Branch. He began looking into the evaluation of physical abilities in 

2001 and developed the statistical processes that are presented here.

Bill Floyd is a twenty-four year veteran of law enforcement and currently serves as the Program Manager of 

the Instructional Standards and Support Section of the SCCJA. He is responsible for the development and 

oversight of the various job-task analyses curriculum validation processes, advanced training needs assessment 

development and analysis, Academy policy development, and accreditation (CALEA) coordination. Mr. 

Floyd also serves as a faculty member of the South Carolina (Law Enforcement) Leadership Institute and 

as a lead instructor in the South Carolina State Constable Basic Training Program. Bill holds a B.A. degree 

in Psychology – General Experimental (1982) and a Master of Criminal Justice – Law Enforcement (1985) 

both from the University of South Carolina. 

Dr. William (Bill) Norris is Chief of the Training Research Branch (TRB) at the FLETC and is responsible 

for identifying and developing innovative methodologies that impact law enforcement training. Bill received 

his B.S. and M.S. degrees with specialization in Exercise Science from the University of Akron, and his 

Ph.D. in Exercise Physiology from The Ohio State University. Dr. Norris is a subject matter expert in 

the area of human performance in law enforcement activities, developed the PEB2002 fitness guidelines, 

established an extensive database of fitness scores, and published numerous journal articles and a textbook. 

He is a certified Health/Fitness Director and Exercise Specialist through the American College of Sports 

Medicine.

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 3
Law Enforcement Leadership Institute

By Kelly H. Yanko

with

Kathy S. Lanata & Timothy W. Turner, Ed.D. Kathy S. Lanata & Timothy W. Turner, Ed.D.

The Law Enforcement Leadership Institute (LELI) 

of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC) was established to provide law enforcement 

professionals with the tools they need to develop into 

effective leaders. History would have us believe that great 

leaders are born; that they arrived on the earth knowing 

how to lead and motivate others. In reality, it is 

only after trial and error and failure that these 

great leaders did achieve success. Law 

enforcement leaders do not have the 

benefit of time and the natural learning 

process as our modern world has rapidly 

become an unstable and unpredictable 

environment. Both in our country and 

abroad, law enforcement leaders must 

enter it equipped with the knowledge 

and tools needed to manage themselves 

and lead others effectively.

LELI originated as the FLETC Management 

Institute in 1991 with the goal to make training 

relevant and universally available to Federal law 

enforcement managers. 

Through the years, the 

institute grew and developed 

into a strong leadership 

development venue. In 

2004, the name was changed 

to the Law Enforcement Leadership Institute to more 

accurately reflect the new philosophy and curricula -- law 

enforcement requires more of its leaders than to simply 

manage operations; it necessitates models, coaches, 

mentors, and leaders of people. 

What Is Leadership?

Leadership can be defined as the process 

by which a person influences others to 

accomplish an objective. Leadership is 

a choice, but with that choice comes an 

enormous responsibility. The world 

changed on September 11, 2001, and law 

enforcement has had to adapt rapidly to 

meet the new challenges presented by 

terrorism. Law enforcement is a noble 

profession that derives its power from the 

Constitution, and law enforcement leaders 

are held to the highest standard when using 

their authority to deal with these new challenges. 

Specific qualities have been identified that contribute 

to making leaders effective 

leaders. The four leadership 

qualities or principles a 

leader should possess are 

Understanding, Ethics, 

Vision, and Responsibility. 

“Leadership and learning are

indispensable to each other.”

~ John F. Kennedy

3 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007
These principles form the 

basis of the curricula offered 

by LELI. 

UNDERSTANDING

The number one asset in law 

enforcement is its officers. 

Those officers are on the front lines every day maintaining 

peace and protecting freedom on the federal, state, and 

local levels. Though law enforcement is viewed as having 

to maintain a certain level of stoic professionalism, it is 

important for the law enforcement leader to understand 

that their personnel have personalities and behavioral 

styles that are as different as the loops, whorls, and ridges 

on a fingerprint. The unique training programs developed 

at LELI enable participants to gain a better understanding 

of themselves, their behavioral styles, and the behavioral 

styles of others. This skill allows graduates to identify 

which officers are better suited for particular tasks 

and how to help officers 

succeed in the field. As 

the world has changed, so 

have the backgrounds and 

experiences of the officers 

on the front line. They 

think and operate differently 

and have been brought up 

knowing how to challenge the establishment. The old 

“command and control” mentality of previous generations 

of law enforcement officers will simply not work with the 

present generation of officers. Today’s law enforcement 

leaders must develop cooperation, prevent and resolve 

conflict, and gain commitment and endorsement from 

their staff in order to build an effective team.

ETHICS

Ethics has become a key word in the federal government 

and law enforcement is no exception. Law enforcement 

must maintain credibility and integrity with our 

communities and ethics plays an important part in that. 

Society depends on a few certainties, and the integrity 

of law enforcement cannot waver. People must know 

that the blanket of comfort law enforcement provides 

is honorable. Ethics is about making the right decision 

for the good of the public and the unit, and may not 

necessarily be a popular decision. A law enforcement 

leader must hold themselves and their officers and agents 

to the highest standards. We understand that criminals 

don’t play by the rules, but a leader’s challenge is that he 

or she must play by the rules and still be successful. 

VISION

What characteristic is it that elevates a leader from good 

to great? Many leaders are competent in getting the job 

done and done right. Great leaders, however, are able to 

have a vision for themselves and their unit, and gain the

unit’s support in achieving 

the shared vision. They 

must have goals, both short 

term and long term, and a 

plan to reach those goals. 

Great leaders gain vision 

when they stay abreast 

of current and developing technology that can benefit 

their team in the field. They stay current with world 

events and intelligence that becomes available. Vision is 

about anticipating events and circumstances and having 

a proactive approach, rather than having a reactive 

response.

RESPONSIBILIT Y

The greatest task leaders must assume is that of 

responsibility. However, leadership responsibility 

encompasses more than just assuming responsibility 

for your people and their actions. Good leaders do that 

routinely. Great leaders 

foster an environment of 

cooperation, motivation and 

creativity. Law enforcement 

leaders must recognize 

that there is a mission to 

accomplish and take the 

responsibility to provide 

their team with the tools necessary to complete that 

mission. We teach that it is the leader’s responsibility to 

ennoble, enable, and encourage those that they lead. The 

effectiveness and efficiency of a unit or team is a direct 

reflection of the responsibility of the leader. 

Programs

The goal of LELI is to take our clients to a higher level 

of leadership – a level that encourages students to 

look outside of their paradigm, to seek new answers to 

today’s issues, to adapt, and move forward. We offer 

several different levels of training programs based 

upon the background and needs of the participant. The 

Law Enforcement Supervisors’ Leadership Training 

Program is designed for first-line supervisors and is 

based upon the skills required for that position. The 

training addresses competencies outlined by the Office 

of Personnel Management (OPM) for supervisors such 

as interpersonal skills, technology credibility and 

management, team building, problem solving, and many 

other identified competencies. One level up, we offer the 

Law Enforcement Managers’ Training Program designed 

for mid-level managers. Conflict management, strategic 

thinking, financial management, oral and written 

communication, decisiveness, and many other key topics 

are presented in this program. The Leadership Through 

Understanding Human Behavior Training Program is a 

comprehensive program designed to help law enforcement 

leaders develop more effective workgroups and teams.

“True greatness consists in the use 

of a powerful understanding to enlighten 

oneself and others.”

~ Voltaire

“The significant problems we face cannot 

be solved at the same level of thinking we 

were at when we created them.”

~ Albert Einstein

FLETC Journal v Fall 2007 3
A bout the Author A bout the Author

Situational Leadership® II Training Program, developed 

by world renowned leadership researcher and author, Dr. 

Ken Blanchard, addresses the ever-changing role of the law 

enforcement leader and how to recognize and adapt one’s 

leadership style to the varying skill levels of their team in 

order to achieve success in the field. All instructors for 

this training are certified by the Ken Blanchard Company. 

The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People® Training 

Program is a well recognized and highly respected 

program developed by Dr. Steven R. Covey. LELI has 

partnered with the FranklinCovey Company to offer this 

popular program to law enforcement professionals. All 

instructors are certified by the FranklinCovey Company. 

LELI instructors hold additional certifications in 

behavioral analysis and emotional intelligence.

Leading Heroes

The driving belief behind all of LELI’s programs for law 

enforcement leaders is: you lead heroes. The people you 

lead are the ones that run toward the sounds of gunfire 

and danger. It is these officers and agents that sometimes, 

tragically, make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of 

peace. This is why law enforcement leaders must give 

their very best to the people they lead. We invite you 

to learn more about our programs by visiting us on the 

web at http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/lawenforcement-leadership-institute. You may also contact 

us at (912) 267-2988; our staff will be happy to speak with 

Kelly Yanko has been a Training Technician with 

the Law Enforcement Leadership Institute for 4 

years. Prior to that, Kelly got her start in government 

with the Transportation Security Administration 

Law Enforcement Training Academy. Kelly has a 

Bachelor of Science degree in Business from Florida 

State University and an Associate of Applied Science 

degree in Computer Information Technology from 

Coastal Georgia Community College.

Copyright ››› continued from page 29

you about any of the programs that we offer. It is our 

mission to provide law enforcement leaders with the very 

best tools available, enabling them to build an outstanding 

and effective team that gets results.

A Creative Alternative:

An alternative to obtaining copyright permission is to 

create your own material. For example, the FLETC’s 

Media Support Division (MSD) is equipped to provide 

licensed background music, still photos, as well as video 

clips or video training presentations to assist instructors 

in the classroom. Instructors working with the MSD’s 

graphic artists, directors, and editors are able to recreate 

any scenario in order to assist in illustrating the teaching 

points desired. Creating your own material is a great 

alternative when permission from the copyright holder is 

disapproved or cost prohibitive. 

Conclusion:

Copyright is a very complex area of law which directly 

affects training academies and their instructors. The 

intent of this article is twofold: First, to provide a very 

brief overview of current copyright law. Second, to 

encourage training academies to develop SOPs to help 

ensure uniformity among their respective instructors 

regarding the use of copyrighted materials. Technology 

has created new and dynamic possibilities for the use and 

presentation of information. As such, it is imperative 

that instructors comply with the legal requirements of 

Copyright.

References:

i Knowles, Malcolm S. (1996). The Modern Practice of Adult 

Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. See 

also: The Learning Curve at: http://library.thinkquest.org/

C005704/content_hwl_learningmodalities.php3; http://www.trcc.

commnet.edu/Ed_Resources/TASC/Training/Learning_Styles.htm

ii Knowles, The Modern Practice of Adult Education.

iii The text of this Act, and additional related materials, is downloadable 

at the Copyright Office Website at: http://www.copyright.gov/.

iv For a complete history and listing of Copyright Act 

revisions, see: Timeline: A History of Copyright in the U.S., 

at: http://hutzley1.tripod.com/copyright/timeline.html.

v For additional information on Public Domain works, 

refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html.

vi See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 

2003); See also Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (C.D. Ca. 2000).

vii Copyright & Fair Use, Stanford University Libraries, See Obtaining 

Permission to Use Copyrighted Material at: http://fairuse.stanford.

edu/stanford_notices.etchemendy-2003-03-copyright-reminder.html

3 FLETC Journal v Fall 2007

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Glynco, GA • Artesia, NM • Charleston, SC • Cheltenham, MD 

www.fletc.gov